National Defense Strategy of the United States of America

**Airbornelawyer** · 03-25-2005, 19:09

For your digital library:

Department of Defense, The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, March 2005

PDF format, 1.61 mB, 24 pages

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...050318nds1.pdf

Dave

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-26-2005, 19:02

OK, so what do you like and what would you change? That question is for everyone.

vsvo · 03-31-2005, 15:00

I skimmed this after reading Dr. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" Esquire article, so I was looking to see what influence, if any, he had in it. It reads very much like the corporate strategic plans I worked on in consulting. In the industry they're called "credenza-ware," meaning they get thrown on some CEO's desk and stay there. I don't know how it works in DOD, but in the corporate world you would take the plan and develop operating plans, budgets and performance measures to align with the strategy. That's where all the heavy lifting is, once the "blue-sky" big thinking is done.

One interesting point. The fourth bullet under "Our Vulnerabilities" on p. 5:

Quote:

Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.

I wonder if that's a reference to the judicial proceedings for the Gitmo detainees.

**The Reaper** · 03-31-2005, 17:29

The National Security Strategy used to drive the National Military Strategy, which told the Services and the Theaters what their priorities and responsibilities were.

It was heavily analyzed and read by decisionmakers and their staffs, and was used as an educational and analytical tool at the service schools. It was rarely "credenza-ware" where I worked.

TR

vsvo · 03-31-2005, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The National Security Strategy used to drive the National Military Strategy, which told the Services and the Theaters what their priorities and responsibilities were.

It was heavily analyzed and read by decisionmakers and their staffs, and was used as an educational and analytical tool at the service schools. It was rarely "credenza-ware" where I worked.

TR

Thank you for your explanation and insights Sir. I was wrong to infer this was the same as plans in business. I apologize and retract that statement.

**Airbornelawyer** · 03-31-2005, 18:32

What is odd is that the hierarchy is supposed to be:

National Security Strategy
to
National Defense Strategy
to
National Military Strategy

But the National Security Strategy came out in 2002, the National Military Strategy in 2004, and the National Defense Strategy in 2005.

lrd · 04-01-2005, 05:39

Quote:

Under this concept, Combatant Commanders no longer "own" forces in their theaters. Forces are allocated to them as needed--sourced from anywhere in the world. This allows for greater flexibility to meet rapidly changing operational circumstances.

Will the "owner" of those forces now have the "responsibility" for those forces?

It allows for greater flexibility and can provide greater asset visibility, but creates new maintenance and logistical issues.