When remarking on the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the esteemed think tanker Anthony Cordesman once remarked that it was "the most pointless and destructive planning effort imaginable...[and that] if God really hates you, you may end up working on [it]. So what is this document that all of DC and the security community at large is eagerly awaiting the release of and is it of any real significance?

First some quick background. The QDR is a document that was first conceived of in 1993, then referred to as the "Bottom-up Review" and was an attempt by the DoD to address the international security environment in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union. In 1996 Congress legislated that the Department of Defense conduct a "Quadrennial Defense Review" to address the U.S. military's strategic objectives and identify future security threats. To put it simply, the QDR is meant to be a time when the Defense leadership (Office of the Secretary of Defense) takes a step back from the day to day operations and attempts to think long term and answer the BIG questions. Who do we see as our enemies today and in ten years? Are we investing in the right technologies to fight these enemies? Do we possess the appropriate strategies and doctrine to face the current threats? Is the enemy we are fighting today going to be the same enemy we will be fighting in ten years?

Word on the street is that the Obama administration will be coming out with its QDR sometime in the next month. The QDR will be the most important document that the DoD puts out this year and in my opinion will likely be the most important document that the Obama administration generates as a whole, short of the budget, for some time to come. It may seem at first that I am disagreeing with the comments made earlier by Anthony Cordesman, however, I assure you that while the author does think quite highly of himself, he is not that foolish. I completely agree with Dr. Cordesman (who by the way is a Fletcher Grad) that every QDR done to date has been a collasal waste of time and resources. If you have had the unfortunate pleasure of reading all three QDR's you will notice that good chunks of them were simply copy and pasted from the previous QDR. You will also notice that they are devoid of any real strategy. The QDR was thought of as a strategy document that would supply direction to the entire armed forces, but instead it has mostly devolved into a petty fight between the services over who gets the bigger share of the budget.

Ironically, the years before the QDR existed were the years that the US military actually had a series of set strategies that for the most part worked. For the majority of the Cold War the U.S. military had a strategy of containing the spread of communism and despite dragging us into Vietnam, the strategy did manage to prevent the expansion of the Soviet Union. In the late 70's to early 80's, the U.S. military also adopted an "off-set strategy" whereby the DoD recognized that it could not produce nearly as many troops and weapons as the Soviets but would instead off-set their superiority in numbers with superior quality troops and high-tech weaponry (JDAM's, GPS, Star Wars etc). Finally, in the 90's the U.S. adopted the strategy of planning to be able to fight two conventional wars at the same time. Less of a detailed plan but a strategy none the less. However, despite jumping in head first into two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the DoD has yet to come up with a defined strategy in over 9 years of war.

That was the depressing part. I now have high hopes that the next QDR will offer up a concrete strategy for the DoD that moves it beyond the "war on terror". A basic question that the QDR will have to answer is who is the enemy? Is it local insurgencies, global jihadis, state sponsors of terrorism or all of the above? On an even more basic level I strongly believe that this QDR needs to firmly define "terrorism," specifically stating whether or not it is a criminal act or an act of war. Finally, the QDR will need to clearly state whether or not counterinsurgency is going to be the name of the game for the foreseeable future and if it is, how will be be changing the makeup of our forces to better reflect the enemy we face. This will undoubtedly mean making some very unpopular and very large cuts in the defense budget specifically things like next generation fighter planes, mid air refueling tankers and new super aircraft carriers (any of these ringing a bell!!)

Anyway, I hope you have enjoyed reading about the QDR, its not the most fun document in the world but lets just hope the next one is actually worth reading. And if you happen to be walking down the halls at the Pentagon and you see someone with an ID card that reads "Kathleen Hicks" go ahead and give her a hug because despite being a great lady she is the one that God has chosen to to run this years QDR....

And that's my fifty cents (inflation)

I'd like to make everyone out there aware of something pretty amazing that is happening on the Fletcher campus right now. As we speak dozens of graduate students are combing through thousands and text messages and tweets sent from Haiti and using them to direct search and rescue teams on the ground to people in need. This is an unprecedented event that I am positive will soon become the norm for international incident response.

Fletcher students have taken software that was initially designed to plot crisis incidents in Kenya and have transformed it into something that is actually helping first responders in real time. For years, experts in the security community have wondered how best to coordinate civilian and military efforts in a way that is helpful to both the military and civilian communities without compromising either communities independence or ability to function. Ushahidi has for the first time transformed crowd sourcing into the ideal link between civilian and military networks. Through various media networks, Fletcher students have gotten the word out to people on the ground in Haiti that if they text 4636 on their cell phones they will reach the Ushahidi network, which is mostly being run out of the graduate dorm on the Fletcher campus, but is also reaching volunteers in Geneva, and various countries in Africa as well. These texts communicate locations where people are either trapped under rubble or are in need of various supplies and or medical attention. Students at Fletcher then use Google Earth and various other mapping software to locate exact GPS coordinates for those in need of help and plot that location on a map located on a dedicated Ushahidi website (see the attached link). Numerous international organizations and militaries ranging from SOUTHCOM to the American Red Cross use these geo cordinates to launch aid missions to these exact locations. So far Fletcher students working through the Ushahidi network are responsible for at least 14 lives being saved. In other instances orphanages have texted that they are in dire need of water and within hours trucks arrive with the neccessary supplies. My hat goes off to these dedicated students who are litteraly working around the clock to supply teams on the ground with the appropriate coordinates.

In addition to text messages, the Ushahidi network is also monitoring twitter and facebook to find people who are in need of help. When not enough information is provided to pin point an exact location, Fletcher students write back to those who are twitting and facebooking to garner more precise information. I have to reiterate once again that as far as I know such a response has never been coordinated to a disaster using such social networking sites.

In another unprecedented move, the US military has released all of its satellite data for Haiti to allow people involved in crowd sourcing such as the Ushahidi network to actually plot where structures have collapsed and identify which roads are useable to deliver aid.

Currently, the following organizations are responding to geo-coordinates delivered by Fletcher students through the Ushahidi network:

Red cross
United Nations Foundation
Plan International
Charity Water
Clinton Foundation
US State Department
International Medical Corps
AIDG
USAID
FEMA

Ultimately, I believe that a conference involving multiple government agencies and leading NGO's will need to be conducted in order to discuss the effectiveness of crowd sourcing for future disaster response. Hard questions will need to be asked such as, were more lives saved due to exact coordinates being provided or were more people lost because teams were directed to a particular spot where 50 people were starving instead of another closer community of 500 simply because the smaller community possessed a cell phone? Once again though I have to say regardless of the outcome that my hat goes off to the innovative individuals who decided to try to make a difference if they could, and in my opinion their contribution has been outstandingly signifigant.

To leave you with one thought, I wonder if this is something that has been so successful mostly on account of the fact that it is so new. By this I mean that because this is such a new idea that only those in need and those responding to them are yet aware of this network. With every great idea we must consider the downsides. If for instance this same crowd sourcing system is used again to respond to incidences of violence in post election Kenya, do we run the risk of playing into the hands of people with bad intentions who do not wish to see people helped and thus text and tweet in false reports in order to divert the attention of first responders to those in need? This is an issue that certainly needs to be addressed in the future and I hope to see some dialogue started in the comments section of this blog. But for now my best goes out to those people struggling to survive in Haiti, the first responders on the ground and the tireless students at Fletcher.

And that's my fifty cents (inflation...)