AIR UNI V ERSITY 

Charting the Nation’s Course 

Strategic Planning Processes in the 1952–53


“New Look” and the


1996–97 Quadrennial Defense Review


PATRICK M. CONDRAY, MAJOR, USAF 

School of Advanced Airpower Studies 

THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF


THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES,


MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, FOR COMPLETION OF


GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, ACADEMIC YEAR 1997–98.


Air University Press


Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama


August 1999 
Disclaimer 

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the 

author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, 

the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. 

ii 
Contents


Chapter Page 

DISCLAIMER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii 

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 

1 INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

2 NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING PROCESSES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

3 THE NEW LOOK OF 1952–53  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

4 THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW OF 1996–97  . . . . . . . . . 33 

Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

Illustrations 

Figure 

1 New Look Timeline, 1952–53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

2 Solarium Project Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

3	 Original Joint Chiefs of Staff Quadrennial Defense Review 

Analytic Concept  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

4 Quadrennial Defense Review Organization (December 1996)  . . . . . 38 

5 Quadrennial Defense Review Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

6	 Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System Timelines 

for Calendar Year 1997 (including Quadrennial Defense Review 

and National Defense Panel)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

iii 
Figure Page 

7	 Quadrennial Defense Review Organization


(February–March 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


8 Quadrennial Defense Review Integrated Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43


9	 Quadrennial Defense Review Organization


(April–Early May 1997—the “End Game”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


Table 

1	 Everest Committee Recommendations for End FY57 Personnel,


in Thousands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


2	 Everest Committee Recommendations for End FY57


Force Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


3	 JCS Recommendations to Secretary Wilson on FY57 Personnel,


Force Structure, and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


4 Major Elements of Force Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


5 Defense Manpower  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


iv

Abstract 

This study analyzes how the processes used in the national security planning 

influence the results. It begins by discussing the nature of strategic planning for 

national security, eventually defining it as a disciplined effort involving the allocation of resources to programmed activities aimed at achieving a set of objectives by integrating major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive 

whole. Two examples (the New Look of 1953 and the Quadrennial Defense 

Review [QDR] of 1997) are selected for comparison due to the many parallels of 

their respective historical situations. The next step in this study defines several 

alternative methods for conducting strategic planning, including how using 

those methods could influence the outcome. These differences are used to analyze both the New Look and the QDR. The New Look provides an example of a 

primarily sequential, top-down process while the QDR demonstrated the advantages and drawbacks of a primarily parallel process which had both top-down 

and bottom-up aspects. The final section discusses the implications of the different approaches, including the recommendation that any review contemplating major changes in national security policy follow a more sequential and topdown process with clear guidance given to participants. 

v 

About the Author 

Maj (Lt Col–select) Patrick M. “Mike” Condray was commissioned through the 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, Texas A&M University in 1983. His initial 

assignment was to Fort Hood Army Installation, Texas, where he was assigned 

as the staff weather officer (SWO) to the Sixth Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat) and 

the Second Armored Division. Major Condray also served as SWO to Joint Task 

Force Bravo in Honduras in 1984. Following an Air Force Institute of Technology 

assignment, he served as a scientific analyst examining environmental effects on 

precision-guided munition employment. Major Condray commanded the 

weather detachment at Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam, from 1990 to 

1992, where he was also designated SWO for Headquarters Thirteenth Air Force 

and the 633d Air Base (AB) Wing. He then shifted theaters to a staff officer position with Headquarters United States Air Forces in Europe at Ramstein AB, 

Germany. Major Condray also served as the senior meteorological-oceanographic officer leading joint Air Force–Navy weather teams in support of United 

States  European  Command  and  North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization 

Joint/Combined Force Air Component Command operations. After his student 

year, Major Condray became an instructor at Air Command and Staff College 

teaching War Theory, War and Conflict Resolution, and Airpower and Campaign 

Planning. 

Major Condray has a bachelor’s degree in meteorology from Texas A&M 

University and a master’s degree in meteorology from Saint Louis University. He 

is a distinguished graduate of Squadron Officer School and Air Command and 

Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. In June 1998, Major Condray was assigned 

to Headquarters United States Air Force as a plans and programs officer. 

vii 

Acknowledgments 

My basic research was assisted by Lt Col David Snodgrass and Lt Col Bill 

Roege, who steered me towards the proper offices and places to conduct interviews on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). My thanks also to Dr. David 

Mets, whose knowledge and personal experience of almost all aspects of airpower history gave me a good start on the New Look era. Dr. Richard Leighton 

provided excellent insights, including sharing and discussing his draft work on 

New Look era history. A national archives employee named Mr. Mahoney went 

out of his way to help me track down New Look era documents, making a short 

day’s document search very productive indeed. Dr. George Akts (Center for Naval 

Analysis), Dr. John Schrader (RAND), Dr. Jim Thomason (Institute for Defense 

Analyses), and Ms. Sharon Fiore (Institute for Defense Analyses) all shared their 

insights and basic QDR research. Special thanks go out to the many colleagues 

(military and civilian) interviewed during my research on the QDR, and to Maj 

(Lt Col–select) Roy Houchin and Professor Dennis Drew who also helped me. I 

am grateful for my family’s support. My wife Linda for her love and patience and 

our daughter Lindsey and son Christopher—perhaps amused that I too was “in 

school”—chose to enjoy when I was with them rather than complain when I had 

to be away. 

ix 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The Need for Strategic Planning 

Civilian and military leaders have conducted strategic planning since at 

least as far back as the Romans, when a system of diplomacy, carefully 

selected military deployments, and road and sea links was established to 

secure the far-flung territories of the empire.1 The results of these plans 

have long been debated: Just what role was the German High Seas Fleet 

of the early twentieth century meant to play in its national strategy? Was 

the massive retaliation strategy of the 1950s a reasonable use of new technology to provide national security at sustainable cost or a dangerous 

gamble risking world annihilation over minor issues? What will be the 

right balance of capabilities between peacekeeping operations and the 

lower risk (but higher threat) of major theater warfare in the early twentyfirst century? 

These debates have continued in the 1990s, which could be viewed as 

a golden age of strategic defense planning and analysis based on the sheer 

number of national security studies in the United States (US) alone. A 

blizzard of programs and research mark the trail—the base force of 1991, 

the Bottom-Up Review (BUR) of 1993, the Commission on Roles and 

Missions (CORM) in 1995, and the Quadrennial Defense Review/National 

Defense Panel (QDR/NDP) studies in 1996–97. Thousands of people and 

tens of thousands of hours of effort have been devoted to such studies and 

their supporting analyses, for example, the Deep Attack Weapons Mix 

Study (DAWMS). 

All of these strategic planning efforts reflect awareness of the challenge 

involved in coming to grips with the evolving postwar national security 

environment. Most defense planners involved in these efforts foresee a 

complicated national security environment that may include (but is not 

limited to) regional threats and instabilities, proliferation of weapons of 

mass destruction (WMD), the hazily understood but threatening concept 

of information warfare, and the unknown impact of rapid technological 

advances.2 The results of each study produce new debates, triggering criticisms that frequently become the basis of a follow-on planning effort. 

But the process of how these strategic plans are developed receives less 

attention. Decision-making theory tends to address trade-offs such as the 

Prisoners Dilemma (to cooperate for high risk but better reward—or not 

cooperate to ensure a personally less optimal but potentially less disastrous outcome) or how to manipulate specific situations (such as making 

1

sure the opponent has the last move to avoid mutual disaster when conducting brinkmanship). 

The vagueness of the term strategic planning reflects this relative lack 

of consensus on the subject. It is not defined in any joint or service publication, nor is there a single widely accepted meaning for it in the civilian 

academic world. Some variations include the following: 

•	 A discipline or management function involving the allocation of 

resources to programmed activities calculated to achieve a set of 

goals in a dynamic, competitive environment.3 

•	 A disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions 

that define what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and 

why it does it.4 

•	 A pattern or plan that integrates an organization’s major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole.5 

There are subtle but significant variations in the above definitions. Is 

strategic planning a function or a process? Does it define what an organization is, or does it primarily act to integrate an organization? None of the 

above definitions outlines a time limit for strategic planning. Some analysts state explicitly that “strategic planning is long-range planning.”6 

Others separate strategic thinking (providing perspective) from long-range 

planning (providing position) as part of an overall planning continuum 

with no specific time frame for either.

7 

Fortunately, this confusion can be simplified somewhat for national 

security planning in general and for the Department of Defense (DOD) in 

particular. National security policies and overall guidance are provided (at 

least in theory) from sources such as the president, the Congress, and 

(occasionally) the judicial branch of our government. The DOD must meet 

this guidance by integrating its subordinate organizations in some way to 

meet its assigned objectives. This study therefore defines strategic planning as a disciplined effort involving the allocation of resources to programmed activities aimed at achieving a set of objectives by integrating 

major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole. This 

definition emphasizes strategic planning as a process which acts to integrate DOD’s present and future operating concepts in support of an overall national security strategy. 

The time frame for military strategic planning remains vague; however, 

many factors combine to push it into the long-term future. Long-weapon 

system development and deployment times (aircraft carriers and B-52 

bombers whose design began in the 1940s and were built in the 1960s will 

be serving into the twenty-first century) mean that choices made today will 

impact decisions and options far into the future. Military organizations are 

frequently described as conservative in their approach to accepting new 

ideas and concepts, which implies that a decade or more may be necessary 

to evolve new missions, tasks, and concepts of operation.8 These and other 

reasons led Lt Gen Perry M. Smith, former head of US Air Force (USAF) 

long-range planning, to define the most productive period for strategic 

2

national security planning as 10–25 years. Shorter time spans are near 

term enough to minimize anticipated changes in the means and methods of 

today, while longer time spans become difficult to handle intellectually.9 

Strategic planning for a military organization such as DOD thus 

becomes a question of matching military means to assigned strategic 

ends. It strives to make military plans congruent with the overall national 

security strategy, bring coherence between different options and operational concepts, and balance costs/risks against benefits. Military strategic planning often attempts to look 10–25 years into the future in an effort 

to condition present behavior in anticipation of future challenges and 

opportunities. Similarly, the strategic planning process can be viewed as 

how national security planners carry out these tasks. 

This study asks how the process of strategic planning influences the 

results of strategic planning. The ultimate value of the study will be in 

recommendations to improve future strategic planning processes. 

Study Methodology 

This study analyzes the strategic planning processes used to conduct 

the New Look in 1953 and the QDR of 1996–97. This study also traces 

how these two strategic planning studies were carried out—who organized 

the efforts, how tasks were assigned and sequenced, how inputs from different participants were provided, and how differences of opinions, ideas, 

and perspectives were resolved. The results will only be addressed with 

respect to what they may reveal about the processes. Reviewing the magnitude of resource allocation, force structure, operational concepts, or 

other changes recommended by a study may provide insight on whether 

a given process is more or less likely to produce major changes. 

There remains the potential problem involved in any two case studies 

from different periods—the danger of comparing apples and oranges from 

dissimilar eras. However, there are some intriguing similarities to the 

challenges that faced military planners in 1953 and those that challenged 

planners in 1997. Some of these include the below-listed similarities. 

Unfamiliar Strategic Environment. The early cold war era presented 

the United States with a new problem—how to secure itself against a 

peacetime threat that could threaten US allies with large ground forces 

and (theoretically, at least) strike immediate and devastating blows 

directly against the United States. By 1997 the context was quite different 

but equally unfamiliar: What were the best ways to ensure national security in an era where no peer existed but where a bewildering array of 

medium to small challenges raised new threats? 

Unknown Impact of New Technologies. By 1953 atomic weapons were 

becoming more numerous and hydrogen weapons were about to be tested 

for the first time. Bombers, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles opened 

up the possibility of intercontinental combat and raised questions about 

what their presence meant in a world where colonial conflicts and the 

Korean War raged on. Similarly, there was little consensus in 1997 on how 

3

information warfare, precision weapons, space systems, and proliferation 

of all kinds of technology (including WMD) will impact future conflicts. 

Perception of Constrained Resources. There were major concerns in 

the United States about whether high military spending could be sustained indefinitely without seriously damaging the national economy. 

Never before had the United States maintained a large standing military 

over the “long haul.”10 Though it would be several years before Nikita S. 

Khrushchev would say “we will bury you,” there were already fears that 

capitalism would spend its way to ruin in its confrontation with communism. In 1997 the economic problem was no less daunting—the military’s 

status as the largest element of discretionary government spending and 

the looming specter of increased social spending implied a decreasing portion of the gross domestic product available for military spending. 

Concern over Basic Strategy. The Korean War brought home the 

potential costs of a containment strategy against communism—was there 

a better way? In the post-cold-war world, the question was which threats 

did we need to prepare for—ballistic missiles, conventional wars, suitcase 

nuclear weapons, insurgencies, electronic attacks via cyberspace, or some 

other contingency? 

Concern over How Force Structure Matched Strategy. In 1953 force 

structure planners asked questions like how large did the Army need to 

be to keep the Soviet hordes out of Europe, how much strategic nucleararmed airpower would it take to strike a mortal blow, and could our air 

defenses parry a Soviet strike against our homeland. Today planners ask 

what kind of force structure would it take to fight and win two nearly 

simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRC) in a world of proliferating WMD and perceptions of extreme US sensitivity to casualties? The 

right balances between land, sea, and airpower have long been a part of 

the US defense debates. 

Of course, there are also significant differences in the planning environments of 1953 and 1997. The most important differences for this study 

are those which may have significantly affected how the New Look and 

QDR were accomplished. Some of the more obvious differences are below. 

Level of Perceived Threat. The Soviet Union represented a direct threat 

as a near-peer competitor to the United States in 1953. Lack of information about their capabilities and the perception of a global communist bloc 

intent on world domination only heightened this threat. Nothing like this 

existed in 1997; however, the proliferation of WMD could increase the 

number of threats that could hurt us badly—and the Soviet Union still had 

the ability to destroy the United States, no matter how their intentions are 

perceived. This meant that both the New Look and the QDR faced unfamiliar situations which strategic planners struggled to master. 

Different Government/Military Structure. The federal government was 

much larger in 1997 than in 1953, including an enlarged Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Joint Staff (JS). Furthermore, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) position has become much stronger 

4

relative to the individual services in the aftermath of the 1986 GoldwaterNichols Act. However, Adm Arthur W. Radford (CJCS, 1953) took advantage of his relationship with president of the United States Dwight D. 

Eisenhower and Charles E. Wilson secretary of defense to take a strong 

leadership role in formulating the New Look. And the commandant of the 

US Marine Corps’ participation in most of the New Look decisions meant 

that the number of players in the tank was the same in both eras. 

Different Political Context. New Look was a sweeping change ushered 

in after the White House and the congressional leadership changed and 

the transition involved a change in political party leadership as well. 

Furthermore, the same party controlled both the executive and legislative 

branches. The QDR was done in a second presidential administration and 

involved much of the same team that did the previous major strategic 

studies (the BUR and CORM). Republican control of Congress was also a 

factor—as will be discussed later, the QDR was originated by legislative 

rather than executive tasking. 

Different Leadership. President Eisenhower was a recently retired 

five-star general of the Army with extensive experience commanding 

multinational military forces in both war and peace. He was, however, new 

to politics. President William J. Clinton has extensive experience in the 

give and take of politics. 

This study uses a short overview discussing different ways of categorizing strategic planning methodologies (top-down, bottom-up, etc.) to set the 

stage for comparing and contrasting the processes used in the New Look 

and QDR. Chapters 3 and 4 provide detailed discussion of the New Look 

and QDR in turn, including their historical context, how they were 

planned, how they were executed, and a brief discussion of their results. It 

then provides lessons learned by comparing the two studies in chapter 5, 

including implications and recommendations for future defense reviews. 

Notes 

1. Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century 

A.D. to the Third (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976). 

2. Roles and Missions Commission of the Armed Forces: Report to Congress, the 

Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 24 May 1995, ES-2. 

3. Daniel H. Gray, “Uses and Misuses of Strategic Planning,” Harvard Business Review 

64, no. 1 (1986): 89. 

4. John M. Bryson and William D. Roering, “Initiation of Strategic Planning by 

Governments,” Public Administration Review 48, no. 6 (1988): 995. 

5. Henry Mintzberg and James Brian Quinn, The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, 

and Cases (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1991), 5. 

6. Joseph A. Englebrecht Jr. et al.,  Alternate Futures for 2025: Security Planning to 

Avoid Surprise (Maxwell Air Force Base [AFB], Ala.: Air University Press, 1996), 132. 

7. George L. Morrissey,  A Guide to Long-Range Planning: Creating Your Strategic 

Journey (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996), 2–4. 

8. Stephen Peter Rosen,  Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military 

(Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991). 

5

9. Perry M. Smith et al.,  Creating Strategic Vision: Long-Range Planning for National 

Security (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1987), 3–4. 

10. Dwight D. Eisenhower,  The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953–1956 

(New York: Doubleday and Co., 1963). President Eisenhower often spoke of the need to 

establish a US military structure, which could be sustained for the indefinite future—the 

“long haul” needed to eventually outlast communism. 

6

Chapter 2 

National Security Planning Processes 

Basic Strategic Planning Process 

The basic strategic planning process is fairly simple. One reviews the 

interests of the organization being planned for, examines them in light of 

the context or environment they will operate in, and generates a strategy 

to achieve the interests within that context.1 More recent articles have 

kept this same basic structure while expanding it to six steps: defining the 

mission, goals, and key values of an organization; situation analysis 

(external and internal); establish assumptions; set objectives and priorities; develop strategies and/or action plans; and design a system to 

ensure follow-up.2 

However, this apparently simple basic structure conceals a myriad of 

different options for approaching strategic planning in general and 

national security planning in specific. How planners choose among these 

options will establish how a strategic planning process is intended to play 

out. Comparing the intended structure of a planning process, how it was 

actually executed, and its results may provide insights on how a particular planning process could have influenced its outcome. 

Complicating Factors in National Security Planning 

Unfortunately for national security planners, there are several factors 

that render this apparently simple process into a very complex reality. 

Interaction with Other Actors. Military planners deal with an environment where other intelligent and purposeful actors (countries or nonstate groups) will be actively trying to achieve their own ends—which may 

support or conflict with the objectives of the United States. Planners must 

therefore attempt to understand what strategies the other actors are likely 

to pursue and how those strategies are likely to interact with both the 

operating environment and alternative US strategies.3 

Long-range Forecasting. A strategic plan aimed for the future will be 

operating in an environment that becomes less and less predictable the 

longer one attempts to forecast. The large number of actors and the intricate ways technological, cultural, and other factors interact make prediction of future operating environments very difficult. Planners have to 

develop a strategy flexible enough to achieve their interests despite knowing that the actual future context will be (to a larger or smaller extent) different from any specific forecast they make. Attempting to reach out 10 to 

25 years (as suggested by General Smith) makes this task difficult indeed. 

7

Interagency and Interpersonal Dynamics. Policy decisions in an organization as complex and diverse as DOD inevitably involve policy conflicts that 

stem from the diverse interests and approaches of constituent organizations. 

These disagreements are “an integral part of the policy-making process.”4 

Such conflicts can stretch down to a personal level as important individuals 

make decisions based on their own perceived interests. Put another way, 

strategic planning is both a logical and a social process.5 

Just to make things more challenging for military strategic planners, 

these factors can interact. For example, a strategic plan that is broad 

enough to be flexible over the long term may be vague enough to allow 

misinterpretation (willful or otherwise) by different agencies or individuals. Dilemmas such as this make strategic planning for the defense community “perhaps the most complicated task the government performs.”6 

Strategic planning experts William Ascher and William H. Overholt suggest a modification of the basic strategic planning process to overcome 

some of the challenges facing military strategic planners. The solution 

they propose is lengthening the amount of time taken in the process in 

order to design a comprehensive (but abstract) national strategy, derive 

military strategy consistent with political and economic elements, and 

only then decide force structure and resource allocation issues within 

context of military strategy.7 

Different Methods for Organizing Strategic Planning 

DOD usually receives its objectives from outside the organization. These 

can come from the president (as head of the government’s executive 

branch) or from Congress (who holds the legislative purse strings funding 

the DOD). However, DOD is capable of conducting a strategic review 

and/or setting its own objectives for a strategic review as long as the president or Congress do not forbid it. 

Once you have your objectives (set from inside or outside the organization), the question becomes one of how to go about attaining them. There 

are many different techniques available for strategic planning.8 However, 

many of these represent variations of different strategic planning tools 

rather than larger-scale organizational options. George A. Steiner lays out 

four basic options for the planning process: top down, bottom up, team, 

and combined planning.9 Each one of these options carries its own 

strengths and weaknesses. 

A top-down approach to strategic planning is one where the planning is 

done by the top-level of the organizational heirarchy. Any subordinate 

planning is made under detailed guidelines, tends to be primarily aimed 

at implementing top level guidance, and are reviewed by the top to ensure 

consistency. Top management provides the vision, objectives, and strategies to realize their dreams in an essentially centralized process.10 

This concentration of planning has many strengths—but there are also 

important weaknesses to be considered. Top-level backing for the strategic plan is built into this method, and limiting the number of participants 

8

in the planning tends to provide a better chance to produce a focused 

vision of priorities and concepts. However, corporate experience warns 

that strategic planning isolated in the headquarters will fail.11 One problem is a lack of countervailing views to test ideas and concepts. A plan 

designed at the very top of an organization may seem brilliant, but if it 

ignores tactical-level realities it will not work. Another problem with a 

proud history in the DOD is having more or less permanent government 

employees hunker down and wait out disliked plans from relatively shortterm generals and political appointees. 

The reverse of a top-down methodology is (logically enough) a bottomup planning process. A bottom-up planning process primarily aggregates 

inputs from subordinates without significant changes or overall structure. 

Few guidelines are given, and any provided are very broad in nature. 

Planning may be reviewed at top management level for approval but wide 

latitude is given to subordinates as long as the plan meets minimum standards of practicality. The planning process is essentially distributed.12 

Bottom-up planning provides subordinates maximum room for their 

own initiatives and exploits their tactical-level knowledge. Helping create 

a strategic plan may also give employees a sense of ownership that helps 

them buy into it. However, this approach may end up with inconsistent 

plans from different subordinates. For example, an Air Force assumption 

that in the future the Army will provide rear-area security may not mesh 

with Army decisions, or an Army assumption that the Air Force will provide close air support as their primary mission may conflict with Air 

Forces employment concepts. Furthermore, subordinates accustomed to 

doing business in a given manner may be less likely to create strategic 

plans fundamentally shifting their operations without some guidance 

from above. 

A third variation in Steiner’s taxonomy is team planning. This method 

involves having a leader meet with subordinate managers who form a 

planning team. The military parallel would be a general officer using subordinates as the members of his or her planning team. Plans produced are 

then relayed to the rest of the organization for any additional actions necessary. In theory, this variation of top-down planning allows the leader to 

provide focus while supplementing creativity with inputs from subordinates. However, it is highly dependent on the interpersonal relationship 

between the leader and the members of the team—an authoritarian leader 

who imposes their will on the rest makes team planning a cover for topdown planning. 

The variation between these different methodologies is often one of 

degree rather than an absolute. A large, multitiered organization such as 

the DOD will rarely approach the ideal for either top-down, bottom-up, or 

team planning. Power and influence are too widely distributed for one 

individual or small group to dominate completely; on the other hand, 

some form of oversight is necessary to keep the whole apparatus moving 

in more or less the same direction. For example, general guidelines could 

9

be given to different subordinates, who then provide specific guidelines to 

their own subordinates in a more top-down manner. Steiner refers to this 

as using a combined approach. 

However, the practical necessity for an organization such as DOD to use 

some form of combined approach does not render all DOD planning 

processes identical. One may still describe a given planning process used 

within DOD by examining whether it carried more characteristics of a 

given approach (such as top-down vice versa bottom-up). This study 

examines the nature of the original tasking received by DOD in the New 

Look and the QDR as well as how the department issued guidance to the 

services to evaluate which overall methodology was used in each study. 

Framing the Questions for Study 

Another issue to be addressed in any military strategic planning study 

is setting up the guidance issued to subordinates. Such guidance provides 

a framework for the study by outlining what are the primary problems to 

be solved, questions to be answered, and assumptions (if any) to be made. 

This framework is an important influence on the outcome of a strategic 

planning process. Questions not raised by higher authority are less likely 

to receive attention. This is especially true the more top down a planning 

process is because of the increased oversight and more precise guidance 

provided to subordinates. Guidance can include almost anything the tasking agency (president, Congress, secretary of defense, or other) deems 

important. Some of the different bases for guidance include the following.13 

Strategy-Based. Guidance for a strategy-based planning process 

would emphasize the development of strategies as a first step in the planning process. Constraints (such as personnel or financial resources, available capabilities, political acceptability) are then used to evaluate which 

strategy or mix of strategies best meets the organization’s overall objectives. 

Resource-Based. Resource-based guidance emphasizes the constraints imposed on the planning organization without fixing a given strategy or capability. The flexibility given to subordinate planners on strategy 

remains confined due to the resource constraints. For example, subordinates can be informed that any plan which breaks a constraint such as 

the possibility of higher cost or casualties will be rejected. 

Capabilities-Based. This type of guidance emphasizes the missions or 

tasks envisioned for the future, including the capabilities necessary to 

accomplish these missions. Different ways of achieving these capabilities 

will be evaluated based on other constraints (resource, political, etc.), but 

capabilities remain the central questions to be answered. It is different 

from the shorter-term requirements-based methodology because it 

emphasizes what capabilities are needed without emphasizing specific 

threats or employment concepts.14 

Note that any of these forms of guidance are compatible with the different planning methodologies (top down, bottom up, team, or combined). 

10

For example, strategy guidance can be phrased in broad or very specific 

terms. Resource constraints can be similarly tailored to either provide 

loose guidelines or hard “caps.” 

How guidance is phrased is also important to how subordinates perceive a planning process. Guidance that emphasizes resource constraints 

may be perceived as a budget drill rather than a planning process, which 

significantly changes how participants will interact. Strategy- or capabilitybased planning that emphasizes a particular element of an organization 

(such as emphasizing land or airpower) will immediately create constituencies for and against the study. 

Evaluation Tools 

One strategic-planning area that has seen considerable change over the 

last few decades is in the tools available for evaluating strategic options. 

This proliferation has led to a new set of choices for strategic planners. 

Different evaluation tools carry their own strengths and weaknesses 

which may influence the way a strategic-planning process plays out. Some 

of the different tools include the following options.15 

Intuition. Intuition in its purest sense involves having a decision 

maker learn what they can about a problem and allow their subconscious 

to arrive at a solution. Obviously, it is not systemic or easily reproducible 

(in the sense of understanding why a particular decision was made). 

However, it is still a common way of dealing with problems and should not 

be underestimated.16 Unfortunately, few organizations can plan on being 

led by intuitive geniuses. 

Expert Opinion. This is a step up from pure intuition in the sense that 

an expert will (presumably) be able to use their experience to improve 

their judgment. The expert may be able to provide a traceable rationale for 

their opinion. The challenge is finding an expert whose opinion is unbiased and accepted by all concerned in the process—a particular problem 

for complex multidisciplinary fields such as national security. 

Committee. Grouping several experts together into a committee provides a venue for additional judgement and feedback to be applied to a 

problem. The trade-off is that the bargaining process needed to form a 

group consensus may filter out some of the more original out-of-the-box 

ideas and make it harder to trace the rationale for a given decision. 

Systems Analysis. Systems analysis began making an impact around 

50 years ago and has grown steadily since then. It involves establishing a 

process from formulating a problem to verifying the conclusions by experiment. While ultimately reliant on subjective judgement, systems analysis 

makes the reasoning process more analytical, quantifiable, and (ideally) 

more traceable by others. 

Simulation. Simulations have long been used to game out different 

strategic or military issues and can be used as an evaluative tool by themselves or as part of a larger systems analysis.17 Simulations allow one to 

explore possible actions and reactions by different actors in a given context 

11

and provide the ability to repeat the experiences and learn from mistakes 

made in the process. However, they can be misapplied. Simulations are subject to the famous law of the instrument: “if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.”18 Applying a complicated computer simulation model without being aware of its assumptions and 

algorithms merely allows one to “be wrong faster with more convincing 

graphics.”19 

Interpreting How the Process Influences Results 

The above discussion outlines some possible ways that decisions made 

in designing and executing a planning process may influence results. The 

challenge occurs when trying to analyze how such influences played out 

within the context of a given strategic planning effort or how they may 

impact a future project. This study uses questions as ways to explore the 

planning processes in the New Look and QDR. 

Process Design and Execution. Was the fundamental design of each 

planning process based on a more top down, bottom up, or other framework? Did this design continue during execution? Were the expected 

strengths and weaknesses of the planning methodology reflected in the 

execution and results of the study? 

Guidance. Were the instructions or criteria provided by the study more 

indicative of a strategy, resources, or other framework? How did this 

framework influence the strategic planners carrying out the New 

Look/QDR? 

Evaluation Tools. What kinds of analytical tools were used in the 

study to make decisions and/or resolve disputes? How were the strengths 

and weaknesses of these tools reflected in the study’s results? 

Results. What changes were proposed by the study? Were they consistent with each other? Did they reflect an overall concept or strategy? Were 

the strategic planners aware of the limitations of their methodologies, and 

(if so) how was this awareness reflected in the results of the study? 

These questions provide the framework for analyzing the planning 

processes of the New Look (chap. 3) and the QDR (chap. 4). Results of 

this analysis are discussed in chapter 5, including implications for future 

studies. 

Notes 

1. William Ascher and William H. Overholt, Strategic Planning and Forecasting: Political 

Risk and Economic Opportunity (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), 21–41. Dr. Ascher 

and Dr. Overholt have more than 20 years of experience as strategic planning consultants 

for, among others, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Arms Control 

and Disarmament Agency, and the National Security Council. 

2. James L. Webster, William E. Reif, and Jeffrey S. Bracker, “The Manager’s Guide to 

Strategic Planning Tools and Techniques,” Planning Review, November/December 1989, 5. 

3. Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge 

in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1991), ix. This 

12

interaction is so important that some researchers have defined strategic thinking as “the 

art of outdoing an adversary, knowing that the adversary is trying to do the same to you.” 

4. Warner R. Schilling, Paul Y. Hammond, and Glenn H. Snyder, Strategy, Politics, and 

Defense Budgets (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 22. 

5. Ascher and Overholt, 42–55. 

6. Perry M. Smith et al.,  Creating Strategic Vision: Long-Range Planning for National 

Security (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1987), 82. 

7. Ascher and Overholt, 38. 

8. Webster, Reif, and Bracker, 4–13. For example, there is a comparison of 30 different 

planning tools in this guide. 

9. George A. Steiner, Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know (New York: 

Free Press, 1979), 60–69. Mr. Steiner has extensive experience in developing and implementing strategic planning processes for private and public organizations. 

10. Joseph A. Engelbrecht Jr. et al., Alternate Futures for 2025: Strategic Planning to 

Avoid Surprise (Maxwell AFB, Ala: Air University Press, 1996), 134–37. 

11. “The New Breed of Strategic Planner,” Business Week, 17 September 1984, 62–68. 

12. Ibid., 137–40. 

13. William S. Cohen,  Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office [GPO], 1997), 1. The distinction between these terms—such as 

strategy-, resource-, or capabilities-based—may seem small due to the interaction between 

resource constraints, capabilities, and strategy. I have included them due to the amount 

of argument over whether the New Look and QDR were primarily based on resource constraints versus an overarching strategy. For example, the QDR report refers to itself as a 

blueprint for a strategy-based program. 

14. Paul K. Davis, “Planning under Uncertainty, Then and Now: Paradigms Lost and 

Paradigms Emerging,” New Challenges in Defense Planning (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 

1996): 26. 

15. Edward S. Quade and W. I. Boucher, “Principles and Procedures of Systems 

Analysis,” Systems Analysis and Policy Planning (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Books on Demand, 

n.d.): 30–53. 

16. Steiner, 9. 

17. Ascher and Overholt, 9. 

18. Zalmay Khalilzad and David Ochmanek, “Rethinking US Defense Planning,” 

Survival 39, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 43–64. 

19. Ibid.; and anonymous quote. I first heard something like it as a graduate meteorology student in 1986 referring to weather models. The opacity of many of today’s conflict 

models makes this even more appropriate for national security questions. 

13

Chapter 3 

The New Look of 1952–53 

Historical Context 

As President Eisenhower took his oath of office on 20 January 1953, the 

world situation was not encouraging.1 The Korean War dragged on, and 

another conflict in French Indochina threatened to pull in the United 

States. Europe was still recovering from World War II and seemed unable 

to agree on how to defend itself. Joseph Stalin remained in control of an 

atomic-capable Soviet Union that had swallowed eastern Europe, triggered the crisis which led to the Berlin airlift, and maintained far larger 

land forces than the United States. The apparent threat of monolithic 

communism loomed as an aggressive force that had to be contained no 

matter what the cost.2 

However, the cost of countering Soviet aggression seemed to be unacceptable as well. Budget deficits stemming from World War II debts and 

Korean War spending were blamed for an eroding economy. The consumer 

price index had risen almost 50 percent from 1945 to 1952 despite Office 

of Price Stabilization and Wage Stabilization Board administered wage and 

price controls. Many believed the high expenditures and crippling debt 

foreshadowed “creeping socialism” in a permanently controlled economy.3 

Technological change created new possibilities and problems. The 

United States had recently increased the potential level of atomic devastation by developing the H-bomb, with a Soviet one anticipated soon. Jet 

bombers, long-range cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles raised the 

prospect of intercontinental war—which meant that the US homeland 

itself faced the specter of a devastating strike just 11 years after Pearl 

Harbor demonstrated that such surprise attacks were not unthinkable. 

Eisenhower would later comment that technological change had progressed to the point that tried and true had been replaced by a new slogan: “If it works, it’s obsolete.”4 

These stresses and strains contributed to political divisions at home. 

Despite an impressive presidential election victory, the Republican Party 

had only a razor thin edge in Congress. A shift of six votes in the House 

of Representatives or one vote in the Senate would be enough to erase 

their majority and defeat administration proposals for change. Charges of 

treason and sedition were in the air, led by Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (DWisc.). The Eisenhower administration was viewed with suspicion by some 

republicans due to its lack of deep roots—the president had only openly 

declared his political affiliation within the last two years, and he had 

15

fought a sometimes bitter primary fight against “Mr. Republican” (Sen. 

Robert A. Taft, R-Ohio) for the 1952 presidential nomination.5 

Continuation of the Harry S. Truman administration’s policies seemed 

unacceptable to a new administration dedicated to balancing the budget. 

The outgoing administration had just finished drawing up National 

Security Council (NSC) Resolution 141 (NSC 141) detailing the many 

threats facing the United States and concluding with calls for more 

defense funding rather than less. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) concurred with this reasoning. Their best military judgement was that existing programs were inadequate to meet the threat of Soviet military power 

projected for 1954–55.6 The result was fiscal year (FY) 1954 budget submission of $45 billion for defense in a total federal budget of $78.6 billion, 

including $9.9 billion in deficit spending.7 

President Eisenhower had campaigned on a platform of national security and solvency, emphasizing planning for the future rather than reacting to “yesterday’s headlines.”8 Such planning would allow the United 

States to remain secure over the long haul of an indefinite cold war without severe economic strain.9 His State of the Union Message reiterated the 

need for a single national military policy encompassing economic as well 

as military objectives and proper coordination of the different services.10 

However, Eisenhower had not laid out a clear path on how he planned 

to get that single national military policy except the proposal to appoint a 

civilian committee to study DOD and design an overall national security 

plan.11 Indeed, there is no record of any other particular planning process 

designed in advance except (perhaps) within President Eisenhower’s 

mind. The New Look evolved over time as a series of events, including the 

fiscal year 1954 budget process, Project Solarium, the  Sequoia cruise, 

drafting NSC 162/2, the Everest Committee, and the fiscal year 1955 

budget process. Some of these events overlapped or were accomplished in 

parallel, but most of the process was tackled sequentially (fig. 1). The 

duration of the New Look’s view of the future also remained vague; the 

words “long haul” and “indefinite” were not specified beyond Admiral 

Radford’s 13 January 1954 comment as CJCS that the period of tension 

could last “10 to 20 years or more.”12 

Setting the Stage: November 1952–April 1953 

Preliminary discussions on how to change the nation’s national military 

strategy began after President-elect Eisenhower’s trip to Korea in 

November–December 1952. Eisenhower’s entourage departed Korea 

aboard the USS Helena, stopping at Guam to pick up a party of advisors 

flown in from the United States. These advisors included John Foster 

Dulles and George M. Humphrey (nominees for secretary of state and 

treasury, respectively) as well as Joseph M. Dodge, the future director of 

the budget. Also aboard was Admiral Radford, the commander in chief of 

US Forces in the Pacific (later CJCS). The Helena voyage gave them an 

opportunity to discuss US national security strategy for the future. No 

16

Helena Conference 

FY54 Budget Revisions 

Project Solarium 

JCS Strategy Review 

NSC 162 Development 

Everest Committee 

FY55 Budget Process 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

X 

* 

1952 1953 

Legend:


X and * refer tp when the Solarium meeting was held in the White House and when the nominations for the new joint chiefs


were made, respectively.


-- shows when the National Security Council (NSC) Planning Board was developing NSC 162.
 __ when the full NSC was debating and revising what became NSC 162/2.

Figure 1. New Look Timeline, 1952–53 

final decisions were reached, but the discussions reinforced the president’s emphasis on the need for both security and solvency to maintain a 

strong defense posture for the long haul.13 

One reflection of the increased attention to the economy as a significant 

factor in the overall national security picture was the addition of the 

Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey and the Director of Budget Dodge as 

members of the NSC soon after President Eisenhower’s inauguration. This 

factor gave them a direct input on how they believed other elements of 

national security would impact the nation’s economy and vice versa.14 

The initial task facing the new administration was how to reconcile the 

fiscal 1954 budget (to go into effect 1 July 1953) with President 

Eisenhower’s campaign promises. On 3 February 1953, Mr. Dodge asked 

all government agencies to critically examine their programs in light of the 

need to cut expenditures.15 Defense made up more than one-half of the 

17

budget and was not exempt from this effort. On 7 February, Deputy 

Secretary of Defense Roger M. Kyes directed service secretaries to review 

the military budget for “intelligent savings.” 

A tug of war ensued between the services and the budget agencies, with 

new Secretary of Defense Wilson caught in the middle. The JCS reaffirmed 

their comments (from NSC 141) that the military was already overstretched.16 The NSC then recommended (at Dodge’s request) that the 

DOD study the impacts of reducing fiscal year 1954 and 1955 defense 

spending by $4.3 billion and $9.4 billion, respectively. The chiefs replied 

that such cuts would “dangerously affect national security.”17 They followed up by warning that any cuts in force goals to achieve a balance 

budget in fiscal year 1954 and fiscal year 1955 increased risk, especially 

cuts in the Air Force program.18 

The NSC compromised by acknowledging that the announced goal of a 

balanced budget could only be achieved gradually. President Eisenhower 

also announced that in the future military forces would be designed as 

sustainable over a long period of time rather than set to a specific date of 

maximum future threat,19 a policy codified on 29 April 1953 as NSC 

149/2.20 This policy allowed DOD to use its budget experts to review military spending for any funding in the fiscal year 1954 proposal, which 

could be deferred until fiscal year 1955 (giving time for a new national 

strategy to form). As it turned out, most of the deferred spending fell in 

the Air Force’s budget, which was trimmed by $5 billion for fiscal year 

1954. This proposed budget for fiscal year 1954 was submitted to 

Congress in May 1953 and passed (despite the strong protests of Gen 

Hoyt S. Vandenberg, the Air Force chief of staff) on 29 July 1953.21 

By the end of April 1953, several changes had taken place to set the 

stage for the New Look. Although national security remained a priority 

over a balanced budget,22 economic representatives had been added to the 

NSC and economic factors were made a specific part of our interim 

national security policy (NSC 149/2). Adopting a long haul versus a crisisyear planning policy shifted the balance of power in budget reviews from 

the military services to the Bureau of Budget.23 President Eisenhower 

increased the centralization of authority by proposing Reorganization Plan 

No. 6, enlarging the power of the CJCS by giving him the power to manage the JS—previous chairmen had to accept whomever the services 

offered as JS members. This plan also increased the power of the OSD 

over the individual services. It became effective on 30 June 1953.24 

Crafting Strategic Alternatives:


The Solarium Project May–July 1953


Candidate Eisenhower had announced one part of his plan to reform 

national security strategy: to appoint a civilian group to thoroughly examine US national security strategy. President Eisenhower began this 

process in an 8 May 1953 meeting in the White House sunroom (or solarium) with four of his close advisors: Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell 

18

Smith, Special Assistant Robert Cutler, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 

Director Allen Dulles, and C. D. Jackson, chairman of the Psychological 

Strategy Board. President Eisenhower directed that a separate task force 

be drawn up for each of three alternative national security strategies prepared by Mr. Cutler. The overall project (given the code name of Project 

Solarium after its place of origin) was placed under the direction of Lt Gen 

H. A. Craig, USAF, commandant of the National War College (NWC). NSC 

oversight was provided by a committee consisting of Smith, Cutler, and 

Dulles.25 

A steering committee was established under Lt Gen James H. Doolittle, 

USAF, Retired, a close friend of the president, to write a charter for each 

task force.26 The task forces were composed of military and civilian personnel under the leadership of an advocate for each proposed national 

security strategy. Task Force A (containment) was led by George Kennan 

(the original architect of containment). Task Force B (drawing the line— 

deterrence) advocated warning the Soviet Union that any military actions 

into noncommunist areas might precipitate a general war. Maj Gen James 

McCormack Jr., USAF, was chosen to lead Task Force B. The most aggressive strategy studied in Project Solarium was Task Force C’s liberation 

strategy, led by Adm Richard L. Conolly of the Naval War College. Each of 

these task forces was to provide clear policy choices by making the best 

case they could for their alternatives.27 A fourth option (giving the Soviet 

Union a two-year warning to negotiate, followed by war while we still had 

the advantage) was not considered because is seemed too much like preventive war.

28 Figure 2 shows the approximate structure of Project 

Solarium. 

NSC Oversight 

Committee 

Lt Gen H. A. Craig 

Doolittle Steering 

Committee 

Task Force A 

Containment 

George Kennan 

Task Force B 

Drawing the Line 

Maj Gen James 

McCormack Jr. 

Task Force C 

Liberation 

Adm Richard L. 

Conolly 

Figure 2. Solarium Project Structure 

19

Project Solarium was under way on 10 June 1953 and continued for six 

weeks. Task Force members used their expertise, the resources of the 

NWC, and inputs from other departments to support their analyses.29 

The results were briefed to the NSC on 16 July 1953. Summaries of the 

three presentations were sent to the JCS and the individual services for 

comments.30 The JCS proposed that the NSC Planning Board prepare a 

study providing the rationale behind past rejections of each proposal, a 

study that would have taken weeks.31 However, the NSC rejected this idea 

as too time consuming and tasked the NSC Planning Board to draw up a 

new policy statement incorporating elements of all three task force reports 

but retaining the basic framework of containment32 “with a more precise 

definition of areas where any Soviet encroachment would call for a strong 

military response.”33 Preparation of the first draft kept the planning board 

busy through September 1953, by which time the new JCS had made 

their own recommendations. 

Developing Military Strategy: The New Joint Chiefs 

and the Sequoia Cruise July–August 1953 

The JCS inherited by President Eisenhower had frequently found themselves caught in a partisan cross fire over US foreign policy and military 

strategy issues. Many republicans (particularly Senator Taft, who had run 

against Eisenhower for the presidential nomination) felt that the JCS in 

general and CJCS Omar N. Bradley in particular would be obstacles to 

proposed budget cuts because they were too closely identified with the 

previous administration.34 In addition, all of the chiefs of staff except for 

the commandant of the Marine Corps were due for renomination in the 

summer of 1953. The republican congressional leadership hoped that new 

chiefs of staff would come up with an entirely new grand concept of 

defense strategy by 1 August 1953.35 

President Eisenhower agreed to this proposal and announced the new 

nominees on 12 May 1953. Admiral Radford, the commander in chief of 

the Pacific Fleet (who had participated in discussions on the cruiser 

Helena in December 1952) was to be the new CJCS. Adm Robert B. 

Carney was nominated to be the new chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and 

Gen Matthew B. Ridgway was nominated as the new chief of staff of the 

Army. Gen Nathan F. Twining had already been nominated as the new 

chief of staff of the Air Force (CSAF) a week before. Secretary Wilson had 

made these selections.36 

The charter for the new chiefs was laid out in a memorandum from 

President Eisenhower to Secretary of Defense Wilson.37 Eisenhower 

briefed the new chiefs in the middle of July 1953. Their task was to consider all aspects of military and relate the whole to both foreign and fiscal 

policy. President Eisenhower also let the chiefs know that he wanted no 

“split papers,” only unanimous decisions.38 

20

The new chiefs began work on 13 July. The original tasking was that 

the chiefs work alone, without any staff assistance except an aide who 

supplied office materials—and coffee.39 They spent their time meeting, 

studying, and conducting personal travel to carry out their assignment.40 

However, Admiral Radford concluded that his fellow chiefs were having 

their service staffs carry out studies to augment their personal travel and 

discussions. After some frustration, he borrowed the  Sequoia and 

departed Washington, D.C., on 6 August 1953 “provisioned for an extensive stay in the lower Potomac” with Admiral Carney, General Ridgway, 

and General Twining.41 The announced objective was to keep the new 

chiefs at sea until agreement was reached. 

After some long and hard discussions, the chiefs reached agreement on 

the outlines of a strategy by the evening of 8 August. It was unanimously 

approved but was considered the initial views of the participants rather 

than a corporate JCS position. The new chiefs concluded that the “most 

critical factors in the military aspects of our security are air defense of our 

continental U.S. and our ability to retaliate swiftly and powerfully in the 

event we are attacked.”42 US forces were overextended and should be 

redeployed back to the states as a strategic reserve. Local ground defense 

would be primarily an indigenous responsibility, backed up by US air and 

sea power. Near-term budget expenditures would not go down due to the 

need for redeployments, but the long-term effects would be sustainable 

over the “long pull.”43 There was one interesting missing piece: there was 

no mention of using new technology (nuclear weapons) to trade firepower 

for force structure despite calls by Secretary Humphrey and CSAF 

Twining. The chiefs may have left this to the NSC due to an inability to 

reach a unanimous consensus,44 leaving only a recommendation that the 

United States formulate a “clear, positive policy with respect to the use of 

atomic weapons, and should announce it publicly.”45 

Admiral Radford presented the chief’s new concept to Secretary Wilson 

and President Eisenhower late on 8 August 1953 and followed up with a 

27 August 1953 presentation to the NSC (attended by the other service 

chiefs as well). It was emphasized that the strategy was based on the military danger of overextension rather than just budgetary considerations. 

The only solution the chiefs could envision to reverse what they saw as a 

deteriorating situation without weakening the economy was to “reverse 

our present strategy” by redeploying and reorienting US forces.46 The NSC 

tentatively approved the concept, subject to a foreign policy analysis by 

the Department of State on whether it would disrupt US foreign relations. 

This approval was provided on 9 September 1953 and no insoluble problems were identified.47 However, the NSC took no further actions pending 

completion of the national security policy revision ongoing from Project 

Solarium. 

While the chiefs were deliberating, the Korean War armistice was signed 

on 27 July 1953 and the Soviet Union exploded its thermonuclear device 

on 12 August 1953.48 The NSC Planning Board now had the task of deter21

mining whether these events significantly impacted the long-term US 

strategy being drawn up after Project Solarium and (now) the new JCS 

concept paper. 

Putting It Together: Developing NSC 162/2 

September–October 1953 

The NSC had followed Project Solarium by tasking the planning board 

to put the initiatives raised by all three task forces into a single national 

security document. The planning board formed a special committee 

(which included the JCS advisor to the NSC, Brig Gen John K. Gerhart) to 

draft the document. The committee produced a draft document on 17 

September 1953 that reflected both the Solarium Project and the new JCS 

concept.49 

However, the planning board divided over several issues in NSC 162 

and finally forwarded a split draft to the NSC. The NSC was similarly 

divided. Almost all members agreed with the JCS idea of redeploying 

forces back to the United States, but some felt withdrawal should begin 

immediately while others wanted additional studies of foreign reactions. 

General Gerhart led several members who wanted to press the Soviet 

Union harder. The JCS criticized the draft for placing a balanced budget 

above an adequate defense and debated the exact wording on whether the 

military posture should emphasize airpower alone or a broader interpretation of national striking power. The NSC went through several drafts of 

NSC 162, producing NSC 162/1 on 19 October 1953. NSC 162/1 rejected 

the position of the Treasury Department and Bureau of Budget that economic considerations predominated over military threats. However, it also 

failed to advocate the most aggressive measures against the communist 

world advocated by the JCS and continued to emphasize the retaliatory 

capabilities of “offensive striking power.”50 At Admiral Carney’s request, 

the JCS recommended stressing the military requirement for “massive 

retaliatory capability” rather than “massive retaliatory damage by offensive striking power.”51 

The NSC finalized discussions of NSC 162/1 in a 29 October 1953 

meeting whose importance was underscored by the presence of all of the 

JCS and the service secretaries. President Eisenhower rejected the JCS 

suggestion and advocated massive offensive striking power (though he did 

emphasize the multiservice nature of the term).52 President Eisenhower 

accepted the final version as NSC 162/2 on 30 October 1953. 

NSC 162/2 defined two basic problems for national security: meeting 

the Soviet threat and avoiding serious weakening of the US economy. Its 

strong military posture emphasized massive retaliation by offensive striking power and keeping that strength up over the long pull. A specific point 

made was that “in the event of hostilities, the United States will consider 

nuclear weapons as available for use as other munitions.” 53 This essentially ruled out planning for extended conventional conflicts.54 However, 

the exact effects of NSC 162/2 and its new statement of national policy on 

22

defense budgets and force levels remained to be determined—a question 

which would, in turn, impact programmed defense funding for fiscal year 

1955 and beyond.55 

Translating NSC 162 into Force Structure:


The Everest Committee October–December 1953


On 16 October 1953 Secretary Wilson tasked Admiral Radford to have 

the JCS develop a broad outline for the armed forces size and composition. The tasking requested an outline of military strategy to implement 

the national strategy laid out in NSC 162, force structure sustainable over 

the long-pull ahead, and an estimate that total active duty military manpower should fall in a range between 2,500,000 and 3,000,000. Fiscal 

guidance could be procured from the secretary of the treasury and the 

director of the budget. The facilities of the OSD and the service departments would be available to provide assistance. The report was due not 

later than 15 December 1953.56 

The JCS decided to form an ad hoc committee consisting of a chairman 

and two from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. One member 

from each service should be a flag or general officer of two-star rank. The 

committee was chaired by the Director of the Joint Staff, Lt Gen Frank F. 

Everest, USAF. The JCS drafted its own tasking to the committee on 23 

October 1953, including notes that a sound economy was “an essential 

bulwark” of security and to assume that “atomic weapons will be used by 

U.S. forces engaged whenever it is of military advantage to do so.”57 

Unfortunately, there is little record of how the Everest Committee accomplished its task. The committee requested (and received) the assistance of 

economists from the Treasury Department and the Bureau of the 

Budget,58 although the only figures cited in the report were attributed to 

OSD.59 One may infer that the assistance of different service staffs 

resulted in the difficulty the committee had on reaching consensus on 

some issues. The JCS left separately on tours to US overseas installations, 

and returned in mid-November.

60 

The committee’s report was submitted to the JCS on 30 November 

1953. The committee had been unable to achieve a full consensus. The 

strategic concept reflected NSC 162/2, but several paragraphs were split 

between Air Force/Navy and Army opinions. Similarly, while all agreed on 

overall personnel strength of 2,750,000, the three services could not agree 

on how the manpower and force structure should be divided between 

them. The committee eventually put together recommendations from all 

three departments on what the entire DOD force structure should look 

like at the end of fiscal year 1957 and submitted it to the JCS for decision 

(tables 1 and 2). 

23

Table 1 

Everest Committee Recommendations for End FY57 

Personnel, in Thousands 

Recommendation Army Navy Marines Air Force 

Army 1,060 580 175 950 

Navy/Marine Corps 900 693 207 950 

Air Force 950 630 170 1,000 

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Document 2101/111, “Report by the Ad Hoc Committee to the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff on Military Strategy and Posture,” CCS 381 US, sec. 31, 5.0 B.P. 

Table 2 

Everest Committee Recommendations for End FY57 

Force Structure 

Recommendation Army Navy Marine Air Force 

Divisions Ships Divisions/Wings Wings 

Army 14 799 2 120 

Navy/Marine Corps 12 1,093 3 127 

Air Force 12 904 3 137 

Source: JCS Document 2101/111. 

Note that despite the divergence between the services, all of them 

reflected NSC 162/2 by increasing Air Force force levels while reducing 

the other services. The committee recommended a total fiscal year 1957 

DOD budget of $33.8 billion except for the Army proposal, which was 

priced at $34.235 billion.61 

All four chiefs (including Gen Lemuel C. Shepherd, commandant of the 

Marine Corps, who spoke as a full member of the JCS by law since the 

discussions affected his service) upheld their service recommendations. 

Extensive discussions between the chiefs lasted longer than one week. 

Finally, Admiral Radford approached Secretary Wilson and told him the 

chiefs could reach unanimous agreement if the manpower ceiling was 

lifted from 2,750,000 to 2,815,000 (50,000 to the Army and 15,000 to the 

Marine Corps). With Wilson’s approval, the chiefs drew up JCS 2101/113 

on 9 December 1953 as their response to the original 16 October tasking. 

The total DOD budget for fiscal year 1957 (including spending not allocated to the services) was $32.912 billion (table 3).62 

24

Table 3 

JCS Recommendations to Secretary Wilson on FY57 Personnel, 

Force Structure, and Budget 

Final Figures Army Navy Marines Air Force 

Personnel 1,000 650 190 975 

(in thousands) 

Force Structure 14 Divisions 1,030 Ships 3 Divisions/Wings 137 Wings 

Budget $7.387 $8.790 (in Navy $) $14.100 

(in billions) 

Source: JCS Document 2101/113, “Military Strategy and Posture,” 381 US, sec. 32 (9 December 1953). 

JCS 2101/113 was unanimous, but that unanimity was based on a 

series of assumptions built into the document about world conditions in 

general and the buildup of Korean, German, and Japanese forces in particular.

63 These assumptions were insisted on by Admiral Carney and 

General Ridgway. They felt that if any of these assumptions should prove 

invalid then the recommended program would be abandoned.64 

Admiral Radford outlined the proposed strategy and force levels to the 

NSC on 16 December 1953. The president and the council approved of the 

military program in JCS 2101/113. The same meeting also saw the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Kyes submit a revised fiscal year 1955 

budget calling for significantly lower spending, which was presented as a 

logical part of a three-year program to reach the fiscal year 1957 strengths 

submitted by the JCS.65 This revised fiscal year 1955 budget had actually 

been hastily produced over the last few days following the largest disconnect of the New Look—the difference between JCS 2101/113 and the original fiscal year 1955 budget submission. 

Disconnecting Budgets and Strategy:


FY 1955 Budget Development September–December 1953


Budgeting for a large and complex government organization such as 

DOD has always required extensive preparation time. Although the current planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS) was not in 

place, budget timelines in the 1950s reflected the laborious handwork 

required in that precomputer era. Budget director Dodge began pressing 

for a DOD fiscal year 1955 budget submission as early as July 1953. He 

wanted figures finalized by December 1953 for approval and forwarding to 

Congress in January 1954 (as required by law).66 Fiscal year 1955 would 

begin on 1 July 1954. 

This meant that one of the first tasks facing the newly sworn in JCS on 

15 August was overseeing their fiscal year 1955 budget submissions (in 

addition to presenting the Sequoia concept to the NSC and working on 

NSC 162). Secretary Wilson worked hard to hold off on preparing a budget 

25

for fiscal year 1955 until the current strategic review was complete, but 

he was overruled by President Eisenhower in September.

67 This forced 

Secretary Wilson to direct the joint chiefs to put together rough cost estimates by early October 1953.68 Once those were approved, more detailed 

work would be required to finish the completed budget. Snyder refers to 

this as the “Interim Look.” 

The Interim Look was submitted to Secretary Wilson on 2 October 1953. 

It reflected few of the concepts being discussed in the New Look with no 

major changes recommended in existing forces. The rationale for this was 

that no reduction had been noted in the threat, no changes had been 

made in foreign commitments, and no new policies implemented concerning use of atomic weapons.69 The total budget requests amounted to 

$43 billion in fiscal year 1955 expenditures, compared to a $34 billion 

ceiling for a balanced budget.70 

Secretary Wilson, Admiral Radford, and Wilfred J. McNeil (the Defense 

Department’s comptroller) presented these figures to the NSC on 13 

October 1953. Not surprisingly, the NSC was less than thrilled. Admiral 

Radford’s main defense was that the chiefs were forced to plan for several contingencies barring a major change in national strategy—particularly the potential use of nuclear weapons. He also noted that it would 

be difficult to reduce manpower until fewer forces were deployed overseas.71 

The NSC did not approve or reject the Interim Look. Instead, the services were told to refine their budget figures for fiscal year 1955 “on a genuine austerity basis” but without cutting combat forces.72 In practice, this 

meant that the defense budget entered the laborious slide rule and worksheet process of adding details without clear guidance on specific cuts. 

The New Look would proceed on “dual tracks”: the Everest Committee and 

the fiscal year 1955 budget preparation.73 

The administration suggested several changes during the fall, but these 

were made as nonmandatory suggestions or targets that were generally 

ignored. In early November, Secretary Wilson suggested a 10 percent cut 

in Army, Navy, and Marine Corps manpower. This suggestion was followed 

by a 25 November request for an honest-to-goodness effort to make the 

requested cuts, along with the suggestion that such cuts could be made 

without reducing combat forces. An additional argument was made that 

the proposed cut represented a logical first step towards the lower force 

levels proposed for fiscal year 1957 by the Everest Committee. However, 

the Army strongly disputed these proposed cuts,74 which General Ridgway 

felt were politically driven.75 

The two-track budget and strategy disconnect was wrenched back 

together in early December 1953. The refined version of the original 

request was submitted to Secretary Wilson on 5 December, along with 

papers noting that the cuts requested earlier could not be made without 

reducing combat capability below requirements. Secretary Wilson was 

thus faced with a fiscal year 1955 budget holding the line at 20 Army 

26

divisions, for example, while the chiefs debated between 12 and 14 divisions in fiscal year 1957. After consulting with President Eisenhower, 

Secretary Wilson ordered a 10 percent cut in Army, Navy, and Marine 

Corps manpower.76 The services hastily revised their budget estimates 

in time to submit the budget approved at the 15 December 1953 NSC 

meeting. 

The strategy process of the New Look was complete. Its results were a 

steady drop in the overall budget out until fiscal year 1957, with a fairly 

flat projection from that time onwards to handle the long haul. The budget 

cuts were concentrated on the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps while Air 

Force funding held steady. This relative decline in land and sea power was 

also reflected in the projected drop of Army personnel by about one-third 

and Navy/Marine Corps cuts of 15 to 20 percent compared with original 

fiscal year 1957 budget projections. The containment strategy of previous 

administrations was modified by relying more on local manpower for 

ground forces while the United States provided air and sea power—with a 

clear approval to plan on using nuclear weapons if it was considered military advantageous. 

The New Look as a Planning Process 

The New Look was a complicated planning process that involved at various times the OSD, the JCS (and the JS), the individual service departments and military staffs, the Secretaries of State and Treasury, the 

Bureau of the Budget, and other government agencies. No process this 

extensive and time consuming can be completely characterized in short, 

punchy statements. However, the discussion above supports some generalizations that can be used to analyze how the process of the New Look 

interacted with the efforts. 

The New Look Was More of a Sequential Than a Parallel Planning 

Process. Although there was no initial timeline laid out for the New Look, 

the sequence of events displayed in figure 1 reveals how each aspect of the 

New Look was taken more or less in turn. After preliminary discussions 

and a stopgap adjustment of the fiscal year 1954 budget, Project Solarium 

was designed and established to evaluate large-scale strategic options. An 

additional review focusing on the military aspects of the national strategy 

was provided by the new JCS from their  Sequoia conference. The NSC 

used both efforts to draft NSC 162, which in turn became the subject for 

debates involving the NSC and the joint chiefs. While NSC 162 was in its 

final stages, the Everest Committee began working on translating the 

overall strategy into force structure proposals. 

The largest overlap in the New Look process involved the fiscal year 

1955 budget process that produced the Interim Look. The extensive labor 

involved meant this effort had to start well before the submission of the 

Everest Committee proposals (JCS 2101/111), much less the approved 

force structure laid out in JCS 2101/113. While the Everest Committee 

failed to provide force structure proposals for fiscal years 1955 and 1956 

27

as their original charter requested, their suspense of no later than 1 

December made this a moot point as far as the services were concerned. 

In theory, the services could have used their own submissions to the 

Everest Committee to modify fiscal year 1955 proposals. However, this 

modification would have involved essentially committing to cuts before 

they were approved—something rarely done, even when the cuts are 

agreed with. 

The sequential planning process used in the New Look is fairly close to 

the classic strategic planning process discussed in chapter 2, with the 

development of the overall national security strategy setting the stage for 

new national military strategy and subsequent force structure decisions. 

It allowed a broad consensus to develop within the Eisenhower administration on the rationale behind the New Look and got most players not in 

DOD to sign on. 

The New Look  Was Primarily a  Top-Down Process. General 

Ridgway would certainly agree, and he described the New Look as a 

directed verdict.77 The Project Solarium task forces, the JCS planning 

effort, and the Everest Committee all received written and verbal charters that provided clear guidance on what their tasks were. Leadership 

provided feedback during parts of the process (such as at NSC meetings) 

and were willing to dictate answers when they felt it necessary.78 The 

down side to this was the bitterness exemplified by those such as 

Ridgway who felt pressured to compromise what they saw as their professional ethics. 

The New Look  Was (broadly speaking) a  Threat-Based Process. 

This may seem counterintuitive: How can a plan which spent so much 

time emphasizing the need to cut spending be described as threat-based 

rather than resource-based? There was broad consensus that the United 

States needed to disengage from peripheral operations and reconstitute a 

strategic reserve to meet the military threat. But the fiscal targets pushed 

by congressional republicans, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau 

of the Budget seemed to place resource considerations ahead of military 

security. 

The key to this argument is that the Eisenhower administration 

believed that the Soviet Union tended to have the advantage because they 

were perceived as operating in accordance with a long-range plan. By 

ramping tensions upwards and downwards, the communists could 

manipulate their short-term focused opponents into taking actions 

against its long-term national interests—ultimately leading to economic 

collapse. To counter this, a steady level of military spending capable of 

both meeting the near-term threat of the large Soviet military and being 

sustainable over the long haul.79 

This tension between the military and economic threats faced by the 

nation were reflected in deliberations throughout the New Look. However, 

resource concerns only predominated when linked with a strategy. The 

fiscal year 1954 cuts were made in programs that involved committing 

28

money for future years, with minimal if any impact on current force levels.80 Budget cutters were frequently disappointed when they pressed for 

cuts without a strategy to back it up81 and defeated in NSC debates over 

placing the economic threat ahead of the military threat.82 The need for a 

strategy to deal with the military threat made Secretary of Treasury 

Humphrey one of the leading advocates for incorporating more use of 

atomic weapons in national policy.83 

Similarly, other participants in the New Look felt that one threat (in 

their case, the military one) dominated the other. The main difference in 

how they viewed the process was that budget cutters were willing to 

accept the military threat as real (no big surprise in the early cold war 

era). In contrast, General Ridgway was not convinced that an economic 

threat existed at all.84 

The New Look Relied on Committees and Expert Judgement. This 

era was when systems analyses techniques were in their infancy and the 

first computers were devoted to helping develop the hydrogen bomb.85 

Throughout the New Look, different committees of experts and advocates 

were formed to handle specific problems. This formation pulled in a wide 

range of viewpoints, with the strength of most arguments based on the 

credibility of professional expertise as well as logic (a factor that operated 

to General Ridgway’s disadvantage—as Secretary Wilson commented, the 

president was fairly experienced in military matters).86 

Relying on professional expertise posed a problem for others—when 

could one safely accept or reject it? Congressional committees of that era 

were used according to military opinion with some respect even if they 

disagreed with it. However, the tensions between CJCS Bradley and congressional republicans showed that there were limits to this acceptance. 

Today’s experts—military and civilian—often buttress their professional expertise with analytical models (often complex computer models), which purport to provide objective rather than subjective support 

to their arguments. Such methods became quite commonplace by 

1996—the year Congress tasked the Pentagon to carry out the QDR. In 

what other ways did the QDR process differ from the New Look? How did 

these differences influence the execution of the QDR? Chapter 4 

explores these questions. 

Notes 

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change 1953–1956 (New 

York: Doubleday and Co., 1963), 1. 

2. Codified by the Truman administration in 1950 by NSC-68, which outlined the containment strategy to block Soviet expansion. 

3. Eisenhower, 128–29. 

4. Ibid., 454–55. 

5. David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York: Villard Books, 1993), 211–13. 

6. JCS Memorandum 2101/78, “Re-examination of Programs for National Security,” 7 

November 1952, 381 US (1-31-50), sec. 20 (National Archives). 

29

7. Glenn H. Snyder, “The New Look of 1953,” in Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets, 

eds. Warner R. Schilling, Paul Y. Hammond, and Glenn H. Snyder (New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1962), 393–94. 

8. Ibid., 390; and New York Times, 26 September 1952, 1. 

9. Snyder, 384. 

10. Robert J. Watson, History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Volume V: The Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and National Policy 1953–1954 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1986), 4. 

11. Ibid. 

12. Cited in Snyder, 477; and U.S. News & World Report, 5 March 1954, 48–55. 

13. Cited in Snyder, 392–93; and Robert J. Donovan,  Eisenhower: The Inside Story 

(New York: Harper and Bros., 1956), 16–17. 

14. Eisenhower, 447. 

15. Ibid., 129. 

16. Watson, 5. 

17. Ibid, 7; JCS Memorandum 1800/201, Charles E. Wilson, secretary of defense, subject: “Effect of Approaching a Balanced Budget in FY 1954 and Achieving a Balanced 

Budget in FY 1955,” 19 March 1953; and JCS 1800/201, CCS 370 (8-19-45). 

18. Cited in Snyder, 396. Senate Testimony of Gen Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Air Force chief 

of staff, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1954: Hearings before the Subcommittee 

on Appropriations, 83d Cong., 1st sess., 1953, 231. 

19. Eisenhower, 132. 

20. Cited in Watson, 8; and NSC 149/2, 29 April 1953, CCS 381 US, sec 25 (1-31-50). 

21. Cited in Snyder, 397; and House, testimony of Secretary of Defense Charles E. 

Wilson and Assistant Secretary Wilfred McNeil, Department of Defense Appropriations for 

1954: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Appropriations, 83d Cong., 1st sess., 1953, 

390. 

22. Eisenhower, 130–31. 

23. Snyder, 405. 

24. Eisenhower, 447–48. 

25. Snyder, 407–8. 

26. Cited in Snyder, 409; and Charles J. V. Murphy, “The Eisenhower Shift,” Fortune, 

March 1956, 234. 

27. Cited in Watson, 11–12; and Executive Secretary of National Security Council, 

memorandum to National Security Council, subject: Project Solarium, 22 July 1953, CCS 

381 US, sec. 27 (1-31-50). 

28. Snyder, 409. 

29. Ibid. 

30. Cited in unpublished draft manuscript by Dr. Richard Leighton, OSD historian, 

January 1998, chap. 8, 23; M. W. Boggs, memorandum of discussion to NSC, subject: 

157th mtg., 30 July 1953; and Foreign Policy of the United States, vol. 2, pt. 1, 432–41. 

Summary of Points Made in Discussion Following Presentation by Task Forces 16 July 

1953. 

31. JCS Memorandum 2101/95, “Note by the Secretaries to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 

Project Solarium,” for the Secretary of Defense, 28 July 1953; and 381 US, sec. 27. (1-31-50) 

32. Watson, 14. 

33. Leighton, 23. 

34. Watson, 14–15. 

35. Cited in Snyder, 411; and New York Times, 22 April 1953, 1. 

36. Snyder, 412. 

37. Cited in Watson, 16–17. President, memorandum to Secretary of Defense, 1 July 

1953, JCS Historical Division Files; and Arthur W. Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam: 

The Memoirs of Admiral Arthur W. Radford, Stephen Jurika Jr., ed. (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover 

Institute Press, 1980), 320–21. 

30

38. Meeting described in Snyder, 413; and Matthew B. Ridgway, Soldier: The Memoirs


of Matthew B. Ridgway, as told to Harold H. Martin (New York: Harper and Bros., 1956),


266–67.


39. Snyder, 413.


40. Watson, 17.


41. Radford, 321.


42. Watson, 18.


43. Ibid., 18–19; and Snyder, 414–15.


44. Leighton, 27–32.


45. Watson, 20.


46. Ibid., 18–19.


47. Ibid., 20–21.


48. Snyder, 415.


49. Cited in Watson, 21; NSC 162, 30 September 1953; Record of Meetings, NSC


Planning Board, 22, 23, and 28–30 September 1953, CCS 334 NSC, sec. 12 (9-25-47);


Executive Secretary of NSC, memorandum to NSC Planning Board, subject: “Review of


Basic National Security Policy,” 18, 25, and 28 September 1953, CCS 381 US, sec. 29 (1-


31-50); and JCS 2101/104, 1 October 1953, same file. 


50. NSC 162/1, “Review of Basic National Security Policy,” from Presidential Directives


on National Security from Truman to Clinton, 19 October 1953, NSDD INDEX Record


Number 1152.


51. JCS 2101/107, CCS 381 US, sec. 30 (1-31-50); and CNO memorandum to JCS,


subject: JCS 2101/107—NSC 162/1, Review of Basic National Security Policy, 26 October


1953, ser. 000270P35. 


52. Watson, 23–24.


53. NSC 162/2, 30 October 1953, from Presidential Directives on National Security from


Truman to Clinton, NSDD INDEX Record Number 1153.


54. Snyder, 436–37.


55. Watson, 25–26.


56. Cited in Watson, 27; and Secretary of Defense, memorandum to JCS, 16 October


1953, CCS 381 US, sec. 30 (1-31-50). 


57. JCS 2101/108, “Note by the Secretaries to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Military


Strategy and Posture,” 26 October 1953, CCS 381 US, sec. 30 (1-31-50), 972–76.


58. Snyder, 440.


59. JCS 2101/111, “Report by the Ad Hoc Committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on


Military Strategy and Posture,” 30 November 1953, CCS 381 US (1-31-50), 5.31 5.0 B.P.,


997–1008.


60. Snyder, 440.


61. JCS 2101/111.


62. JCS 2101/113, “Military Strategy and Posture,” 9 December 1953, 381 US, sec. 32


(1-31-50).


63. Ibid.


64. Snyder, 442–43.


65. Watson, 32.


66. Leighton, 32–33.


67. Snyder, 418–19.


68. Watson, 26.


69. Snyder, 419–26.


70. Leighton, 37–38.


71. Snyder, 427.


72. Leighton, 47–53.


73. Snyder, 428.


74. Ibid., 444–46.


75. Ridgway, 286–89.


31

76. Snyder, 450–51. 

77. Ridgway, 288–89. 

78. Eisenhower, 454–55. 

79. Snyder, 476–78. 

80. Ibid., 396–99. 

81. Eisenhower, 130. 

82. Watson, 23. 

83. Ibid., 20. 

84. Ridgway, 272. 

85. Halberstam, 92–93. 

86. Ridgway, 287. 

32

Chapter 4 

The Quadrennial Defense Review 

of 1996–97 

Historical Context 

The QDR was the most recent in a series of post-cold-war defense 

reviews. By now it seems cliché to run through the rapid changes in the 

modern world—the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of computerbased information warfare, the proliferation of WMD, and the rise of 

peacekeeping/humanitarian operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and other 

places around the world. Without a single dominant enemy, the US 

national security context shifted to a more complex picture of regional 

threats (Iraq, North Korea, etc.), nontraditional actors such as terrorists, drug cartels, or even religious groups capable of carrying out 

unconventional attacks with deadly effect, and an array of concerns 

from environmental to humanitarian issues that threatened our safety 

and our values. 

Several strategic studies came to grips with these changes, including 

the Base Force of 1991, the BUR of 1993, and the CORM of 1995. US 

defense spending dropped from $400 billion (in constant fiscal year 1997 

dollars) in 1985 (28 percent of the national budget and 7 percent of the 

gross national product) to $250 billion in 1997 (15 percent of the budget, 

and 3.2 percent of the gross national product).1 

Yet dissatisfaction remained, spurred by the perception that the US military was essentially mired in a cold war posture increasingly disconnected from the challenges it would face in the future.2 Other critics 

charged that our forces were not really capable of fighting and winning the 

two nearly simultaneous regional conflicts called for in the BUR or that 

the strategy itself was flawed.3 Stresses and strains caused by frequent 

deployments and operations raised the question whether the BUR force 

structure was suited for sustaining the frequent deployments called for 

when implementing the “National Security Strategy of Engagement and 

Enlargement.”4 

These challenges were exacerbated by the question of affordability— 

could current defense spending levels sustain the BUR force structure? A 

growing need to modernize military equipment was colliding with the high 

costs of sustaining ongoing operations.5 Little help was expected from 

increased future defense spending given an aging US population (which 

would require additional nondefense spending) and the push to balance 

the US budget. 

33

Such questions led to increasing pressure for a new review of defense 

policy. The 1995 CORM study recommended that each new presidential 

administration conduct “a comprehensive strategy and force review” as an 

interagency activity directed by the National Security Council—a 

“Quadrennial Strategy Review.”6 This recommendation was endorsed by 

the secretary of defense and was cited by Congress in the Military Force 

Structure Review Act of 1996.7 

The Military Force Structure Review Act marked a significant difference from the New Look—a legislative rather than executive tasking. 

The Clinton administration had already been in office more than three 

years; however, it was dealing with a skeptical republican-led Congress. 

The level of congressional dissatisfaction with existing defense planning 

can be inferred from the fact that Congress chose to put the requirement into legislation, which was passed by a wide margin.8 The Force 

Structure Review Act also included a requirement for a “red team”—the 

NDP, which would provide an independent assessment of the QDR and 

follow-on with its own suggestions for alternative force structure 

options.9 The next administration would thus be faced with congressional mandates and timelines for action regardless of who won the 

election. 

Study Limitations 

Analyzing the QDR offered the usual research challenges facing a recent 

history study. Interviewing participants provided a rich source of material; 

however, most participants preferred being interviewed under nonattribution because they remain active members (military or civilian) of the DOD. 

More than 20 such interviews were conducted. This study also draws on 

additional interviews conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses 

(IDA), the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), and the RAND Corporation 

studies of the QDR. None of these studies cited specific sources for attribution, but all provided valuable insights. 

This study uses information gathered from interviews as interviews 

(Snyder’s citations for the New Look). Information cited from other 

researchers will be attributed to those studies, but readers tracing these 

citations will face the same lack of attribution to specific sources. 

A more recent problem facing researchers is the disappearance of 

much of the paper trail associated with staff work in today’s Pentagon. 

The author was astonished to find that relatively few formal memoranda 

or letters cover the QDR (compared to the New Look). Most documentation consisted of hard copies of electronic briefings and other informal 

notes. Several versions usually exist for any given file, which makes figuring out which versions were shown to whom a difficult challenge. This 

will probably become a growing problem for future researchers—in a 

paperless office, primary source materials may become harder to fix 

with certainty. 

34

Preparation Phase: June–October 1996 

The inaugural phase of the QDR overlapped with the closing phase of 

the 1996 presidential election. This overlap allowed the JS to lay much of 

the initial groundwork for the QDR—the OSD stayed almost completely 

out of the loop at this point to avoid potential political complications.10 

Maj Gen Mark R. Hamilton, USA (vice J-8 on the JS, responsible for longrange force structure planning), formed a group of four action officers (one 

from each service) to conduct preliminary planning. Unlike the New Look, 

the QDR process would have an overall design laying out different panels 

and groups, how their products were to be integrated, and timelines for 

task completions from start to finish. 

General Hamilton’s tiger team began work in the late summer of 

1996. They addressed the specific areas tasked by the legislation, as 

well as meeting what they felt was the congressional intent: to produce 

something innovative. They tried assembling lists of issues and questions to be answered, matching them with various offices who should 

be involved with solving them. This matching led to the idea of panels— 

forming groups of various sizes tasked to handle a group of related 

issues. Each panel would be cochaired by OSD and JS representatives. 

Membership would include representatives from all of the services and 

related agencies with DOD, providing a wide range of talents, expertise, 

and viewpoints. The original proposal suggested five panels—strategy, 

force structure, readiness, infrastructure, and modernization. Two 

additional panels (information operations/intelligence and human 

resources) were added later (fig. 3).11 

Part of the preparatory work involved the conduct of preliminary studies 

to support QDR analyses. These included various computer modeling 

works (from the DAWMS and other analyses), workshops, and some service self-initiated cost estimates in the force structure area. Of particular 

importance was an unusually robust Joint Strategy Review (JSR) and 

preparatory work for what would become the Defense Program Projections 

(DPP) briefing. The JSR was a routinely scheduled work that received extra 

attention to help lay the groundwork for an overarching QDR strategy.12 

This strategy work was a priority for the JS due to a desire to look how 

the forces were meeting the day-to-day missions. The JS aimed for a strategy-driven QDR, and the challenge of day-to-day missions was seen as 

inherent to a national security strategy of engagement and enlargement.13 

Both parties had provided bipartisan (if sometimes grudging) support for 

these missions.14 

Although OSD remained mostly on the sidelines during this period, some 

senior defense officials provided perspectives on what they saw as important 

for the QDR. For example, Deputy Secretary of Defense John P. White (who 

had chaired the CORM study) commented that the QDR needed to be “a fundamental stock taking.” “The goal is not to rationalize and protect what we 

have now. The goal is to visualize and pursue what we will need tomorrow.” 

35

Defense Resources Board 

Oversight Panel 

DSD/VCJCS/SVC Under Secs/SVC Vices Integration Support 

Group 

J-8 Lead 

Integration Group ✯ PA&E 

Strategy 

TG 

J-5 Lead 

Force Structure 

TG 

J-8 Lead 

Modernization 

TG 

J-8 Lead 

Infrastructure 

TG 

J-4 Lead 

Readiness 

TG 

J-3 Lead 

S&R PA&E A&T A&T P&R 

• • • • • erseas 

• AWMS • • le Dancer • Vigilant Warrior 

Games 

• WMD Study 

• TACAIR 

Study 

• • 4ISR Mission 

Assessment 

• URU(+) • a-Theater Lift 

Study 

• astructure 

Study 

• Tasked 

Presence Report 

Joint Chiefs of Staff 

✯ 

JSR NSS NMS JV 2010 Ov

DHvy Bomber Study Nimb

JWCA Hvy Bomber Study C

MRS BIntrInfr

As 

Source: From Joint Staff off-site briefing, 29 June 1996 in RAND briefing, subject: QDR Insights, Version 10, 15 December 1997. 

Figure 3. Original Joint Chiefs Quadrennial Defense Review Analytic Concept 

36

He raised four themes that he felt would affect how the review would be 

shaped: a wider set of potential scenarios reflecting plausible operations, 

resources (the one that underlies everything), the revolution in military 

affairs (RMA), and making fundamental institutional changes in DOD. To do 

this, Deputy Secretary White envisioned a “highly collaborative effort” involving all key elements of the department.15 

The individual services also made preparations. The basic plan was more 

or less the same—the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy all established ad hoc task forces led by two-star generals and designed to act as 

coordination cells for their respective services in the QDR. Exactly what they 

would be coordinating was still vague; the services received very little solid 

guidance from the JS (who were still finalizing the plan for the QDR) or OSD 

during this phase. Their apprehensions were not reduced by a remark apparently made by William J. Lynn III (OSD) to the effect that the QDR could 

involve a “10/15 percent cut off the top” of current force structure.16 

Final Planning Phase: November–December 1996 

President Clinton’s reelection opened the door for OSD to fully engage 

in QDR planning. OSD cochairs were designated for the different panels and groups, and the senior leadership began finalizing the design, 

objectives, and specific questions to be answered by each panel. Many 

participants from the services perceived a different focus from OSD 

than they perceived from the JS, one aimed less at strategy and more 

at bean counting.17 

The strategy itself was the subject of considerable disagreement. The 

original strategy floated within the JSR underscored the high tempo of 

humanitarian and peacekeeping operations under the current national 

security strategy. Early drafts greatly downplayed the two MRC emphases 

from the BUR in favor of such missions, and a senior official within the JS 

suggested that the QDR force structure “may well equal or even exceed the 

size of the Bottom-Up Review force” in response. This also implied a shift 

in priorities towards forces more suited for the lower end of the conflict 

spectrum rather than the higher (MRC) end.18 

This emphasis quickly proved controversial, and the JSR was held up 

while the arguments continued. Other services strenuously objected to a 

JSR they felt favored the Army (because Army forces were touted as being 

more suitable for humanitarian operations while Air Force and Navy programs supposedly better suited for high intensity conflict were downplayed).19 Participants also described a disagreement between OSD and 

the JS over whether the JSR strategy should be considered a baseline for 

the QDR, with OSD arguing that the JSR represented nonbinding preliminary work rather than a baseline.20 

The QDR passed a significant milestone on 12 December 1996, with 

the presentation of the QDR Design and Approach briefing. This took 

QDR to the public and provided the first open look at how the QDR was 

to be accomplished. It was put together about four weeks after delibera37

tions by an informal group headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense 

White,21 who took the lead in presenting it along with the outgoing 

Secretary of Defense William Perry, the CJCS John M. Shalikashvili, and 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Kenneth H. Bacon.22 

The QDR Design and Approach briefing laid out a process intended to 

involve assessments from all elements of the DOD, including the services, theater commanders in chief (CINC), and other DOD institutions. 

These inputs were to be provided through the QDR’s panel structure 

(fig. 4), which remained close to its original JS design. Also included 

were an integration group (IG) charged with integrating “all this massive 

amount of information that will be delivered up by the various panels,”23 

a steering group (SG), and a higher oversight board consisting of the 

secretary of defense, the CJCS, and the individual service chiefs. 

Strategy�

S&R, J-5 

(cochairs) 

Information Operations/Intelligence�

C3I, Vice Director/JS 

(cochairs) 

Force Structure�

PA&E, J-S 

(cochairs) 

Readiness�

P&R, J-3 

(cochairs) 

Infrastructure�

A&T, J-4 

(cochairs) 

Modernization�

A&T, J-8 

(cochairs) 

Human Resources�

P&R, J-1 

(cochairs) 

Secretary of Defense�

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Service Leadership 

QDR Steering Group�

DepSecDef, Chair 

VCJCS, Vice Chair 

Integration Group�

PA&E, S&R, A&T, J-5, J-8 

(cochairs) 

Source: From Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Strategy and Threat Reduction briefing, subject: 

Quadrennial Defense Review, 12 December 1996. 

Figure 4. Quadrennial Defense Review Organization (December 1996) 

38

Each of the seven panels received a list of objectives and critical decisions which they were to address. It is worth noting that the Strategy 

Panel was still charged with developing an overall strategy for the 

QDR—though several of their critical decisions emphasized points 

raised in the JSR, the JS’s efforts were apparently not considered a 

specific baseline for the QDR effort. The JSR itself was completed some 

time in December 1996.24 

Deputy Secretary White also presented a timeline for completing the 

QDR (fig. 5). Heavy emphasis was placed on completing the report by 

15 May 1997 so it could provide input for the 1997 PPBS cycle (fig. 6) 

as well as meet the congressional timeline (which had already been 

slipped with respect to formation of the NDP). This urgency meant that 

work had to be started despite the upcoming transition in OSD leadership from Secretary Perry to Secretary Cohen, who had to await Senate 

confirmation before engaging in the QDR. The panels had to engage 

immediately in a shotgun manner to meet their timelines. 

Phase� Nov–Dec� January� February� March� April� May�

Start-Up� •�Establish Task�

Forces/Key Issues�

•�Top-Level�

Guidance�

•�Other Intro Briefs�

– Threat�

Front-End�

Panel�

Reviews�

Integration�

Decision�

• Core Strategy�

• DPP�

• Revised Strategy�

Further�

Revisions?�

•� Revised�

Individual�

Assessments�

•� Modernization Alts�

•� Infrastructure�

Initiatives�

•� Readiness�

•� Force Assessments�

•� Present�

Integrated Options�

– Forces�

– Infrastructure�

– Modernization�

•�NDP Assessment March 15�

• DOD/Interagency�

★ 

Short Report�

May 15�

Source: From Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Strategy and Threat Reduction briefing, subject: 

Quadrennial Defense Review, 12 December 1996. 

Figure 5. Quadrennial Defense Review Schedule 

39

Jan–May� Jun� Jul� Aug� Sep� Oct� Nov� Dec�

QDR & NDP�

Planning�

Component�

Program-Budget�

Development�

Program Review�

Budget Review�

QDR Report�

Planning Guidance�

Fiscal Guidance�

NDP Report�

FY99–03 Cycle�

“BES” data�

“POM” data�

PDM�

PBDs�

★ ★ 

★ 

★ 

★ 

★ 

★ 

Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Strategy and Threat Reduction briefing, subject: 

Quadrennial Defense Review, 12 December 1996. 

Figure 6. Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System Timelines for Calendar 

Year 1997 (including Quadrennial Defense Review and National Defense Panel) 

First Round: The Engagement Phase 

January–Early February 1997 

One of the first panels to engage was the Strategy Panel, many of whom 

had been involved in the JSR. Their challenge was to get a strategy out to the 

other panels in time to influence their deliberations. A basic memorandum 

providing the thrust of the QDR strategy was sent to the different panels in 

January 1997, along with some issues for the other panels to address. 

Strategy panel members did note that some panels got it while others did not 

link their actions back to the initial strategy.25 This may have been because 

the different panels were very busy working their own issues and were awaiting a signed off version of the strategy before committing to major actions 

based on it. Another problem was that the strategy was “so all encompassing that it provided only marginal help for the difficult resource decisions.”26 

Many panel members were concerned that they were trying to conduct 

“fundamental reassessments of dozens of key questions” with little guidance 

on what specific topics to focus on.27 Almost all interviewees noted the 

paucity of detailed guidance on almost any issues beyond that provided in 

the QDR Design and Approach briefing. One senior participant viewing the 

process from one of the service coordination cells described this phase of the 

QDR as follows: 

40

No overall written guidance or charter was provided from OSD. Panels have developed their own informal charters, but they’ve never been formally approved by the 

SSG. Without written guidance there’s neither an overall coordination of the various panels to reach a single goal, nor any way to ensure panels are doing what 

was intended. For example, the Force Structure panel has recently changed its 

title to Force Assessment and redirected its efforts towards analyzing the results 

of the Dynamic Commitment wargame. The Modernization panel had expected the 

Force Structure panel to provide alternate force structures for the Modernization 

panel to use for its analysis. Without written guidance to either panel, they’re 

essentially on independent operations.28 

Another effect noticed by the different services was that the different 

panels operated in very different manners. Some modernization panel 

task force interim reports were described as prepared by the OSD task 

force representatives rather than representing a consensus report. The 

lack of charters meant that the cochairs were not bound to present consensus or dissenting opinions to the integration or steering group. 

Differences in such procedures meant that the integration group was 

seeing different types of input from the different panels without knowing how the answers were assembled. 

The DPP briefing was tossed into this mix some time in January 

1997.29 This briefing was primarily authored by Mr. Lynn, and it outlined the challenge of finding and keeping about $60 billion per year to 

maintain procurement. The problem was attributed to the steep decline 

in procurement spending after the cold war and was made worse by the 

tendency to “migrate” spending each year from procurement to operations to pay for contingency operations.30 The DPP was successful in 

convincing many that the modernization funding shortfall was a serious 

problem.31 

By late January, the individual panels began briefing the integration 

group and the steering group. The intention behind these groups was to 

provide a kind of “star chamber” to put the different inputs together and 

provide feedback to guide further action by the panels. However, the 

desire to make the process inclusive made the integration group and 

steering group quite large (30–50 members each). This larger number 

made them useful as a venue to keep participants informed, but many 

participants felt the groups were too large to be effective.32 

Back-channel communication pipelines were also striving to keep different QDR participants informed on what was happening. All of the 

individual services had their coordination cells operating in high gear 

trying to keep track of all these details and keep their representatives 

operating along more or less consistent paths. OSD and the JS participants were also providing occasional inputs to their superiors, though 

not in a coordinated manner. The services worried that different 

cochairs were briefing their superiors on preliminary panel results 

before they were cleared by the panels (much less the integration group 

or steering group).33 

41

Second Round: The Assessment Phase 

Mid-February–March 1997 

Some time in early to mid-February the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Committee (JROC) stepped into the QDR process by having all QDR panels brief the JROC before going on to the senior steering group (SSG) (fig. 

7). This marked the beginning of an evolution in the QDR from an almost 

completely bottom-up process to a more top-down one—and participants 

noted this change. While many OSD personnel viewed the ad hoc entry of 

the JROC into the QDR process as a complicating factor, others, including many of the uniformed QDR participants, believed that the additional 

guidance and feedback provided by the JROC helped the process despite 

the additional workload.34 

The integrated paths briefing (fig. 8) was also given for the first time 

during this phase. This briefing outlined three overall philosophies to use 

for comparison: concentrate on today’s missions, concentrate on preparing for the future, and balancing the two.35 While it was criticized as providing something of a Goldilocks  structure (one option too hot, one too 

cold, one just right), the integrated paths briefing gave participants a way 

to package options for forwarding “up the line.”36 

The assessment phase also faced a major challenge. As the DPP had 

shown, there was a major problem in funding modernization for the 

future. The infrastructure panel was originally seen as the big bill payer 

for this effort, but it was unable to come close to the $30 billion in savings anticipated for it by the Defense Science Board.37 This triggered a 

classic cut drill—and none of the services were eager to step forward and 

offer cuts unilaterally for fear of taking most of the hit themselves. 

Secretary Cohen (an active QDR participant since his 24 January 1997 

swearing in) directed the services to assess a range of proportional cuts 

in order to fund as much of their modernization programs as possible. 

This approach showed just how high a priority fixing procurement was 

for DOD—but studying cuts without a strategy to support them locked 

in the perception that the QDR was, after all, a resource allocation 

drill.38 

Despite all of this activity, the ambitious QDR timelines were mostly 

met. Many participants assumed that Secretary Cohen would request a 

slip in the 15 May deadline after assuming office; instead, he reaffirmed 

the original timeline (and left some scrambling to make up time).39 While 

the participation of the JROC was not anticipated, the overall timeline 

shown in figure 5 were still valid. The major exception to this was that the 

NDP had gotten off to a very late start because of delays in forming the 

panel. The NDP missed its 15 March suspense to provide a written assessment of the QDR. Feedback was provided, but it came as verbal feedback 

to panel participants briefing the NDP (a fourth audience for tired action 

officers to meet with—the integration group [IG], JROC, SSG, and now the 

NDP).40 

42

Strategy 

S&R, J-5 

cochairs 

Info Ops/Intel 

C3I, ViceDir JS 

cochairs 

Force Structure 

PA&E, J-8 

cochairs 

Modernization 

A&T, J-8 

cochairs 

Infrastructure 

A&T, J-4 

cochairs 

Readiness 

P&R, J-3 

cochairs 

Human Resources 

P&R, J-1 

cochairs 

Secretary of Defense 

Chairman, JCS 

Service Leadership 

Senior Steering Group 

DepSecDef, Chair 

VCJCS, Vice Chair 

Integration Group 

PA&E, S&R, A&T, J-5, J-8 

cochairs 

SecDef Review Group: SecDef, CJCS, Chiefs; open to SSG, IG, Others 

30–40 members/participants: incl., Vice Chiefs (JROC members) OSD Under Secretaries, Service Secretaries 40–50 members/participants: incl., ASDs, JS, Service Under Secretaries, Service JRB Reps, Service Cell Chiefs 

17 subpanels 400+ members 

Fewer than a dozen 

members 

JROC 

VCJCS, V Chiefs 

Source: Draft briefing, Institute for Defense Analyses, subject: QDR Lessons Learned Study, 12 January 1998. 

Figure 7. Quadrennial Defense Review Organization (February–March 1997) 

43

Shape Respond Prepare 

Force-Investment Balance 

Path 1 

Path 2 

Path 3 

Presence 

Smaller 

Contingencies/ 

Major Theater War 

Modernization 

& Technology 

Focus on Near-Term Demands 

Active Military: 1,420,000 

Procurement = ~$50 billion 

Preparing for a More Distant Threat 

Force Reductions— 

Active Military: –100,000 to 120,000 

Procurement = $65+ billion 

Balance Current Demands and an Uncertain Future 

Force Reductions— 

Active Military: –$60,000 

Procurement Goal = $60 billion 

Continuation 

of current 

levels 

Reduced 

presence 

Managed 

pace of 

operations 

Maintain 

current 

capability 

Greater 

reliance on 

reserve, 

coalition, & 

swing forces 

Exploit 

improved 

capabilities 

of new 

technologies 

Lower 

priority 

Accelerate 

preparations 

Measured 

Modernization 

Source: Draft briefing, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Strategy and Threat Reduction, subject: 

Quadrennial Defense Review, 15 December 1997. 

Figure 8. Quadrennial Defense Review Integrated Paths 

Third Round: The End Game April–Early May 1997 

The approach of deadlines saw the QDR rapidly sharpen in its focus to 

key players and issues. The first step in this migration was the formation 

of a streamlined IG and SSG (fig. 9). The integration group effectively 

became the “Troika”—Bill Lynn (OSD PA&E), Ted Warner (OSD S&R), and 

Lt Gen David J. McCloud (JS J-8). These three also participated in the SSG 

“executive sessions,” with Deputy Secretary of Defense White, the VCJCS, 

and the vice chiefs—a group which some referred to as the “JROC plus.”41 

These groups took care of most of the final issues, such as approving the 

overall QDR strategy. However, some of the hardest issues (like force structure) were reserved for the very highest decision levels in the Pentagon. 

These included “Tank” sessions involving the secretary and a few civilian 

aides with the CJCS, VCJCS, and the service chiefs in the CJCS Tank 

room—an expanded cast when compared to the JCS deliberations over the 

Everest Committee report in 1953. There were also “Saturday A.M. Sessions” 

44

Strategy 

S&R, J-5 

cochairs 

Info Ops/Intel 

C3I, ViceDir. JS 

cochairs 

Force Structure 

PA&E, J-8 

cochairs 

Modernization 

A&T, J-8 

cochairs 

Infrastructure 

A&T, J-4 

cochairs 

Readiness 

P&R, J-3 

cochairs 

Human Resources 

P&R, J-1 

cochairs 

Secretary of Defense 

Chairman, JCS 

Service Leadership 

Senior Steering Group 

DepSecDef, Chair 

VCJCS, Vice Chair 

Integration Group 

PA&E, S&R, A&T, J-5, J-8 

cochairs 

SecDef Review Group: SecDef, CJCS, Chiefs; open to SSG, IG, others 

30–40 members/participants: incl., Vice Chiefs (JROC members) OSD Under Secretaries, Service Secretaries 40–50 members/participants: incl., ASDs, JS, Service Under Secretaries, Service JRB Reps, Service Cell Chiefs 

17 subpanels 400+ members 

Fewer than a dozen 

members 

IG "Troika" 

PA&E, S&R, J-8 

"Tank" sessions "Sat. A.M." decisions 

SSG "Exec Sessions" "JROC+" 

DepSecDef, VCJCS, V Chiefs, PA&E, S&R, J-8 

Source: Draft briefing, Institute for Defense Analyses, subject: QDR Lessons Learned Study, 12 January 1998. 

Figure 9. Quadrennial Defense Review Organization (April–Early May 1997—the “End Game”) 

45

involving the secretary, key civilian aides, the CJCS, and the VCJCS (but 

not the service chiefs). The secretary also held private discussions with 

other high level QDR participants in a variety of contexts—phone calls, oneon-one meetings, etc.42 

These meetings received inputs from QDR panels, but did not necessarily provide feedback as they made their decisions. One example of this was 

the cuts in F-18E/F and F-22 programs, which startled lower level QDR 

participants referred to as an eleventh hour super-secret decision taken 

outside of the QDR panel structure.43 

Force structure was largely left alone after certain cuts in modernization 

programs and infrastructure cuts, but the services were levied cuts in personnel end strength. Each received an equivalent amount that needed to be 

paid for: for example, the Navy had to produce savings equal to the cost of 

a battle group (dubbed battle group equivalent [BGE], in the acronym loving halls of the Pentagon). The Air Force and Navy took most of their cuts 

from the active force, while the Army chose to make most of their cuts in 

the Reserves and National Guard.44 

Results 

The results of the QDR were fairly minor compared to the sweeping 

changes following the New Look. Force structure was almost completely 

unchanged (table 4), with most of the cuts already present in the fiveTable 4 

Major Elements of Force Structure 

FY 1997 FY 2003 QDR 

ARMY 

Active Divisions 10 10 10 

Reserve Personnel 582 575 530 

NAVY 

Aircraft Carriers (Active/Reserve) 11/1 11/1 11/1 

Air Wings (Active/Reserve) 10/1 10/1 10/1 

Amphibious Ready Groups 12 12 12 

Attack Submarines 73 52 50 

Surface Combatants 128 131 116 

AIR FORCE 

Active Fighter Wings 13 13 12+ 

Reserve Fighter Wings 7 7 8 

Reserve Air Defense Squadrons 10 6 4 

Bombers (Total)  202 187 187 

MARINE CORPS 

Marine Expeditionary Forces 3 3 3 

Source: Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, Office of the Secretary of Defense, May 1997, 21. 

46 
year defense program. The cuts in manpower (table 5) also look relatively small compared to the New Look, or even since the fall of the 

Berlin Wall in 1989. However, this should not be surprising: the New 

Look was an effort to drastically cut defense spending, while the QDR 

looked towards how to adapt the force for the future with a more or less 

steady state budget. 

Table 5


Defense Manpower


FY 1989 FY 1997 FY 2003 QDR 

Active* 2,130,000 1,450,000 1,420,000 1,360,000 

Reserve 1,170,000 900,000 890,000 835,000 

Civilian* 1,110,000 800,000 720,000 640,000 

*Personnel numbers do not include Navy outsourcing initiatives planned prior to the QDR. 

Source: Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, Office of the Secretary of Defense, May 1997, 21. 

Overtime: The NDP and the QDR 

The NDP used two different mechanisms to fulfill its requirements to 

comment on the QDR. During QDR execution, the NDP provided feedback to QDR panels from February through April.45 The NDP also wrote 

a formal assessment of the QDR that was given to the secretary of 

defense and Congress in May 1997.46 The NDP assessment agreed with 

many of the elements found in the QDR, including particularly favorable 

comments on the published QDR strategy. However, the panel went on 

to state that there was “insufficient connectivity between the strategy on 

the one hand, and force structure, operational concepts, and procurement decisions on the other.” The NDP assessment also stated that the 

QDR focused more on near-term issues than preparing for the future— 

setting the stage for the NDP’s own report, which was required by the 

original legislation to take a longer term view than the QDR (2010 and 

beyond versus up to 2005).47 

Beyond this point, the NDP became a process unto itself. In brief, it 

originally planned a sequential process of composing alternative future 

environments, evaluating national security and military strategy alternatives, and deriving capabilities and proposed force structures from those 

alternatives. However, approximately half way through this process (in 

late summer 1997), the panel apparently decided that the long-term 

future was too uncertain to provide useful alternative force structures.48 

Instead, the NDP turned to addressing different challenges the United 

States will likely face in the 2010–2020 time frame and advocating a 

“transformation strategy” to prepare for that uncertain future.49 

47

The QDR as a Planning Process 

The QDR used a far different planning process than the New Look. It 

involved far more participants, yet was almost entirely restricted to members of the DOD. It was executed on a far more ambitious time schedule 

than the New Look, and it was executed more or less in accordance with 

an overall design. How did these differences play out during the QDR, and 

what was their influence (if any) on the results of the QDR? 

The QDR Began as a Bottom-Up Process and Ended as a Top-Down 

Process. This was at least partly intentional.50 The early process was 

designed to be as inclusive as possible with steadily more focused guidance from the integration group and steering group to bring the process 

together. 

However, some problems cropped up during execution. The original 

guidance was broad enough to allow the different panels and their subgroups to launch off in an almost completely uncoordinated manner. 

Some participants described this as “go forth and do analysis” guidance 

leading to “charging off in all directions.”51 The unwieldy integration and 

senior steering groups could not resolve these problems. 

An ad hoc solution appeared when the JROC imposed itself on the 

process. The process remained primarily a bottom-up process after this 

imposition because the JROC did not add new agenda items, but some 

participants believed the JROC provided more productive feedback and 

act as a filter for briefings before submission to the senior steering group. 

However, budgetary constraints and the high priority given to funding 

modernization programs generated top-level pressure that drove much of 

the manpower intensive activity in the latter phases of the QDR. When the 

DPP brief and the infrastructure panel highlighted problems with modernization funding, the secretary of defense pressed the services to identify where the funds would come from, including the assessment of proportional cuts if necessary. By the time the QDR reached the “endgame” 

phase, decisions were being made at very senior levels. One example of 

this was the tactical air (TACAIR) cuts, which came from outside the QDR 

panel process. Many action officers believed that their efforts had been 

wasted because they felt they had unknowingly been working on the 

wrong problems.52 

But did these problems influence the results of the QDR? After all, any 

process involving thousands of people is likely to upset somebody. 

However, Deputy Secretary White had already laid out the danger of 

unclear guidance in such a process. “Secretary Perry and I must give clear 

guidance on what needs to be examined and accomplished. If we don’t 

give clear guidance, we may only get changes at the margins—status quoplus—rather [than] the fundamental rethinking we need.”53 

Based on this narrow criterion alone, the QDR process failed. Most of 

the QDR participants interviewed for this study stated they felt the QDR 

process made it very hard to push any major changes through. There were 

48

too many panels working in uncoordinated, semi-independent fashion in 

a short span of time without an overall theme to make change happen. 

Without such a push, the natural inertia of an organization the size of the 

Defense Department made it necessary to push desired changes from the 

top late in the QDR.54 

The QDR Was a Largely Parallel Process Rather Than Sequential. 

Again, this is no surprise. OSD and the JS had originally intended to use 

a largely sequential process, but the time constraints imposed by 

Congress and budgetary process schedules forced much of the QDR 

actions to be accomplished in parallel fashion. 

The biggest problem associated with this parallel arrangement was 

the inability of the QDR to evolve according to its own strategy.55 This 

was not for lack of trying—the strategy panel was to have received a running start from the JSR and draw up the original strategy by January. 

But problems in finalizing the JSR slowed this effort, and the other work 

of the QDR was well underway by the time the draft strategy was circulated. Additional pressures (the adding of JROC and NDP briefings to 

the workload and the top-down drive to resolve the modernization shortfall) did not help. 

The QDR Became Primarily a Resource Rather  Than Strategy 

Based Process. Most participants (especially from the services) perceived 

the QDR as a cut drill because that is what they spent their time focusing on. The main interaction between panels (such as the Infrastructure 

panel) concerned resources, and the big push in the assessment phase 

was finding ways to resolve the modernization shortfall. 

One result of the focus on resources was the failure to draw full conclusions from the new QDR strategy. The JS had an arguable case: if the 

demands faced by forces in the QDR strategy (and/or practice) were larger 

than those in the BUR were, one would expect the force structure to be 

larger than the BUR force rather than smaller. The QDR strategy explicitly adds ongoing small-scale contingencies (SSC) to the BUR’s 2-

MRC/MTW baseline. While the QDR does call for a reexamination of the 

forces and capabilities for fighting and winning MTWs based on increases 

in technology,56 some cuts in modernization (such as the F-22) were justified on the basis of maintaining rather than increasing friendly capabilities.57 There was no attempt to state that future MTW opponents were 

likely to be weaker than those assessed in the BUR, and the very difficult 

challenge of defining just how much force structure is needed or desirable 

to handle an MTW was not addressed in the QDR. 

The QDR Focused Almost Exclusively on the Military Instrument 

of Power. This was one of the critiques provided by the NDP—that a 

Defense Department based review will inevitably focus on military issues 

rather than the larger security context. Some QDR participants seconded 

this opinion. 

However, this probably had less of an influence on the results of the 

QDR than first meets the eye. The 1997 QDR took place at the beginning 

49

of the Clinton administration’s second term, and many senior QDR leaders (though not Secretary Cohen, of course) had already worked with other 

members of the administration for years. The existing national security 

strategy of engagement and enlargement had an obvious influence on the 

shape and respond aspects of the QDR strategy. The two-way nature of 

this interaction was reflected in the May 1997 national security strategy, 

which redefined the entire national security strategy in the shape, 

respond, and prepare terms used in the QDR military strategy.58 These 

factors would have been absent if a new administration had taken office 

in 1997, making linkage between the QDR and other instruments of 

power more tenuous. 

The Cochair Arrangement between OSD and the JS Led to Split 

Objectives. This was an observation made by many service participants— 

that for the most part OSD seemed to think the QDR was a budget drill 

while the JS thought it was a strategy drill. This seemed to stem from how 

each viewed the QDR: OSD (in general) wanted the QDR to be driven by 

strategy within tight budget constraints, while some in the JS and the 

services wanted to explicitly reflect the burden of SSCs and the resulting 

high-operations tempo on the force.59 

The result of having two divergent vectors was to largely cancel each 

other out. OSD was able to raise awareness of the modernization shortfall, but the resolution proposed in the QDR was based on some fairly tenuous assumptions.60 “In the end game, Joint Staff analyses . . . permitted 

the JCS and JROC to block more far-reaching force structure or programmatic changes.”61 On the other hand, the JS gained recognition for 

the SSC concept that addresses the burden imposed on military forces by 

the need to shape the current and future security environments. However, 

the force that will be meeting those challenges is smaller than the BUR 

force rather than larger. 

There  Was a Far Greater Use of Models and Similar  Analytical 

Tools in the QDR Than in the New Look. In fact, the GAO had originally criticized the BUR for its use of nonreproducible military judgment— 

a clear signal that decisions based on modeling or other objective analyses would be preferred. The JS credited the Dynamic Commitment model 

created by J-8 with their success in blocking deep force structure 

changes.62 Other panels used different models to estimate cost-effectiveness trade-offs for different systems and concepts. 

The problem with using such models as the ultimate arbiter is that they 

are not objective—each model must be carefully analyzed for hints of 

biases or other shortcomings before attempting to interpret its results. 

Current DOD models such as TACWAR have significant flaws in forecasting fairly basic force on force actions; they can not be relied on to provide 

a perfect picture of tomorrow’s nonlinear battlefield.63 Even a perfect 

model (capable of providing very accurate results for a given set of inputs) 

would still be driven by what kinds of cases/scenarios are being run 

and/or what those forces are being compared against. 

50

The NDP Report Came Very Late in the Process. The NDP report was 

filed in December 1997 as required by the original legislation. This gave 

the NDP ample time to work different issues sequentially and tie them into 

a coherent whole. Unfortunately, most of the 1997 budgeting process had 

been completed before the NDP report arrived. This meant that even if the 

NDP recommended a specific change, it would have been very difficult to 

reflect this change in the existing budget process. 

As has been shown, the planning processes used in the QDR and the 

New Look did play a role in how these two very differently structured 

strategic planning efforts played out. Future strategic planners can use 

these experiences as any general uses historical experience—to provide 

insights (though not absolute rules) on how things might work the next 

time. These possible insights are the subject of chapter 5. 

Notes 

1. Office of the Secretary of Defense,  Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review 

(Washington, D.C.: GPO, May 1997), iii–iv. 

2. Ibid., iii. 

3. Zalmay Khalilzad and David Ochmanek, “Rethinking U.S. Defense Planning,” 

Survival 39, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 43–64. 

4. The White House, A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, 

February 1996. This report was the latest in a series which is updated annually, spelling 

out how the current administration envisions using military forces within the larger context of overall national security policy. 

5. Khalilzad and Ochmanek, 43. 

6. United States, Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, Directions 

for Defense: Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces 

(Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1995), 4–9 and 4–10. 

7. National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, Public Law 104–201, Subtitle B-Force 

Structure Review, secs. 921–926, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 2 December 1997, available from 

http://www.defenselink.mil/topstory/quad_leg.html. 

8. The Military Force Structure Review Act passed the United States Senate by a vote 

of 100 to 0. From Information Paper, JCS J-8, “Quadrennial Defense Review,” 3 September 

1996. 

9. National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, sec. 923 (b) and 924. 

10. A point reiterated in many interviews. OSD had little to gain here—any work done 

would be overturned if Sen. Robert Dole won the election; even acting on the assumption 

that President Clinton would be reelected could become a political issue, along with any 

actions suggested by OSD. 

11. Ibid. 

12. Ibid. See also “QDR Lessons Learned Study, Phase I—Interim Report,” draft IDA 

briefing file anno07427f.ppt, 12 January 1998, 16 and 17. 

13. Ibid. See also Quadrennial Defense Review Roadmap briefing, JCS J-8, 9 

September 1996, slides 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. (Secret) Information extracted is unclassified. 

14. Elaine M. Grossman, “QDR Strategy Review Retains Two-MRCs, But Shifts Emphasis 

to Ongoing Ops,” Inside the Pentagon 12, no. 47 (21 November 1996): 1, and 11–14. 

15. OSD Public Affairs News Release, “Deputy Secretary of Defense John White 

Outlines Quadrennial Defense Review before Defense Science Board,” n.p.; on-line, 

Internet, 18 October 1996, available from 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct96/b101896_bt594-96.html. 

16. Interviews. 

17. Ibid. 

18. Grossman, 1, and 11–14. 

51

19. Elaine M. Grossman, “Air Force and Navy Object to Joint Strategy Review’s Army


Orientation,” Inside the Pentagon 12, no. 48 (28 November 1996): 1, and 6–8.


20. Interviews.


21. Ibid.


22. DOD news briefing, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs,


“Quadrennial Defense Review,” n.p.; Internet, 12 December 1996, available from


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec96/t121296_t1212qdr.html. 


23. Ibid.


24. Ibid.


25. Ibid.


26. “QDR Analysis: A Retrospective Look at Joint Staff Participation,” RAND briefing/


working paper, November 1997 (QDR Insights, Version 10), 14.


27. “QDR Lessons Learned Study, Phase I—Interim Report,” 16 and 17.


28. Interviews.


29. Ibid.


30. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, 20.


31. Interviews. See also draft IDA briefing file anno07427f.ppt, 26 and 27.


32. Ibid., 20, 21, and 23.


33. Ibid.


34. Ibid., 24, 26, and 27.


35. Descriptions of these paths are in the Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review,


21–22.


36. Interviews. See also draft IDA briefing file anno07427f.ppt, 18–19.


37. Interviews. See also RAND, QDR Insights, Version 10, 15.


38. RAND, QDR Insights, Version 10, 17.


39. Interviews.


40. Ibid.


41. Ibid. See also draft IDA briefing file anno07427f.ppt, 25, 26, and 27. 


42. Interviews.


43. Ibid.


44. Ibid.


45. Ibid.


46. Public Document, The National Defense Panel Assessment of the May 1997


Quadrennial Defense Review, n.p.; on-line, Internet, 10 December 1997, available from


http://www.defenselink.mil/topstory/ndp_assess.html. 


47. National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, secs. 923 and 924, n.p.; on-line,


Internet, 2 December 1997, available from


http://www.defenselink.mil/topstory/quad_leg.html.


48. Interviews.


49. Report of the National Defense Panel, Transforming Defense: National Security in


the 21st Century, December 1997. 


50. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, 1.


51. Interviews. See also draft IDA briefing file anno07427f.ppt, 18–21 and 26–27. See


also RAND QDR Insights, Version 10, 11–12 and 15.


52. Interviews.


53. OSD Public Affairs News Release, 18 October 1996. Speech occurred on 9 October


1996. On-line, Internet, 27 March 1998, available from


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct96/b101896_bt594-96.html.


54. Interviews.


55. Noted both in interviews and in the NDP critique.


56. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, 13.


57. Ibid., 45.


58. The White House,  A National Security Strategy for A New Century, n.p.; on-line,


Internet, May 1997 available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/Strategy. 


59. Interviews.


60. The National Defense Panel Assessment of the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense


Review.


61. RAND, QDR Insights, Version 10, 12.


62. Ibid.


63. Khalilzad and Ochmanek; and RAND, QDR Insights, Version 10, 34.


52

Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Any planning process aimed at creating an integrated national security 

strategy will be unique in some fashion. The diverse and complex array of 

personalities, organizations, adversaries (real and imagined), technological issues, and other factors that can influence the objectives, conduct, 

and outcome of strategic planning make this a virtual certainty. Fully 

understanding how just one process unfolded involves a staggering 

amount of research—often into the realm of murky issues such as personal thoughts of leaders or organizational culture for key groups. The 

specific details produced by such research will be partly or almost completely irrelevant as soon as one looks at a different case study. 

Given this problem, is there any value in studying strategic planning 

processes? I believe there is—for the same reasons that the study of military history can provide insights into tomorrow’s conflicts despite the 

similar problems with changes in culture, tactics, technologies, and personalities. The key is looking for insights rather than checklists, along 

with an appreciation for how the differences in context between what one 

is planning now and what happened in the past may undermine or reinforce these insights. 

This study sought to illuminate how the process of strategic planning 

could influence the results of strategic planning by looking at two specific 

case studies. Much more research can and should be done to develop any 

comprehensive theory of strategic planning in general or national security 

planning in particular. However, insights can be drawn from these two 

cases as a point of departure for future efforts—whether they involve 

future QDRs (whatever they may be called) or additional research. In that 

light, the following insights are offered. 

Sequential Processes  Are Generally Preferable—Especially If 

Major Changes Are Anticipated. Carrying out tasks sequentially allows 

one to follow the classic pattern discussed in chapter 1—review the environment, set objectives, derive a broad national security strategy to 

achieve the objectives, and then design a national military strategy congruent with the overall strategy. 

Sequential processes do not preclude feedback. NSC 162 was still being 

revised when the Everest Committee began its work, and the military 

strategy work done in the QDR (based on an existing national strategy) led 

in turn to modifications in the 1997 national security strategy. 

Even where time pressures force certain actions to be done in parallel, 

some theme or guidance needs to come first to bind the actions together. 

The New Look’s biggest disconnect occurred when the action officers 

developing the fiscal year 1955 budget and the Everest Committee fol53

lowed divergent paths. Deputy Secretary White recognized this challenge 

when he noted that clear guidance from the secretary of defense and/or 

himself would be necessary for the QDR to produce revolutionary change 

rather than status quo plus. 

A Published Design Is Not Required, but It Is Helpful. One of the factors that helped the QDR meet its deadlines despite the challenges faced 

during its production was awareness by all of when decisions had to be 

made. The more people one has involved, the more having a published plan 

for all to see can help—and this probably applies even more to a more parallel process where participants are expected to take actions simultaneously. 

The New Look showed that one does not need a published process 

design to produce significant changes in national security strategy. 

However, President Eisenhower had a clear vision of what he wanted to do 

and which players (the augmented NSC, the joint chiefs of staff, etc.) he 

needed to bring along to get there. It is easy to envision how divisions 

between different members of the Joint Chiefs (Ridgway and Twining) or 

the NSC (Secretary Wilson versus Secretary Humphrey and Budget 

Director Dodge) could have brought the New Look to a halt without 

Eisenhower’s direction and participation at key moments. 

Clear Guidance Is Important for Both Top-Down and Bottom-Up 

Processes. Most steps undertaken in the New Look (the Solarium project, 

the Sequoia deliberations, and the Everest Committee) were given clear 

charters on what their tasks were and what support was available to carry 

out those tasks. This did not dictate a specific solution; for example, the 

new joint chiefs meeting on the Sequoia were given a set of challenges they 

had to address. It was up to them to derive a solution. 

The lack of charters governing how the different QDR panels would 

work with each other was cited as a source of frustration by several QDR 

participants. Each panel had a list of objectives and critical questions provided by the design and approach briefing of 12 December 1996. However, 

it seems that either the details on how the panels were to work together 

were not clearly conveyed to the panels or that some panels felt free to 

depart from such guidance. 

It Is Generally Better to Appoint a Lead Person or Organization 

for a Given Task Rather Than Dividing Responsibility. This principle 

is familiar to military members as unity of command—making sure that 

responsibility and accountability are traced to a single individual. 

The QDR balanced its panels between cochairs from OSD and the JS. 

This meant that smooth functioning of the panel depended to a significant 

degree on the objectives and personal chemistry between the two leaders. 

For the most part this seems to have gone well, but some QDR participants perceived tension between OSD’s objectives and those of the JS. 

These tended to cancel each other out so that neither of their concerns 

were fully resolved. 

54

Budget Timelines Will Almost Always Be a Factor. Military services 

get most of their resources from their governments (though exceptions do 

occur, such as the Chinese People’s Liberation Army operating several factories and keeping the profits for military applications). The timelines and 

details needed to justify military expenditures to its political authority will 

have to be dealt with somehow—there should, after all, be a link between 

strategic planning and the resources necessary to carry out the proposed 

strategy. The questions are how this will occur in the process and how 

flexible the budgetary timelines are with respect to the other tasks 

involved in strategic planning. 

The New Look ran into this twice—with the fiscal year 1954 budget 

(modified between February and April 1953) and the fiscal year 1955 

budget. The fiscal year 1954 budget was basically given short-term 

changes pending completion of the New Look. The fiscal year 1955 budget 

was more troublesome. The dual-track approach adopted between the 

Everest Committee and the fiscal year 1955 budget preparation may have 

been inevitable given the time necessary to complete required budgetary 

details, but it left a gulf between strategy and budget that had to be 

painfully wrenched back together in early December 1953. 

The QDR addressed this factor up front, and its integration with the 

budget process allowed for immediate input into the 1997 budget cycle. 

However, this came at the price of very aggressive QDR timelines. 

Furthermore, the QDR legislation (which remains in effect) provides a new 

administration with three extra months to complete the review—which 

would lead in turn to a compressed budgetary process. The CORM report 

advocated changes in the DOD budgeting system to make it more flexible 

for such situations—to explicitly link the strategy review with the budgetary process.1 

The More Changes  You  Want to Make, the More  Top Down and 

Sequential You May Need to Be. An organization the size of DOD—much 

less the entire US government—tends to have a tremendous amount of 

inertia that has to be overcome if sweeping changes are intended. A 

sequential process generally allows more time for a consensus to form and 

disagreements to be openly addressed. This may not achieve buy-in from 

participating organizations or individuals, but it may help produce acquiescence. A more top-down process tends to have a clearer vision—and 

may have the authority to encourage acceptance of the need for changes. 

The Eisenhower administration took office with (in the president’s 

words) a clear mandate for change. He felt the nation was on the wrong 

path, with short-term decisions risking bankruptcy without providing 

solid security. A sequential process made sense because a new national 

security team had to come together and produce a new security (including military) strategy to meet these challenges. 

The QDR operated from the basis of an existing national security strategy and in an administration that had been working together. These factors helped make a parallel planning process more feasible. The wide par55

ticipation in the QDR process was intended to help foster additional buyin from different services and agencies. 

These insights only scratch the surface of how strategic planning 

processes may interact. For a more comprehensive analysis, additional 

research should be taken to flesh out these ideas. Some possible 

inquiries: are these insights unique to a US context? To a democracy? 

How might changes in technology influence planning processes; for example, will a networked world be more conducive to parallel processing and 

rapid bottom-up changes? Or will the vast amount of inputs make topdown guidance even more important? 

Answers to these questions will help guide future planners. The 

increasing rate of change in today’s world suggests that strategies will 

need to be reviewed on a more frequent basis; at the same time, decisions 

made today will help shape the options available in the future. Historical 

experience can never be a perfect guide to future action for strategic planning any more than it can for military operations. But we—and our 

heirs—will live in the future shaped in part by today’s decisions. The 

insights we gain from the study of past processes make it more likely that 

the decisions produced by today’s efforts will achieve our objectives and 

shape the future for the better. 

Notes 

1. Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces,  Directions for Defense: 

Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces (Washington, D.C.: 

GPO 1995), 4–9 through 4–12. 

56