Additional Statements on Pentagon's Strategic Review
Additional Statements on Pentagon's Strategic Review
(Source : US State Department ; issued Feb. 6, 2001)
Strategic Review Of Defense Department
 White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, in response to a question about how much money Bush plans to request from Congress to bolster U.S. defenses, that it would be premature to comment on what we will do" until the Pentagon completes its strategic and force structure review.

Fleischer said the $45 billion figure often mentioned in the press was the funding that Bush talked about during the 2000 Presidential Campaign to be spent over a 10-year period to address the issue of pay raises for the military and housing for the military.

"There is a separate question which will be pending, the force structure review, that Secretary Rumsfeld is carrying out now, that addresses the longer term strategic needs of the military," Fleischer said. (ends)
Excerpt From Pentagon's Feb. 6 Press Briefing
By Spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley
   Q: Craig, Lockheed Martin and the Air Force say that the F-22 has completed all the requirements for the DAB [Defense Acquisition Board]and the additional requirements imposed by the Defense Appropriations Bill last year. And the question is, are we likely to see the release of that $2.1 billion for production or are they -- is that program going to be effected by the president's comments over the weekend that they will not authorize any of the big -- not fund any of the big programs until Secretary Rumsfeld completes his review?
   
    Quigley: Well, I think you've got a little -- quite a bit, actually --of homework to do here before you schedule the DAB. I mean, the flights and the testing have just been completed. You've now got to collect all that data, put it in an orderly fashion to prepare for the Defense Acquisition Board process. From that board, then there is a decision ultimately as to whether or not to proceed to the next phase in the acquisition of this program. So, the Defense Acquisition Board has not yet been scheduled, Otto. We still have quite a bit of homework to do. I can't predict for you when that will take place. We're just not there yet, that I do know.
   
   
    Q: You don't know the impact yet of the president's comments as to that program or any of the other big procurement programs that are coming up for funding decisions?
   
    Quigley: No, Secretary Rumsfeld has simply not stated whether he intends to do the F-22 somehow separate. I would be hard-pressed to see how you could do that. You must do that as part of a comprehensive approach to this because it's a major program with major dollars. And there's -- it's a very one that's been a long time under development. But he has not made a specific reference in any of the remarks that I've heard that he's going to do it this way or that way. That process still has some homework to do.
   
   
    Q: But does that mean that effectively all of these major programs are on hold until the completion of this review by Secretary Rumsfeld?
   
    Quigley: I think you'd be hard pressed, Jamie, to make any significant acquisition decisions for big dollars absent an understanding of where they fit into the overall picture.
   
   
    Q: So how long is this review likely to take? And when will some of these decisions likely be made?
   
    Quigley: Some number of months. He's not put any more boundaries on it than that. Not days and not years," were his words. And it would be some number of months.
   
   
    Q: And this review is different than the Quadrennial Defense?
   
    Quigley: Yes. The way he described it, John, is they are separate paths. QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review], of course, has a very -- a fairly strict process described by law; this effort does not. This is the president's desire to have this review done. And as the QDR process moves along in the months ahead, the knowledge gained from this different and separate review, the way that he put it, could be dropped into the work ongoing into the Quadrennial Defense Review.
   
   
    Q: Well then help me understand what this separate review is.
   
    Quigley: The president's charter is to have Secretary Rumsfeld take a look at the defense programs across the board and to take a top-to-bottom look at how we would structure defense as we move into the 21st century; what programs make sense, what quality of life initiatives make sense; how do we structure the American military as we move ahead.
   
   
    Q: Excuse me for being -- not understanding this, but don't you have to figure out sort of what your strategy is first before you figure out some of the things that you're talking about? Aren't they in reverse order? Isn't that why you do a QDR, to figure out what you need?
   
    Quigley: This review is not just about hardware and equipment, it is more encompassing than that and broader than that. It is more of a description of a proposal to what should the American military be about? What should be our charter in the world of the early 21st century? And then, what sort of equipment do you then buy to make that strategy work.
   
   
    Q: If this review is going to take a matter of months, what does that mean in terms of, for example, a supplemental request? Does it mean that all budgetary decisions and planning is sort of put on hold for several months, or for as many months as it takes to complete that review, then?
   
   
    Quigley: Well, the final decisions on the budget will be made by the president. Otto?
   
   
    Q: More immediately, the F-22 program has been on incremental life support funding, and there's contractors, sub-contractors hanging out there, you know, and supposedly the authorization runs out March 31st.
   
    Quigley: Correct.
   
   
    Q: If this program is not going to have a funding decision until the top-to-bottom review is done, you know, what happens to those contracts?
   
    Quigley: Sure. Yeah, good question. We're aware of the -- March 31st is correct; the funding that's in place right now for the contractors and the sub-contractors, very importantly, runs out at the end of March. We're very much aware of that, and that's an issue that we must address here in the better part of the next two months.
   
   
    Q: That's only for the F-22 that you're talking about, is this deadline?
   
    Quigley: Correct. Right.
   
   
    Q: And are there other programs that are affected by this review? And if so, what are those programs?
   
    Quigley: There are no programs that are exempt from this review.
   
   
    Q: So everything that's in the pipeline is --
   
    Quigley: His charter is very broad from the president.
   
   
    Q: -- he'll take a hard look at, and nothing's moving forward until this review is completed?
   
    Quigley: There's a lot of things that go forward, Chris, every day. I mean, we have work to do around the world every day. But this is more of a pause, step back, take a look from the day-to- day activities around the world, and where should we be investing our money, to accomplish what, in what systems. That is a broad definition of Secretary Rumsfeld's goals in accomplishing this review.
   
   
    Q: Is this kind of a -- I'm sorry, is this kind of a speedy, bottom-up review, or top-to-bottom review, I think the secretary --
   
    Quigley: Well, the president had expressed his enthusiasm during the campaign and since in doing a top-to-bottom review of the defense strategy, processes, structure of the department, and that is what Secretary Rumsfeld is setting out to do.
   
   
    Q: So the brakes have been thrown on, or these programs -- that the funding line for these programs are, in effect, on hold until this is completed.
   
    Quigley: Well, I know of no other near-term major acquisition decision other than F-22, and as Otto had mentioned, that goes till the end of March. I know of no other major programs like that that are coming up on near-term decisions in that regard.
   
   
    Q: So the decision is just pending on continued funding for the program.
   
    Quigley: Right. I mean, we're very much aware of the 31st of March as the date by which we need to either arrange for further additional temporary funding for the F-22 or make a decision in a DAB sort of a setting for an actual decision on procurement. So you have a couple of options. But we've made no decisions on one of those.
   
   
    Q: Craig, has the secretary issued a formal directive to slow down on F-22 and other programs, or are we --
   
    Quigley: No.
   
    Q: -- sort of reading tea leaves here?
   
    Quigley: He has issued no formal directives to come to all stop or slow down on any particular program. But there is wide understanding, I think, throughout all of the military services that this review will be going on. And you really can't kind of have it both ways, Jim. You need to take a look at where you're going before you make decisions on equipment purchases as to how you're going to get there.
   
   
    Q: Has he told the acquisition shop, "There will be no decision on this until I can look at the program"?
   
    Quigley: No, he has not yet. He has not yet…. Again, we're not to that point yet. We just finished the testing. We have not yet compiled the data that is -- we're not ready for a DAB quite yet. There's quite a bit of homework to do before you can have such a detailed sort of a setting. And that has not been done yet. We have not yet scheduled the DAB.
   
   
    Q: Craig, has he established an internal task force or some group of people to do this, what sounds like a very extensive review, or is he doing it himself, or --
   
    Quigley: No.
   
   
    Q: -- given that he doesn't have any appointees in the building yet?
   
    Quigley: Well, yeah, it will ultimately be a group, Bob, but he has not yet decided on who the members of that will be or who will head it.
   
   
    Q: So it hasn't started, then, or --
   
    Quigley: Not in a substantive way, where you can say, "Here's the office, here's the person in charge." This is something that he's working very hard to get started and set up and proceed in a quick manner. Nobody wants this to go on for a very long period of time. But you need to have an understanding and do it thoroughly, so you want to do it as quickly as you can, but you need to be thorough while you're doing it. Jim?
   
   
    Q: Bob asked my question.
   
    Quigley: Oh. (Laughter.) George?
   
   
    Q: At the risk of dragging it out ad infinitum, is he going to revisit such contracts as the $4.3 billion award to the Army for the light armored vehicle that was awarded last November and now is under protest, with GAO supposed to rule on it next month? Is he going to revisit anything that was awarded in the past administration and perhaps is under protest, or is that --
   
    Quigley: Well, I think need to -- in that particular program, I think you need to let that protest play itself out. And the GAO will come to its decision, and he'll factor that into his decision from that point. First things first.
   
    Q: I mean, he's not reviewing the past awards, is he? Or is he?
   
    Quigley: No. No. Pam?
   
    Q: If you were writing an article, say today -- (laughter) -- and you needed to explain to your readers, as few as they may be -- (laughter)-- that -- the difference between the QDR and the Rumsfeld review, how would you say it in, say, you know, a lead? (Laughter.) Write my lead for me! (Laughter.)
   
    Quigley: Let me borrow your pen for a second. Let me see if I can work with this for a second. I would say that the review of the overall defense programs that the president has tasked the secretary to accomplish will be done probably prior to the Quadrennial Defense Review --
   
   
    Q: Too many words there! (Laughter.)
   
    Quigley: I know. That's not a good lead. (Laughter.)But if you're looking for a time line, I would look for that one to be done or essentially done first, so that elements of its findings can literally be dropped into the Quadrennial Defense Review as that process proceeds. Now that won't be done until the fall, as you know.
   
   
    Q: Compare and contrast: how are they different?
   
    Quigley: Don't have that level of definition yet.
   
   
    Q: President Bush also spoke of the comprehensive strategic review and immediate review of overseas deployments. Is that the Rumsfeld review?
   
    Quigley: I don't think that there have been any bounds to his charter that he has received from the president in that regard. If he feels that that is an issue that needs to be addressed in his conversations with the president, he has complete freedom to do just that.
   
   
    Q: But there's not a specific charter for --
   
    Quigley: Correct. Correct.
   
   
    Q: And just one more on this subject. We talked about the funding line for the V-22. But are we also talking about --Quigley: F-22.Q: I'm sorry, F-22. Are we also talking about the V-22, the Osprey, the DD-21, the LAV, the Crusader? Are all of these sort of --
   
   
    Quigley: Well, again, each of those programs is unique in the truest definition of that word. The V-22 has a whole separate bunch of issues going on simultaneously. There's not going to be any acquisition decisions on the V-22 until the IG completes its work, until the review panel that former Secretary Cohen had put in place completes its work. You just can't make acquisition decisions in isolation of the knowledge that those organizations will give you. So that's again a unique circumstance. And the others, if you're talking about making a decision on a major acquisition program, again, I just don't -- you must complete your vision of where we're going in the early 21stcentury before you make decisions on the tools that we will buy to get you there.
   
   
    Q: So all of these programs are essentially under review.
   
    Quigley: Yes. Yes
   
   
    Q: Can we assume that -- for example, there's been speculation about different kinds of, different varieties of NMD would be a completely separate thing, even though there's ultimately a resource question that goes completely separate.
   
    Quigley: Sure. Well, the president has been very unambiguous here in his desire to pursue a missile defense system for the United States, and perhaps for our allies. When Secretary Rumsfeld was at the Wehrkunde conference this last weekend in Munich, that was a frequent topic of conversation in his bilateral meetings with his counterparts from other nations, a topic of several speeches in the main conference floor. But the specific description and the parameters of the type of missile defense system that you would put in place is still a work in progress.
   
   
    Q: Is the current project continuing on the schedule it's been on since before he took office?
   
    Quigley: Yes. And the secretary has had two or three meetings, three, I believe, with General Kadish at the Ballistic Missile Defense Office to make sure that his understanding of the program as it's currently structured is complete and he understands, you know, what the near-term goals are and the near-term test objectives and what have you, funding streams, time frames. And his guidance to General Kadish at this point is to press on.
 




prev next

Official reports See all