2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report

¶ … 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report vs. The objectives of General George W. Casey Jr. In the overview section of the study, study, we will list and define the six key mission areas described in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the objectives of General George W. Casey Jr. Then, these issues will be compared and contrasted soundly in the analytical section to analyze the differences and convergences of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chief of Staff of the Army General Casey.

Quadrennial Defense Review Key Mission Areas Obviously, the secretary of defense is speaking for all of the Armed Forces and for the civilian government of the United States. Defend the United States and support the civil authorities at home. Homeland security is a priority at all times. Succeed in counterinsurgency, stability and counterterrorism operations in the war on terror. We must kill and destroy the enemy to prevent another 9/11. Build the security capacity of partner states (allies). The United States can not do the job alone.

Coalition countries must be trained and supported in the war on terror. Deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments. We must deter aggression before it happens and defeat it when it occurs. Fifth, we must prevent proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction that might be deployed by rogue states. Rogue states must not be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction and must be denied the ability to acquire them in the first place. Finally, we must also operate effectively in cyberspace and enhance the All-Volunteer Force.

We must deter threats to our electronic security and keep the volunteer force strong. It is much better than a conscript army. General George W. Casey Jr.-Six Objectives: Support the accomplishment of our strategic objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq. For this objective, General Casey has stated that he is seeking to organize train and equip U.S. forces for on-time deployment to the theaters. In addition, the efforts must support the main thrust and transfer of mass from Iraq to Afghanistan. Continue Efforts to Restore Balance.

The Army must maintain progress towards FY 2011 Goals. The Army is in the third year of a four-year plan to restore balance in the Army, and it is making progress toward achieving those goals. Getting the Army back in balance remains the goal through FY 2011. The U.S. Army must maintain its focus on this goal and ensure that growth is completed and progress maintained towards a BOG-Dwell ratio of 1:2 for the Active Component and 1:4 for the Reserve Component for complete modularity and rebalancing the force.

Sustain soldiers Families and Civilians. Need to consolidate and improve on the gains we have made. We will also institutionalize both Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program and an Army Risk Reduction and Health Promotion Program to strengthen the health of our force. Also, we need to increase our understanding of the implications of a rotational cycle and modularity on Soldier and Family support. Establish an Integrated Management System for Army Business Operations. This requires a streamlined management system for the Army's business operations, but also a reformed acquisition and requirements process.

Implement the Army Leader Development Strategy. A significant asymmetric advantage we have continually enjoyed over the enemy has been the quality of our leaders. This is due to superior leadership development. The balance must be maintained between training, education and experience in developing the force while encouraging life-long learning and development. The Army wants to develop leaders that are competent in their core competencies. However, they must be broad enough to succeed at operations across a spectrum of conflict. Refine the Army of the 21st Century.

As stated above, our goal is to build an Army that is a versatile mix of tailorable as well as networked organizations operating on a rotational cycle to conduct full spectrum operations across the spectrum of 21st Century conflict. To accomplish this, there is a need to determine the appropriate mix of forces and refine our modular organizations in order to establish an effective common network ("Calendar year 2010 objectives,"). Compare Restoring and rebuilding the capabilities of the all volunteer force. Deter and Defeat aggression.

The Army due to its mission posture is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of the above two programs seeks to restore balance in U.S. forces Both of them seek to reform and streamline the bureaucracy by instituting more a more centralized and integrated management system for the Army in Business Operations. In the two programs, planners are seeking to support the needs of the warfighter. Contrast Differences come from the focus of the Quadrennial Defense Review objectives more on strategic issues dealing more with weaponry and waging war.

In terms of mission, the Quadrennial review is focusing on issues of technology and force enhancement. General Casey's objectives appear to deal more with infrastructural issues that the Quadrennial review does. The Quadrennial Defense Review is looking at a bigger picture, that is, the whole force with regard to all of its missions while General Casey was looking primarily at the.