Elements Of Defense Transformation

This document is intended to provide an understanding of the key elements of defense transformation. To that end, this brochure seeks to answer some fundamental questions about defense transformation. What is defense transformation and what is its scope? Why is transformation so urgent? In general, how will defense transformation be accomplished? What is the Department's force transformation vision for the future and what is needed to support this vision? What are the primary senior leadership roles and responsibilities for implementing the force transformation strategy? What are some of the key force transformation issues requiring additional investment in the years ahead? How can we measure the effectiveness of our force transformation process? Transformation is a key component of the U.S. defense strategy and will affect everyone in the Department as we seek creative, innovative solutions to the challenges we face at home and abroad. In the April 2003 Transformation Planning Guidance (TPG), Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld identifies transformation as: A process that shapes the changing nature of military competition and cooperation through new combinations of concepts, capabilities, people, and organizations that exploit our nation s advantages and protect against our asymmetric vulnerabilities to sustain our strategic position, which helps underpin peace and stability in the world. Transformation is more than just acquiring new equipment and embracing new technology. It is rather the all encompassing process of thinking creatively in order to work better together with other parts of the Department and other agencies within the U.S. Government. It also means working better with our numerous coalition allies, leveraging new technologies and operational concepts in order to create U.S. and coalition advantage against current and potential future adversaries. Transformation should be thought of as a process, not an end state.

Military transformation can be understood as comprising three overlapping and sometimes competing layers—the conventional-force dominated revolution in military affairs, a more recent irregular warfare emphasis, and a wider dimension including homeland defense, space and nuclear policy. The Western world is currently focusing its attention on transformation's middle layer, while China and Russia are focusing on the RMA and transformation's wider aspects. This dynamic indicates the United States and its allies should continue to prepare for the full range of conflicts. This book establishes the meaning of military transformation, assesses the manner in which certain countries are transforming their military forces, discusses the relevancy of transformation efforts to modern conflict and, in drawing out the key areas of emphasis on the part of various countries, provides a window on the future global security environment. It is divided into seven chapters, plus a conclusion. The first chapter focuses on the meaning of military transformation, establishing a framework through which national militaries can be examined. This comprises transformation's revolution in military affairs components, its newer special operations forces, counterinsurgency, and stabilization and reconstruction aspects, and its wider homeland defense, space and deterrence dimensions. The book devotes two chapters to the United States and one each to China, Russia, and NATO. It also has a chapter that looks individually at each of Australia, Britain, Canada, France and Germany. An assessment of the relevancy of force transformation to modern warfare is integrated into the discussion of what transformation means, how the United States is responding, and the concluding chapter. The book contains a biographical sketch of Andrew Marshall, Andrew Krepinevich, William Owens, Arthur Cebrowski, Donald Rumsfeld, and Thomas Barnett, all of whom have been involved in some aspect of military transformation.

The defense strategy calls for the transformation of the United States military and the defense establishment over time. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has acknowledged the difficulty with transformation -- it means different things to different people and different organizations. The Quadrennial Defense Review defined transformation in terms of capabilities, but it has been difficult to define or describe transformational capabilities for a capabilities-based force. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently suggested that transformation is a process and a mindset - not a product - with intellectual, cultural, and technological elements. Recently, Secretary Rumsfeld recently defined transformation as "a process that shapes the changing nature of military competition and cooperation through new combinations of concepts, capabilities, people and organizations that exploit our nation's advantages and protect against our asymmetric vulnerabilities to sustain our strategic position, which helps underpin peace and stability in the world." This begs the question "Transform for what, or, transform to what?" A complicating factor is the difficulty in transforming defense capabilities that are already globally recognized as dominant. There is no broadly accepted consensus on how to transform the United States military and defense establishment.