Regardless of the budget level Congress ultimately sets for defense, choosing where to invest or divest should be informed by the external security challenges we face and the choices we make about strategy. In this regard, likely future operating environments may serve as a useful lens for evaluating programs. In particular, forces and capabilities most viable to project power in contested environments may represent areas for preserving or expanding, while those that have been designed for relatively benign operating environments may be targets for divestiture.
"Nobody does defense policy better than CSBA. Their work on strategic and budgetary topics manages to combine first-rate quality and in-depth research with timeliness and accessibility—which is why so many professionals consider their products indispensable." – Gideon Rose, Editor, Foreign Affairs.
What our exercise helps illuminate—and what my colleagues will speak to in their testimony—are the core capabilities the military must protect, and, in some cases, increase investments in regardless of the budgetary constraints imposed.
On January 27, 2015, Ambassador Eric Edelman, Distinguished Fellow at CSBA, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the implications of the Obama Administration’s approach to the Iran nuclear negotiations.
"The U.S. military needs a new offset strategy for projecting power effectively and affordably across the threat spectrum. While it must take account of America’s fiscal circumstances, the central purpose of such strategy must be to address the most pressing military challenge that we face: maintaining our ability to project power globally to deter potential adversaries and reassure allies and friends despite the emergence of A2/AD threats.
On December 2, 2014, Ambassador Edelman, Distinguished Fellow at CSBA, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the final report of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) National
On July 17, 2014, Jim Thomas testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on the Future of the INF Treaty. Suspected Russian violations of the INF Treaty come at a time of great strategic uncertainty for the United States globally. While compliance issues must be swiftly addressed, the United States should also widen the aperture for evaluating the INF Treaty to ensure that it serves its broader, global interests and security commitments.