Ski - I know, but they do write and inform defense policy. Until the DoD civilian leadership and senior service and Joint military leadership (to include the Joint and Service staffs) have that discussion and submit budgets based on what they think we need to do the job we're asked to do, the issue of the doctrine required to make use of what you have is a cart before a horse.HQDA and OSD do not write doctrine for the Army.
It may be something of a chicken and egg - but my point was TRADOC does not set the DoD budget, they address DOTMLPF issues. This means until we come to some agreements on ends, ways and means, roles and missions, etc. its may not be a good idea to address the DOTMLPF issues in such a way that become either self constraining, or do not meet the needs of policy. Lets not forget the role of the GCCs in interpreting and responding to both steady state/or standing policy objectives, and those new objectives created by crisis - it becomes a Policy/Mil OBJ + Conditions that create the requirements to which the force providers must generate resources and capabilities to meet. The services and functional commands should not go down the road of taking stuff off the menu that the GCCs are asking for - that is a decision that gets into the three branches of Govt (Exec/Legis/Jud) real quick. We owe them the costs and the consequences, but the authority belongs to the civilain leadership.
I share some of your concerns, but I don't think its a good idea for the military to set conditions which will constrain the policy needs and requirements based on what we anticipate to be funding short fall.
I'm not in CAC, but my sense is they are doing the things they need to be doing based on their mission - e.g. they are writing the doctrine that needs to be written.
Best, Rob
Bookmarks