Chapter 4, Part 2: The Department of Defense
Day 12 of reading and sharing my notes on Project 2025 (the long title is Mandate for Leadership 2024: The Conservative Promise, in case you're searching for it). Here's my approach and why I’m doing this.
SUMMARY
We're still in Section 2: The Common Defense, Chapter 4: Department of Defense by Christopher Miller. I covered his bio earlier.
This section is on "Needed Reforms."
Miller's first point is "Prioritize a denial defense against China." He is specifically talking about keeping China from taking over Taiwan by: 1) requiring that "all U.S. defense efforts ... focus on ensuring the ability of American forces" to keep China out of Taiwan; and 2) "Prioritize the U.S. conventional force planning construct to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan before allocating resources to other missions, such as simultaneously fighting another conflict."
MY OPINION
I don't want us fighting anything, but it seems strange to prioritize China, no matter what else is happening in the world.
SUMMARY
His second reform is "Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing." He has a five policies for getting allies to "take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense," from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He suggests 1) "burden-sharing" become "a central part of U.S. defense strategy"; 2) get Taiwan and other allies in the Pacific to spend and collaborate more; 3) "transform NATO" so the allies provide most of the forces to deter Russia "while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent"; 4) keep supporting Israel while getting other "Gulf partners" to defend themselves and work together; 5) get South Korea "to take the lead in ints conventional defense against North Korea."
**- His third reform is to "Implement nuclear modernization and expansion." His two policies are to "Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously: and to "develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring ... to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion."
MY OPINION
Just a reminder that the U.S. is the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons. I remember the arms race in the 1980s, and I don't want to go back. It's a waste, and it's dangerous. Instead, we should be incentivizing nonproliferation around the world.
SUMMARY
His fourth reform is to "Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing." He suggests keeping the military forces needed to deal with terrorism "but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts" and to enhance "the capability of allies and partners" to fight terrorism in their regions.
MY OPINION
There's a lot of talk about helping other countries take the lead. I don't disagree, but so far, it's short on specifics about how to accomplish that.
SUMMARY
The next section is on the Department of Defense "Acquisition and Sustainment (A&S)."
He says the DOD's budget process forces the military to use outdated technology and "equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors." He also criticizes "the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse (sic) culture that have developed over the decades ..."
He advocates for three reforms, which several steps under each:
"Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process.
"Strengthen America's defense industrial base."
"Optimize the DOD acquisition community."
Specifically, he wants the DOD to move "away from program-specific stovepipes" and be able to "move money around more easily ..." He says the president should examine the recommendations of the "congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people."
MY OPINION
What about those that the administration doesn't like? Should they just ignore those even though they're from a congressional commission?
SUMMARY
He suggests legislation to provide funding outside of the normal process or creating a "'fast track' for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs."
He says the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering should "terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work." And he says the Secretary of Defense should research what our enemies are doing to get new technologies out faster than we do.
He says we should keep our stockpiles of ammunition that have been "depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine." He advocates for working with "industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact ... to incentivize industry to help America's military innovate and field needed capabilities."
MY OPINION
Why should we be asking industry what the military needs? I get that private industry makes military equipment, but industry's goal is to make money.
SUMMARY
Miller advocates "multiyear procurements and block buys," saying it will "improve private-sector rates of return ..." and reduce the number of procurement competitions.
MY OPINION
He seems to be saying that by having fewer contracts, that will save money. I don't know anything about defense contractors, but this seems like an arrangement that would make corruption easier.
SUMMARY
He says we should close loopholes that let defense contractors manufacture weapons overseas.
MY OPINION
I don't know what this next bit means at all, so I'm just going to quote it straight:
SUMMARY
"Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or 'friendshoring' of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate."
He advocates for helping small businesses grow to foster competition and to let them know how they could work with the DOD.
**- He says the DOD should incentivize speeding up decision-making, and "design a system that allows decision-makers to stay within the law but bypass unnecessary departmental regulations ..."
MY OPINION
Who decides which departmental regulations are unnecessary? And how do they decide that? (I'm not saying this shouldn't be done; I just know that regulations come from somewhere, so I think it should be done with care.)
SUMMARY
He advocates adding more "personnel, resources, and training" for acquisition "to develop, prototype, acquire, and field required capabilities at the speed of relevance to meet America's pacing threats and maintain a warfighting advantage."
He also suggests expanding the Defense Acquisition University's "mission to include accreditation of non-DOD institutions," saying it is "an unnecessary barrier to entry in a career field that is vital to the DOD mission."
That's it for today. The next section is "DOD Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)."