Tradeoffs in defense strategic planning: lessons from the U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review

References

• Allison, G.T., 1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American political science review, 63 (3), 689–718. doi:10.2307/1954423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ångström, J., 2018. The US perspective on future war: why the US relies upon Ares rather than Athena. Defence studies, 18 (3), 318–338.
   Google Scholar
• Aspin, L., 1993. Report of the bottom-up review. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, J. and Malesky, E., 2017. The continent or the ‘grand large’? Strategic culture and operational burden-sharing in NATO. International studies quarterly, 61 (1), 163–180. doi:10.1093/isq/sqw039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, F.S., 1994. Innovation in public management: the adoption of strategic planning. Public administration review, 54 (4), 322–330. doi:10.2307/977379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brands, H., 2014. What good is grand strategy? Power and purpose in American statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brands, H., 2018. Choosing primacy: U.S. strategy and global order at the dawn of the post-cold war era. Texas national security review, 1 (2), 8–33.
   Google Scholar
• Breitenbauch, H.Ø., 2015. Defence planning. Academic foresights, 13. Available from: http://www.academic-foresights.com/Defence_Planning.html.
   Google Scholar
• Breitenbauch, H. and Jakobsson, A.K., 2018. Defence planning as strategic fact: introduction. Defence studies, 18 (3), 253–261.
   Google Scholar
• Brews, P. and Purohit, D., 2007. Strategic planning in unstable environments. Long range planning, 40 (1), 64–83. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2006.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brimley, S., 2017. Getting the pentagon’s next national defense strategy right. War on the rocks, 24 May. Available from: https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/getting-the-pentagons-next-national-defense-strategy-right/
   Google Scholar
• Brimley, S. and Schulman, L.D., 2016. Au Revoir QDR. War on the rocks. 14 June. Available from: https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/au-revoir-qdr/
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J.M., 2011. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: a guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. 4th. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J.M., Edwards, L.H., and Van Slyke, D.M., 2018. Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public management review, 20 (3), 317–339. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1285111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Came, T. and Campbell, C., 2010. The dynamics of top-down organizational change: Donald Rumsfeld’s campaign to transform the U.S. defense department. Governance: an international journal of policy, administration, and institutions, 23 (3), 411–435. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2013. Preparing for the 2014 quadrennial defense review: conference proceedings, presentations, and key takeaways. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, D., 2014. Dr. Daniel Chiu on the pentagon’s newest challenges. Great decisions podcast series. Foreign Policy Association. Available from: https://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/05/06/dr-daniel-chiu-pentagons-newest-challenges/
   Google Scholar
• Christiansson, M., 2018. Defense planning beyond rationalism: the third offset strategy as a case of metagovernance. Defence studies, 18 (3), 262–278.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, R.S., 2017. Air force strategic planning: past, present, and future. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, R.S., 2018. The history and politics of defense reviews. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Cordesman, A.H., 2009. Reforming defense decisionmaking: taking responsibility and making meaningful plans. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Cornish, P. and Dorman, A.M., 2010. Breaking the mould: the United Kingdom strategic defence review 2010. International Affairs, 86 (2), 395–410. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00888.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daggett, S., 2010. Quadrennial defense review 2010: overview and implications for national security planning. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., 2002. Analytical architecture for capabilities-based planning, mission-system analysis, and transformation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., 2018. Defense planning when major changes are needed. Defense studies, 18 (3), 374–390.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K. and Wilson, P.A., 2011. Looming discontinuities in U.S. military strategy and defense planning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• De Spiegeleire, S., 2011. Ten trends in capability planning for defence and security. RUSI journal, 156 (5), 20–28. doi:10.1080/03071847.2011.626270.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, T., 2005. Quadrennial defense review time. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Available at: https://www.aei.org/publication/quadrennial-defense-review-time/
   Google Scholar
• Drezner, D.W., ed., 2009. Avoiding trivia: the role of strategic planning in American foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dueck, C., 2008. Reluctant crusaders: power, culture, and change in American grand strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dueck, C., 2015. The Obama doctrine: American grand strategy today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edelstein, D.M. and Krebs, R.R., 2015. Delusions of grand strategy: the problem with Washington’s planning obsession. Foreign affairs, 94 (6), 109–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbanna, S., Andrews, R., and Pollanen, R., 2016. Strategic planning and implementation success in public sector organizations: evidence from Canada. Public management review, 18 (7), 1017–1042. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1051576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdmann, A.P.N., 2009. Foreign policy planning through a private sector lens. In: D.W. Drezner, edited by. Avoiding trivia: the role of strategic planning in American foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 137–158.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzsimmons, M., 2006. The problem of uncertainty in strategic planning. Survival, 48 (4), 131–146. doi:10.1080/00396330601062808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flournoy, M., 2006. Did the pentagon get the quadrennial review right? Washington quarterly, 29 (2), 67–84. doi:10.1162/wash.2006.29.2.67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flournoy, M. and Edelman, E., 2014. Cuts to defense spending are hurting our national security. Washington Post. 19 September. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cuts-to-us-military-spending-are-hurting-our-national-security/2014/09/18/6db9600c-3abf-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?utm_term=.1884bdf88b46.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L., 2013. Strategy: A history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L., 2017. The meaning of strategy, Part 1: the origins. Texas national security review, 1 (1), 90–105.
   Google Scholar
• Goldgeier, J. and Suri, J., 2016. Revitalizing the U.S. national security strategy. Washington quarterly, 38 (4), 35–55. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldgeier, J.M., 1998. NATO expansion: the anatomy of a decision. Washington quarterly, 21 (1), 83–102. doi:10.1080/01636609809550295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, John, I.V. 2005. The quadrennial defense review: analyzing the major defense review process. Doctoral Dissertation. George Mason University.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C., 2010. Strategic thoughts for defence planners. Survival, 52 (3), 159–178. doi:10.1080/00396338.2010.494883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, C., 2014. Strategy and defence planning: meeting the challenge of uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gunzinger, M., 2013. Shaping America’s future military: toward a new force planning construct. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
   Google Scholar
• Håkenstad, M. and Knus, K.L., 2012. Long-term defence planning: a comparative study of seven countries. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Halperin, M.H. and Clapp, P.A., 2006. Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, D.G., et al., eds, 2006. Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henry, R., 2005. Defense transformation and the 2005 quadrennial defense review. Parameters, 35 (4), 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, K.H. and Brannen, S.J., 2010. Force planning in the 2010 QDR. Joint force quarterly, 59, 137–142.
   Google Scholar
• Huntington, S.P., 1961. The common defense: strategic programs in national politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, B.M., 2016. Forging the sword: doctrinal change in the U.S. Army. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, B.M., 2018. The role of ideas in defense planning: revisiting the revolution in military affairs. Defence studies, 18 (3), 302–317.
   Google Scholar
• Kagan, F., 2006. Finding the target: the transformation of American military policy. New York: Encounter Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, S. and Beinhocker, E.D., 2003. The real value of strategic planning. MIT sloan management review, 44 (2), 71–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlin, M., 2017. Recommendations for future national defense strategy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Policy Brief.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs, R.R., 2015. Narrative and the making of national security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, E.V., et al., 2018. Defense planning in a time of conflict: a comparative analysis of the 2001-2014 quadrennial defense reviews, and implications for the Army. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, T.G., 2001. Transforming the U.S. Armed Forces: rhetoric or reality? Naval college war review, 54 (3), 85–99.
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, T.G., ed, 2012. Competitive strategies for the 21st century: theory, history, and practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McInnis, K.J. and Lucas, N.J., 2015. What is ‘building partner capacity’? Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., and Lampel, J., 2009. Strategy safari: your complete guide through the wilds of strategic management. 2nd edition. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D.P. and Hawes, D.P., 2012. Responsiveness to reform values: the influence of the environment on performance information use. Public administration review, 72 (S1), S95–S105. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02653.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Defense Panel, 1997. Transforming defense: national defense in the 21st Century. Arlington, VA: National Defense Panel.
   Google Scholar
• National Defense Panel, 2014. Ensuring a strong U.S. defense for the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.
   Google Scholar
• Nixon, R., 1962. Six crises. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hanlon, M., 2007. The politics of defense planning. New York: NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress.
   Google Scholar
• Obama, B., 2015. National security strategy. Washington, DC: The White House.
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T.H., Pitts, D.W., and Edwards, L.H., 2010. Strategic management research in the public sector: a review, synthesis, and future directions. American review of public administration, 40 (5), 522–545. doi:10.1177/0275074010370617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popescu, I., 2017. Emergent strategy and grand strategy: how American presidents succeed in foreign policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popescu, I.C., 2018. Grand strategy vs. emergent strategy in the conduct of foreign policy. Journal of strategic studies, 41 (3), 438–460. doi:10.1080/01402390.2017.1288109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, 2010. The QDR in perspective: meeting America’s national security needs in the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, T., 2010. Vision meets reality: 2010 QDR and the 2011 defense budget. Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security.
   Google Scholar
• Silove, N., 2016. The pivot before the pivot: U.S. strategy to preserve the power balance in Asia. International Security, 40 (4), 45–88. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silove, N., 2018. Beyond the buzzword: the three meanings of ‘grand strategy’. Security studies, 27 (1), 27–57. doi:10.1080/09636412.2017.1360073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snodgrass, D.E., 2000. The QDR: improve the process to improve the product. Parameters, 30 (1), 57–68.
   Google Scholar
• Spiller, P.T., 1990. Politicians, interest groups, and regulators: a multiple-principals agency theory of regulation, or ‘let them be bribed’. Journal of law and economics, 33 (1), 65–101. doi:10.1086/467200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spring, B. and Eaglen, M., 2009. Quadrennial defense review: building blocks for national defense. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2015. Does strategic planning matter? the outcomes of U.S. national security reviews. Political science quarterly, 130, 4. doi:10.1002/polq.12395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2016. Maximizing the value of quadrennial strategic planning. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2017. The politics of strategy: why government agencies conduct major strategic reviews. Journal of public policy, 37 (1), 27–54. doi:10.1017/S0143814X15000148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2018. How an agency’s responsibilities and political context shape government strategic planning: evidence from US federal agency quadrennial reviews. Public management review, 20 (3), 377–396. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1285114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Congress, 1996. National defense authorization act for fiscal year 1997. Public law, 104–201. 110 STAT. 2422
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Congress, 2014. National defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015. Public law, 113–291.128 STAT. 3294.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Congress, 2016. National defense authorization act for fiscal year 2017. Public law, 114–328.130 STAT. 2000.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, 1997. Report of the quadrennial defense review. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, 2008. National defense strategy. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, 2010. Quadrennial defense review report. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, 2012a. Defense budget priorities and choices. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, 2012b. Sustaining U.S. global leadership: priorities for 21st century defense. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, 2014. Quadrennial defense review 2014. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of State, 2009. Town hall on the quadrennial diplomacy and development review. Available from: https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/july/125949.htm
   Google Scholar
• U.S. House of Representatives, 2014a. Committee on armed services. Hearing on the 2014 quadrennial defense review. H.A.S.C. 113-102. 3 April.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. House of Representatives, 2014b. Committee on armed services. Hearing on national defense panel assessment of the 2014 quadrennial defense review. H.A.S.C. 113-130. 2 December.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Senate, 2015. Committee on armed services. Hearing to receive testimony on improving the pentagon’s development of policy, strategy, and plans. S. Hrg. 114-395. 8 December.
   Google Scholar
• Ucko, D.H., 2009. The new counterinsurgency era: transforming the U.S. military for modern wars. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waterman, R.W. and Meier, K.J., 1998. Principal-agent models: an expansion? Journal of public administration research and theory, 8 (2), 173–202. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024377.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, B., 2012. Barriers to acting strategically: why strategy is so difficult. In: T.G. Mahnken, edited by. Competitive strategies for the 21st century: theory, history, and practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 47–67.
   Google Scholar
• Weingast, B.R., 1984. The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with Applications to the SEC). Public choice, 44 (1), 147–191. doi:10.1007/BF00124821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitford, A.B., 2005. The pursuit of political control by multiple principals. Journal of politics, 67 (1), 29–49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00306.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L. M. 2017. The budget control act and the defense budget: frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J.Q., 1989. Bureaucracy: what government agencies do and why they do it. United States: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wormuth, C., 2018. Can Mattis succeed where his predecessors have failed? Foreign policy. 23 January. Available from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/23/matiss-defense-strategy-offers-old-wine-in-a-new-bottle/.
   Google Scholar