Defense planning when major changes are needed

References

• Alberts, D.S., 2011. The agility advantage: A survival guide for complex enterprises and endeavors. Washington, D.C: DoD Command and Control Research Program.
   Google Scholar
• Arquilla, J. and Ronfeldt, D.F., 1996. The advent of netwar. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Aspin, L., 1993. Report of the bottom up review. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Beinhocker, E.D., 1999. Robust adaptive strategies. MIT sloan management review. March: 95–107.
   Google Scholar
• Bexfield, J.N., 2001. . Deep attack weapons mix study (DAWMS) case study. Alexandria, Va.: Institute for Defense Analyses.
   Google Scholar
• Bliddal, H., 2011. Reforming military command arrangements: the case of the rapid deployment joint task force. Carlisle Barracks, Penns: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
   Google Scholar
• Board, D.S., 1996. Tactics and technologies for 21-st century military superiority (in three volumes). Washington, D.C: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
   Google Scholar
• Board, D.S., 1998. Joint operations superiority in the 21-st century: integrating capabilities underwriting joint vision 2010 and beyond. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, P., Bremer, I., and Gordon, D., 2008. Managing strategic surprise. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cebrowski, A.K. and Garstka, J., 1998. Network-centric warfare: its origins and future. Naval Institute Proceedings, 123 (1), 28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Central Command, U.S., 2010. Gen. Petraeus updates guidance on use of force. Accessed at http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/884119/gen-petraeus-updates-guidance-on-use-of-force/.
   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
• Chu, D. and Bernstein, N., 1983. Decisionmaking for defense. In: S. Johnson, M. Libicki, and G. Treverton, eds. New challenges, new tools for defense decisionmaking. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, W., 1997. Report of the quadrennial defense review. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Council, N.R., 1997. Technology for the united states navy and marine corps: 2000–2035. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council, N.R., 2014. U.S. Air force strategic deterrence analytic capabilities: an assessment of methods, tools, and approaches for the 21st century security environment. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P., 2016. Capabilities for joint analysis in the department of defense: rethinking support for strategic analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., 1982. . Observations on the rapid deployment joint task force: origins, direction, and mission. Santa Monica: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., ed., 1994. New challenges in defense planning: rethinking how much is enough. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., et al., 1998. Transforming U.S. Forces: suggestions for DoD strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., ed., 2011. Dilemmas of intervention: social science for stabilization and reconstruction. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., 2014. Analysis to inform defense planning despite austerity. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., 2013. Uncertainty sensitive planning. In: S. Johnson, M. Libicki, and G. Treverton, eds. New challenges, new tools for defense decisionmaking. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 131–155.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K. and Cragin, K., eds., 2009. Social science for counterterrorism: putting the pieces together. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., Gompert, D.C., and Kugler, R., 1996. Adaptiveness in national defense: the basis of a new framework. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., Kugler, R., and Hillestad, R., 1997. Issues and options for the quadrennial defense review. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K. and Wilson, P.A., 2011. The looming crisis in U.S. Defense planning. Joint Forces Quarterly, 63, 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, 1992. Final report to congress on conduct of the Persian Gulf war. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Eikenberry, K.W., 2013. The limits of counterinsurgency doctrine in afghanistan: the other side of the coin. Foreign affairs, 92 (5), 59-62, 64-74.
   Google Scholar
• Enthoven, A. and Smith, K.W., (foreward by Kenneth Krieg and David C. Chu), 2005. How much is enough: shaping the defense program, 1961–1969. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation
   Google Scholar
• Fiott, D., 2016. Europe and the pentagon’s third offset strategy. The RUSI journal, 161, 26–31. doi:10.1080/03071847.2016.1152118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frostic, F., Lewis, K., and Bowie, C.J., 1993. The new calculus: analyzing airpower’s changing role in joint theater campaigns. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, R.M., 2014. Duty: memoirs of a secretary at war. New York, NY: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Grimes, S.R., 2008. Ppbs to ppbe: A process or principles. Carlisle Barracks, Penns.: U.S.: Army War College.
   Google Scholar
• Gunzinger, M.A.C.D., 2011. Outside-in: operating from range to defeat iran’s anti-access and area-denial threats. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
   Google Scholar
• Haasnoot, M., et al., 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23, 485–498. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagel, C., 2014. Quadrennial defense review 2014. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Henry, R., 2005. Defense transformation and the 2005 quadrennial defense review. Parameters, 35 (4), 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hines, J.E., 1999. History of the Persian gulf war, and subsequent actions of the U.S. central command. Accessed at http://www.daveross.com/centcom.html.
   Google Scholar
• Hundley, R.O., 1999. Past revolutions, future transformations: what can the history of revolutions in military affairs tell US about transforming the U.S. Military?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, B., 2018. The role of ideas in defense planning: revisiting the revolution in military affairs. Defence studies, 18 (3), 302–317.
   Google Scholar
• Keefer, E.C., 2017. Harold brown: offsetting the soviet military challenge: 1977–1981. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, Office of the Secretary of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, A.F., 2002. The military-technical revolution: A preliminary assessment. Washingon, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
   Google Scholar
• Lambeth, B., 1992. Desert storm and its meaning: the view from moscow. R-3164. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Lempert, R.J., Popper, S.W., and Bankes, S.C., 2003. Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative long-term policy analysis. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Light, P.C., 2004. The four pillars of high performance. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• March, J.G., 1996. Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 278. doi:10.2307/2393720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J.G., 2008. Explorations in organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McChrystal, S.A., 2011. It takes a network: the new front line of modern warfare. Foreign policy, March/April.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., 1994. Rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H. and Lampel, J., 1999. Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan management review, Spring, 21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., and Ahlstrand, B., 2005. Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagl, J.A., et al., 2007. U.S. Army/marine corps counterinsurgency field manual. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004. The 9/11 commission report: Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
   Google Scholar
• National Defense Panel, 1997. Transforming defense: national security in the 21st century. Washington: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council, 2000. Network centric naval forces. Washington, D.C: Naval Studies Board, National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ochmanek, D.A., et al., 1998. To find, and not to yield: how advances in information and firepower can transform theater warfare. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Owens, W.A. and Offley, E., 2000. Lifting the fog of war. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Pascale, R.T., 1991. Managing on the edge: how successful companies use conflict to stay ahead. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Pascale, R.T., 1999. Surfing the edge of chaos. MIT sloan management review (Spring), 40 (3).
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, J.B., 1978. Strategic change: logical incrementalism. Sloan management review, 20(1), 7-19.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, J.B., 1980. Managing strategic change. MIT sloan management review, 21, 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Rhyne, R.D., 2004. Special forces command and control in afghanistan. Fort Leavenworth, Kan: U.S. Army Command and Staff College.
   Google Scholar
• Ricks, T.E.M., 2006. Fiasco: the american military adventure in iraq. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, S.P., 1984. Systems analysis and the quest for rational defense. The public interest, 76, 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, P., 1995. The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2015. Does strategic planning matter? The outcomes of US national security reviews. Political science quarterly, 130, 735–765. doi:10.1002/polq.12395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2018a. How an agency’s responsibilities and political context shape government strategic planning: evidence from US federal agency quadrennial reviews. Public management review, 20, 377–396. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1285114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2018b. Tradeoffs in defense strategic planning: lessons from the U.S. quadrennial defense review. Defence studies, 18 (3), 279–301.
   Google Scholar
• Thiesen, E.E., 2003. Ground-aided precision strike: heavy bomber activity in operation enduring freedom. Maxwell AFB: Alabama: Air University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tulkoff, M.L., et al., 2010. Planning, programming, and budgeting system (ppbs)/multi-year programming reading guide. Alexandria, Virginia: Institute for Defense Analyses.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995. Future years defense program: 1996 program is considerably different from the 1995 program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Marine Corps, 1940. Small wars manual. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Van Creveld, M., 1991. The transformation of war: the most radical reinterpretation of armed conflict since clausewitz. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, W.E., Lempert, R.J., and Kwakkel, H.H., 2003. Deep uncertainty. In: S. Gass and M. Fu, eds. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 3d ed. NY: Springer, unspecified.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, B.D., 2011. The maturing revolution in military affairs. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A. and Kupers, R., 2003. Living in the futures. Harvard business review, May, unpaged.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, Y.H., et al., 2017. The use of multiple methods in the joint irregular warfare analytic baseline (jiwab) study. Journal of defense modeling and simulation, 14 (1), 45-55.
   Google Scholar
• Work, B., 2015. The third U.S. Offset strategy and its implications for partners and allies (speech at willard hotel).. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar