QDR? Analysts: Meh.
January 26th, 2010 | Carriers leadership Washington | Posted by Phil Ewing
"So who've you got in the big game, admiral? Colts or Saints?" "I'm waiting for the QDR on that, sir." // MC1 Chad McNeeley / Navy
Have you ever wondered what it’s like to be a big-time, high-powered Washington defense reporter? This transcript will give you a taste:
YOU: Admiral, what is the Navy doing about its forecast for a fighter gap?
ADM: We’re waiting for a decision about the way forward on that in the Quadrennial Defense Review.
YOU: How should the Navy and Marines resolve their disagreement about amphibious lift?
ADM: That’s absolutely a critical question. We’re looking to the QDR for an answer.
YOU: Oh. Ah — sir, which do you prefer, Coke or Pepsi?
ADM: There is lots of mission-critical analysis on this question as a part of the QDR, and I’d rather wait until then to comment.
And now you know what it’s like. The only problem is, this year’s QDR, expected with the Pentagon’s budget submission next week, may not actually answer any of those pressing questions, a trio of experts said Tuesday.
In a briefing for reporters at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Jim Thomas, the center’s vice president for strategic studies, said he expects the 2010 QDR to provide “the most strategic consistency” for the U.S. since the Cold War — meaning very little will have changed wince the 2006 report.
Thomas expects “no significant force structure changes” — meaning forget all those the-sky-is-falling rumors about the Navy losing two carrier strike groups. Or maybe you shouldn’t. Who knows until the thing comes out?
“QDRs tend to be dumping grounds for all sorts of tricky things to be thrown in. That’s the beauty of a document that’s all things to all people,” Thomas said. “There’s a lot of hype about QDRs. We probably put too much emphasis on them.”
Comments
-
Mike Burleson Says:
January 26th, 2010 at 6:31 pmThe QDR doesn’t matter as much as the budget. Follow the numbers.
-
The Scoop Deck – CNO helps out the hacks Says:
March 18th, 2010 at 7:27 am[...] part of our very occasional series in which we try to convey what it’s like to be a member of the disheveled glamorous, grouchy and grumpy high-profile Washington defense [...]