U.S. Military Transformation:
	Defining Transformation? The term ‘transformation’ has been increasingly used over the past few years to represent broad structural and doctrinal changes the U.S. military must make to meet emerging challenges of the 21st century. Beyond the general idea that transformation may involve revolutionary change and incorporate new advanced technologies, however, no single concept of transformation has coalesced within the U.S. defense establishment. The failure of military and civilian leaders to adopt a coherent approach threatens to reduce the transformation exercise to little more than rhetoric for business as usual, something the United States can ill afford at this point in its history.
	Centerpiece of Army Transformation Ambitious, Risky Leap The U.S. Army’s transformation efforts today are being aimed in the short term toward wheeled Light Armored Vehicles amply supported by reconnaissance systems. The Army’s future Objective Force – the blueprint for the force after 2008 – however, is dominated by the Future Combat System, a multi-platform replacement for today’s heavy tanks. The difficulty with these vehicles is that they are not light enough to be quickly transported to likely trouble spots. June 1, 2002
	Northern Command Finally Announced: Details Still To Be Worked Through U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on April 17, 2002, formally announced the establishment of the new U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), with the primary mission of homeland security. Despite earlier official information that the new command would be headquartered close to the national capital region, so as to ease liaison with the government, the command instead is likely to be located at Colorado Springs, Colo. It will be formally established on Oct. 1. 2002. April 24, 2002
	New Homeland Unified Command’s Establishment Full of Difficulties After some delay, the decision to establish a new unified military command for homeland defense was made public in late January 2002. But what does this decision mean, and is it the correct move in managing the military contribution to homeland security? The military will not secure the homeland alone – a myriad of other federal agencies, led by the new Office of Homeland Security will be involved – and the establishment of a new four-star command will face many coordinating challenges. April 8, 2002
	U.S. Military Transformation: Not Just More Spending, But Better Spending The tragic events of Sept. 11 and the campaign in Afghanistan have raised fundamental questions about the shape and composition of future U.S. forces, requiring the Pentagon to think harder than ever about a new strategic vision aimed squarely at the threats of the 21st century. True transformation will not be accomplished simply by spending more — only by spending better. Fiscal responsibility requires that the new spending be accompanied by a serious re-examination of what is really being bought. Unfortunately, in the case of the Defense Department, that includes weapon systems designed for another era — and programs that provide little real benefit to offer U.S. troops fighting on the battlefields of the future. As the United States grapples with the implications of Sept. 11, now is the time to make hard decisions about how current programs can, or cannot, fulfill a new post-Cold War military strategy. Jan. 31, 2002
	A Path Toward Transformation: A Conversation with Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, USMC (Ret.): An exposition of RDO and how it works, based on a presentation by Gen. Charles Wilhelm, USMC (Ret.), former head of U.S. Southern Command. Wilhelm, a CDI Distinguished Military Fellow, is a key participant in JFCOM's RDO and experimentation/war-gaming efforts.
	Are Army National Guard Modernization Plans Fully Transformational?
	The United States Army is pressing ahead with its 'Army Transformation' 21st century modernization program, intended to make the Army more responsive, deployable, agile, and lethal. While the Army National Guard has been integrated into these efforts to an extent, the unique qualities of its part-time soldiers may be better used if some forces were refocused on smaller-scale contingencies. The Guard is now being well integrated in homeland defense efforts; some of the same thought should be given to its use in peacekeeping operations and other, less major, missions.
	Rapid Decisive Operations: Getting the Structure Right.
	A one-page Backgrounder briefly describing the key recommendations of the defense review "Reforging the Sword: Forces for a 21st Century Security Strategy.".
	Reshaping the Military for Asymmetric Warfare This issue brief provides extracts from the report Reforging the Sword that are particularly relevant to asymmetric warfare and counter-terrorism.
	Ten Lessons for Today from the Great Military Strategists Backgrounder on the study A Swift, Elusive Sword. Printed copies of the full study are available by e-mailing Marcus Corbin.
	Fact Sheet: DoD Office of Force Transformation In late November, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld named retired Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski to head a new Pentagon Office of Force Transformation (OFT), aiming to increase the velocity of an effort to 'transform' the U.S. military to better face the new challenges of the 21st century. June 14, 2002
Allied Military Transformation:
	NATO's Command Structure Prepares for Shakeup As NATO allies ponder future missions and the likelihood of new members, a reorganization of the alliance’s long-standing military force structure in now beginning. In the wake of the U.S. reorganization of its own military command structure to better fight terrorism, U.S. and European officials are now discussing the future of the alliance’s Atlantic commander, Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT).
	The European Union’s Nascent Military Capability: The Right Move for European Security? The European Union since 1992 has been slowly moving toward a military capability, mainly focused upon anticipated peacekeeping missions. Since then, debate has raged on both sides of the Atlantic as to whether the concept would remedy major gaps in European armed forces and provide a real fighting force – or create divisions within NATO and further alienate the United States, which is already less interested in European security than during the Cold War. May 23, 2002
	The European Union’s “Headline Goal” — Current Status The European Union has since the Petersburg meeting in 1992 been slowly moving toward a military capability, mainly focused upon anticipated peacekeeping missions. Amid intense debate over whether an EU military force was a justifiable move, the process gathered steam after its 1999 launch and was declared operational at the Laeken European Council in late 2001. However, due to issues with available forces and funds, as well as continued political questions regarding relations with NATO, it remains unclear when and how such a force might ever be used. May 23, 2002
	The United Kingdom: Evolution beyond the Strategic Defense Review America’s armed forces are being slowly reshaped by ‘transformational’ initiatives that will increase their ability to fight the wide range of diverse conflicts the 21st Century will bring. But many times the United States either cannot or should not act alone. Allies are of vital importance, and the United Kingdom could well be seen as the closest and most reliable. But is British military transformation, arguably only begun in 1998, adequate to redesign Britain’s forces for the challenges the War on Terror, and other conflicts, will hold?
	France: Preparing For New Types of Warfare in a New Century Since Sept. 11, the world security environment has appeared to change for the worse. Once low-priority threats have assumed critical importance. America’s allies, including France, will play key roles in the new war on terror. But how relevant are the priorities of French military transformation, begun in 1996, in the new security environment? Is French military modernization really focused on the right initiatives to fight the wars of the 21st century?
Other Foreign Military Transformation:
	A Doctrine in Response To Terrorism The time for its elaboration is over — now it's important to avoid past bureaucratic errors. Recently the Russian President and Defense Minister declared a need to modify the politics of national security. The Defense Minister specified that they are talking about a revision of the national security doctrine. But will it be possible to prepare a document forceful in content, and is a new doctrine really necessary at this time? Analysis by Dr. Ivan Safranchuk, Director, CDI Moscow.
	Russian Armed Forces Reform: Reaching Fitfully Toward a Professional Force The Russian Federation, since Sept. 11 a closer partner for the U.S. than ever before, is facing totally different military development challenges and is steering a different path. Why is Russia in this different situation, and what measures are underway to reform its armed forces?

For further information contact:

CDI Senior Analyst Marcus Corbin, mcorbin@cdi.org, 202-797-5282, or
CDI Research Analyst Colin Robinson, crobinson@cdi.org, 202-797-5281.

BACK TO THE TOP    MILITARY REFORM PROJECT HOME    CDI ISSUE AREAS    CDI HOME