Comments on: A National Security Act for the 21st Century http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309 Gary Hart blog Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:25:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gloria Marie http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-743 Gloria Marie Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:43:59 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-743 Excellent work. You have made a brand-new fan. Please keep up the fabulous posts and I look forward to more of your entertaining writings. Excellent work. You have made a brand-new fan. Please keep up the fabulous posts and I look forward to more of your entertaining writings.

]]> By: Gary Hart is correct: America needs “A national security act for the 21st Century” « Project on National Security Reform http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-214 Gary Hart is correct: America needs “A national security act for the 21st Century” « Project on National Security Reform Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:52:26 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-214 [...] Hart has responded to this in the comments on his blog, hosted by Matters of Principle. Sen. Hart’s own [...] [...] Hart has responded to this in the comments on his blog, hosted by Matters of Principle. Sen. Hart’s own [...]

]]> By: Gary Hart http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-186 Gary Hart Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:29:38 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-186 Jim Locher is better equipped by background and experience than anyone I know to comment on defense structures and reforms, as his comments here prove. He has given extensive thought to the need for our Cold War structures and institutions to adapt to the new realities, opportunities as well as threats, of the 21st century. I encourage all those concerned with the urgent need for this adaptation and the reasons for it to follow the work of the Project on National Security Reform. As Jim says, the key is to change the way people think and operate today. Jim Locher is better equipped by background and experience than anyone I know to comment on defense structures and reforms, as his comments here prove. He has given extensive thought to the need for our Cold War structures and institutions to adapt to the new realities, opportunities as well as threats, of the 21st century. I encourage all those concerned with the urgent need for this adaptation and the reasons for it to follow the work of the Project on National Security Reform. As Jim says, the key is to change the way people think and operate today.

]]> By: Kevin W. http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-183 Kevin W. Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:33:51 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-183 About the only thing I could say for certain, in light of the shorter life cycles of everything in the digital age, is that we will not have the "luxury" of leaning upon the same national defense structure for the next six decades as we largely have for the past six decades (nor do the reports on pnsr.org or Senator Hart's article imply that we will). Much like companies who are adapting to an age of constant change, our national defense structure must incorporate nimbleness, flexibility, and a "crow's nest" view to the rapidly evolving nature of future threats, as ongoing core institutional values. On a separate note, I would recommend "House of War" by James Carroll to all who read this post. About the only thing I could say for certain, in light of the shorter life cycles of everything in the digital age, is that we will not have the “luxury” of leaning upon the same national defense structure for the next six decades as we largely have for the past six decades (nor do the reports on pnsr.org or Senator Hart’s article imply that we will). Much like companies who are adapting to an age of constant change, our national defense structure must incorporate nimbleness, flexibility, and a “crow’s nest” view to the rapidly evolving nature of future threats, as ongoing core institutional values.

On a separate note, I would recommend “House of War” by James Carroll to all who read this post.

]]> By: James R. Locher III http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-182 James R. Locher III Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:33:23 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-182 Senator Hart is correct. “The only issue that matters is whether Cold War strategies and structures adequately address present and future realities or whether the realities of a new century demand a fresh look at the institutions and policies, military and non-military, that will make the nation secure.” Senator Hart should take comfort, this issue has already been answered. “After our examination of the new strategic environment of the next quarter century and of a strategy to address it, this Commission concludes that significant changes must be made in the structures and processes of the US national security apparatus.” The above quotation is the very first sentence of a commission’s report that was delivered to the Congress on March 15, 2001 – long before the attacks of 9/11 that further clarified the problems of our Cold War legacy thinking and institutions. Senator Hart should also take heart – literally. He along with former Senator Warren Rudman led a team of distinguished Americans that wrote that sentence. In fact, the two-and-a-half year effort addressed the nature of the 21st Century threat, questioned weapon procurements, took on the intelligence community, and raised the implications of challenges for which the military is either not suited or needs to be collaborative with other skills from across government and others. The Project on National Security Reform’s (PNSR) first report, Forging a New Shield, delivered to the President and Congress in November 2008 and consisting of some 800 pages, identified and analyzed specific problems of our current national security system and described the root causes. It then presented a vision for 21st Century national security and the path to reach it. PNSR’s newly released report, Turning Ideas Into Action, focuses on specific implementation steps and tools that will make the vision a reality. PNSR believes that we must organize for success. We need a collaborative, agile and innovative national security system that can work together across agencies, departments, jurisdictions, and sectors. This system must horizontally and vertically integrate all elements of national power to make timely, informed decisions and take decisive action. Reaching this vision will require significant changes to the way people think and operate today. The national security apparatus must: - Focus at the strategic level - Concentrate on national missions and outcomes - Match resources to missions - Take a whole-of-government approach - Establish a national security workforce - Leverage and extend the collective knowledge of the entire national security community Getting there will not be easy. Many obstacles must be overcome. First, the mental model that persists is clearly that of the Cold War system and is dominated by defense and intelligence, and to a lesser extent, diplomacy – each in its own separate domain. Second, political sensitivities, concerned about power, jurisdiction and resources, resist change. Third, the sheer size of national security reform is huge and can be daunting unless broken into manageable pieces. The fourth obstacle is bandwidth – that is, the time and attention needed to focus on the reform challenge is overwhelmed by the requirements of managing the daily “in-box.” Leaders like Senator Hart must continue to demand reform. Momentum is building, but in the face of the great challenges the nation faces, we need more action. The movement for true national security reform needs more push, more support, more drive and more commitment from those at all levels who know that things must change. Hard work lies ahead, but the time to act is now. Understanding these challenges and the imperative for timely reform, PNSR is engaging with stakeholders and external experts to further discover and develop potential solutions, inviting those who want to advance reform to contribute. More information can be found at www.pnsr.org. James R. Locher III President and CEO Project on National Security Reform Senator Hart is correct. “The only issue that matters is whether Cold War strategies and structures adequately address present and future realities or whether the realities of a new century demand a fresh look at the institutions and policies, military and non-military, that will make the nation secure.”

Senator Hart should take comfort, this issue has already been answered. “After our examination of the new strategic environment of the next quarter century and of a strategy to address it, this Commission concludes that significant changes must be made in the structures and processes of the US national security apparatus.” The above quotation is the very first sentence of a commission’s report that was delivered to the Congress on March 15, 2001 – long before the attacks of 9/11 that further clarified the problems of our Cold War legacy thinking and institutions.

Senator Hart should also take heart – literally. He along with former Senator Warren Rudman led a team of distinguished Americans that wrote that sentence. In fact, the two-and-a-half year effort addressed the nature of the 21st Century threat, questioned weapon procurements, took on the intelligence community, and raised the implications of challenges for which the military is either not suited or needs to be collaborative with other skills from across government and others.

The Project on National Security Reform’s (PNSR) first report, Forging a New Shield, delivered to the President and Congress in November 2008 and consisting of some 800 pages, identified and analyzed specific problems of our current national security system and described the root causes. It then presented a vision for 21st Century national security and the path to reach it. PNSR’s newly released report, Turning Ideas Into Action, focuses on specific implementation steps and tools that will make the vision a reality.

PNSR believes that we must organize for success. We need a collaborative, agile and innovative national security system that can work together across agencies, departments, jurisdictions, and sectors. This system must horizontally and vertically integrate all elements of national power to make timely, informed decisions and take decisive action.

Reaching this vision will require significant changes to the way people think and operate today. The national security apparatus must:
- Focus at the strategic level
- Concentrate on national missions and outcomes
- Match resources to missions
- Take a whole-of-government approach
- Establish a national security workforce
- Leverage and extend the collective knowledge of the entire national security community

Getting there will not be easy. Many obstacles must be overcome. First, the mental model that persists is clearly that of the Cold War system and is dominated by defense and intelligence, and to a lesser extent, diplomacy – each in its own separate domain. Second, political sensitivities, concerned about power, jurisdiction and resources, resist change. Third, the sheer size of national security reform is huge and can be daunting unless broken into manageable pieces. The fourth obstacle is bandwidth – that is, the time and attention needed to focus on the reform challenge is overwhelmed by the requirements of managing the daily “in-box.”

Leaders like Senator Hart must continue to demand reform. Momentum is building, but in the face of the great challenges the nation faces, we need more action. The movement for true national security reform needs more push, more support, more drive and more commitment from those at all levels who know that things must change. Hard work lies ahead, but the time to act is now.

Understanding these challenges and the imperative for timely reform, PNSR is engaging with stakeholders and external experts to further discover and develop potential solutions, inviting those who want to advance reform to contribute. More information can be found at http://www.pnsr.org.

James R. Locher III
President and CEO
Project on National Security Reform

]]> By: Michael http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-181 Michael Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:53:01 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-181 The nature of conflict is certainly evolving, and quickly, which makes a thorough national security review of the sort you advocate an absolute imperative. However, I don’t quite understand why that demands a new statutory basis. The changes that occurred in the late 1940s were a result of new technologies and the fact that the US was adapting to its role as one of two Superpowers. The departments and agencies created then could work now, (albeit more effectively with the kind of networking you wrote about in an earlier article). Of course the threats we face today are vastly different, more fluid and still emerging, but I think the overriding reform has to be in resizing the global, hugely expensive and often ridged military apparatus built during the Cold War. We are living in an era of shrinking resources with unmet needs here at home, many of which will determine the quality of life for Americans generally and the competitiveness of our economy for decades to come. The way we meet them, or fail to, may even determine whether the United States is able to remain a Superpower. Yet the defense budget never shrinks. Even when we talk of a “cut” we really mean slowing its growth slightly. When you look at what we spend as a percentage of federal discretionary budget, and even compared to the rest of the world combined, it is frankly obscene. What I would be interested in knowing from you, Senator Hart, is what you think US force structures should look like going forward and how much you think we really need to spend to reasonably face the kind of threats that are now emerging? Perhaps you can write about that sometime in the future. I recently went to a talk by George McGovern who said that Barry Goldwater once privately agreed with him when he said that the Pentagon budget could be cut by 25% without harming national security. I can only imagine how much waste and abuse there is in that budget today. The nature of conflict is certainly evolving, and quickly, which makes a thorough national security review of the sort you advocate an absolute imperative. However, I don’t quite understand why that demands a new statutory basis. The changes that occurred in the late 1940s were a result of new technologies and the fact that the US was adapting to its role as one of two Superpowers. The departments and agencies created then could work now, (albeit more effectively with the kind of networking you wrote about in an earlier article). Of course the threats we face today are vastly different, more fluid and still emerging, but I think the overriding reform has to be in resizing the global, hugely expensive and often ridged military apparatus built during the Cold War. We are living in an era of shrinking resources with unmet needs here at home, many of which will determine the quality of life for Americans generally and the competitiveness of our economy for decades to come. The way we meet them, or fail to, may even determine whether the United States is able to remain a Superpower. Yet the defense budget never shrinks. Even when we talk of a “cut” we really mean slowing its growth slightly. When you look at what we spend as a percentage of federal discretionary budget, and even compared to the rest of the world combined, it is frankly obscene.

What I would be interested in knowing from you, Senator Hart, is what you think US force structures should look like going forward and how much you think we really need to spend to reasonably face the kind of threats that are now emerging? Perhaps you can write about that sometime in the future.

I recently went to a talk by George McGovern who said that Barry Goldwater once privately agreed with him when he said that the Pentagon budget could be cut by 25% without harming national security. I can only imagine how much waste and abuse there is in that budget today.

]]> By: Gary Hart http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-180 Gary Hart Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:37:21 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-180 So much for the Welcome to "All people of good will and thoughtful disposition..." So much for the Welcome to “All people of good will and thoughtful disposition…”

]]> By: Larry http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309&cpage=1#comment-178 Larry Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:03:50 +0000 http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=309#comment-178 Gary Hartless is just trying to mislead America AGAIN and guarntee his FASCIST masters another stream of profits via ILLEGAL WARS and War Crimes. Gary Hart is an ememy of humanity. Just put him in prison before he and his criminal friends arrange another 9/11 style FALSE FLAG terror attack to justify more. WAR. Gary Hartless is just trying to mislead America AGAIN and guarntee his FASCIST masters another stream of profits via ILLEGAL WARS and War Crimes. Gary Hart is an ememy of humanity. Just put him in prison before he and his criminal friends arrange another 9/11 style FALSE FLAG terror attack to justify more. WAR.

]]>