Abstract
Ever since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been struggling to gain consensus on an appropriate force planning methodology concerning the size of its military establishment and answer the question “how much is enough.” The size and posture of the U.S. military was the principal topic of the first Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the National Defense Panel’s (NDP) Alternative Force Structure Assessment, and remains an important task for the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000, which made quadrennial defense reviews a permanent requirement, includes under its first and principal task to the Secretary of Defense a call for a comprehensive discussion of national defense strategy and the force structure best suited to implement that strategy. Consequently, the new administration, and all subsequent “new administrations” must explicitly show their hand at the complex task of force planning.
You cannot make decisions simply by asking yourself whether something might be nice to have. You have to make a judgement on how much is enough.
Robert S. McNamara
April 20, 1963
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Reference
Paul K. Davis, “Institutionalizing Planning for Adaptiveness,” New Challenges for Defense Planning, p. 81.
Les Aspin, National Security in the 1990s: Defining a New Basis for U.S. Military Forces, before the Atlantic Council of the United States, January 6, 1992, pp. 5–6.
Les Aspin, An Approach to Sizing American Conventional Forces For the Post-Soviet Era, February 25, 1992.
Colin L. Powell, “U.S. Forces: Challenges Ahead,” Foreign Affairs, Winter 1992/93, vol. 71, no. 5, p. 41.
Colin L. Powell, My American Journey (New York: Ballentine Books, 1995), p. 438.
General John M. Shalikashvili, CJCS Written Statement to Congress, March 1996, p. 18.
Floyd D. Spence, “Statement of Chairman Spence on the Release of the Commission on National Security/21st Century Phase II Report,” Press Release, April 19, 2000.
David Ochmanek, “Planning Under Uncertainty: A User’s Guide to the Post-Cold War World,” Rand – unpublished paper, September 19, 1995, p. 15.
Michael E. O’Hanlon, “Rethinking Two War Strategies,” Joint Forces Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University, Spring 2000), p. 12.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Troxell, J.F. (2004). Sizing the Military in the Post-Cold War Era. In: Magyar, K.P. (eds) United States Post-Cold War Defence Interests. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000834_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000834_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41565-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-00083-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)