Defense Transformation: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress

Publication Date: November 2006

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Military and defense

Type:

Abstract:

The Bush Administration identified transformation as a major goal for the Department of Defense (DOD) soon after taking office, and has justified many of its initiatives for DOD in connection with the concept. Defense transformation can be defined as large-scale, discontinuous, and possibly disruptive changes in military weapons, concepts of operations (i.e., approaches to warfighting), and organization. The issue for Congress is how to take the concept of defense transformation into account in assessing and acting on Administration proposals for DOD.

The Administration argues that new technologies make defense transformation possible and that new threats to U.S. security make defense transformation necessary. The Administration's vision for defense transformation calls for placing increased emphasis in U.S. defense planning on irregular warfare, including terrorism, insurgencies, and civil war; potential catastrophic security threats, such as the possession and possible use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and rogue states; and potential disruptive events, such as the emergence of new technologies that could undermine current U.S. military advantages. The Administration's vision for defense transformation calls for shifting U.S. military forces toward a greater reliance on joint operations, network-centric warfare, effects-based operations, speed and agility, and precision application of firepower. Transformation could affect the defense industrial base by transferring funding from "legacy" systems to transformational systems, and from traditional DOD contractors to firms that previously have not done much defense work.

Debate has arisen over several elements of the Administration's transformation plan, including its emphasis on network-centric warfare; the planned total size of the military; the balance between air and ground forces; the restructuring of the Army; the balance of tactical aircraft relative to unmanned air vehicles and bombers; its emphases on missile defense and special operations forces; and its plans regarding reserve forces and forces for stability operations. Potential areas of debate regarding the Administration's strategy for implementing transformation include overall leadership and management; the balance of funding for transformation vs. near-term priorities; the roles of DOD offices responsible for transformation; tests, exercises, and metrics for transformation; independent analysis of the Administration's plans; and actions for creating a culture of innovation.

Some observers are concerned that the Administration's regular (some might even say habitual) use of the term transformation has turned the concept of transformation into an empty slogan or buzz-phrase. Other observers are concerned that the Administration has invoked the term transformation as an all-purpose rhetorical tool for justifying its various proposals for DOD, whether they relate to transformation or not, and for encouraging minimal debate on those proposals by tying the concept of transformation to the urgent need to fight the war on terrorism. The FY2007 defense authorization act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006; conference report H.Rept. 109-702 of September 29, 2006) contains provisions and other references to transformation. This report will be updated as events warrant.