1
 Defense intellectuals have complained for years 
2
attribution

2
that the Pentagon cannot determine priorities 
5046
span

3
because it has no strategy.
5046
reason

4
 Last April, the new defense secretary, Richard Cheney, acknowledged 
5001
attribution

5
that, given an ideal world,
6
circumstance

6
 we'd have a nice, neat, orderly process.
5001
span

7
 We'd do the strategy 
5003
enablement

8
and then we'd come around 
5003
List

9
and do the budget.
5003
List

10
 This city doesn't work that way.
5011
Contrast

11
 With a five-year defense plan 
5006
span

12
costing more than $1.6 trillion, 
11
elaboration-additional-e

13
it's about time we put together a defense strategy 
5009
span

14
that works in Washington.
5008
elaboration-object-attribute-e

15
 This won't happen
5014
span

16
 until strategists come down from their ivory tower 
5189
Sequence

17
and learn to work in the real world of limited budgets and uncertain futures. 
5189
Sequence

18
As it is, 
5018
circumstance

19
we identify national goals and the threats to these goals,
5018
Sequence

20
 we shape a strategy 
5015
span

21
to counter these threats, 
20
purpose-e

22
we determine the forces 
5016
span

23
needed to execute the strategy, 
22
purpose-e

24
before finally forging the budgets 
5017
span

25
needed to build and maintain the forces.
24
purpose-e

26
 These procedures consume millions of man-hours of labor 
5019
List

27
and produce tons of paper, 
5019
List

28
and each year, their end product 
5020
span

29
-- the Five Year Defense Plan -- 
28
restatement-e

30
promptly melts away.
5021
Same-Unit

31
 The graph on the left shows 
32
attribution

32
how this happens 
5027
span

33
(see accompanying illustration 
5029
span

34
-- WSJ Oct. 30, 1989). 
33
attribution

35
Compare the past eight five-year plans with actual appropriations.
5031
result

36
 The Pentagon's strategists produce budgets 
5031
span

37
that simply cannot be executed 
36
elaboration-object-attribute-e

38
because they assume 
39
attribution

39
a defense strategy depends only on goals and threats.
5032
span

40
 Strategy, however, is about possibilities, not hopes and dreams.
5042
Contrast

41
 By ignoring costs, 
42
manner

42
U.S. strategists abdicate their responsibility for hard decisions.
5034
span

43
 That puts the real strategic decisions in the hands of others: 
5035
span

44
bean counters, budgeteers, and pork-barrelers.
5040
span

45
 These people have different agendas.
44
elaboration-additional

46
 And as a result 
5037
Same-Unit

47
-- as the recent vote by the House 
5036
span

48
to undo Mr. Cheney's program terminations 
47
evidence-e

49
suggests 
5037
Same-Unit

50
-- the preservation of jobs is becoming the real goal of defense strategy.
5038
span

51
 How can we turn this situation around?
5183
span

52
 Reform starts in the Pentagon. 
53
circumstance

53
Strategists should consider the impact of budget uncertainties at the beginning of the planning process.
5059
span

54
 They ought to examine 
55
attribution

55
how a range of optimistic to pessimistic budget scenarios would change the defense program.
5050
span

56
 They would then develop priorities 
5051
span

57
by identifying the least painful program cuts 
56
manner-e

58
as they moved from higher to lower budgets.
5051
circumstance

59
 They would also identify the best way 
5053
span

60
to add programs,
59
elaboration-object-attribute-e

61
 should the budget come in at higher levels.
5053
condition

62
 This kind of contingency analysis is common in war planning and business planning.
5057
enablement

63
 There is no reason 
5057
span

64
that it can not be done for defense planning.
63
elaboration-object-attribute-e

65
 Two steps are necessary 
5061
span

66
to translate this idea into action. 
65
purpose-e

67
Step 1 cleans up our books.
5150
span

68
 Our five-year plan contains three accounting devices 
5062
span

69
-- negative money, an above guidance management reserve and optimistic inflation estimates -- 
68
restatement-e

70
which understate the spending 
5064
span

71
the Pentagon has committed itself to 
70
elaboration-object-attribute-e

72
by almost $100 billion.
5065
Same-Unit

73
 Negative money was invented in 1988 
5066
span

74
to make the 1990-94 Five Year Defense Plan conform to the numbers in President Reagan's final budget submission to Congress.
73
purpose

75
 That plan exceeded the numbers 
5067
span

76
contained in his budget message 
75
elaboration-object-attribute-e

77
by $45 billion.
5068
Same-Unit

78
 To make the books balance, 
5069
span

79
as is required by law, 
78
circumstance-e

80
somebody invented a new budget line item 
5071
span

81
that simply subtracted $45 billion.
80
elaboration-object-attribute-e

82
 It is known in the Pentagon as the negative wedge.
5070
definition

83
 The Pentagon argues 
5076
attribution

84
that the negative wedge is the net effect of $22 billion in the as-yet unidentified procurement reductions 
5075
span

85
that it intends to find in future years 
84
elaboration-object-attribute-e

86
and $23 billion in an above guidance management reserve 
5078
span

87
that accounts for undefined programs
5079
span

88
 that will materialize in the future.
87
elaboration-object-attribute-e

89
 The 1990 plan also assumes 
90
attribution

90
inflation will decline to 1.7% by 1994.
5080
span

91
 Most forecasters,
5081
span

92
 including those in the Congressional Budget Office,
91
elaboration-set-member-e

93
 assume 
5082
Same-Unit

94
inflation will be in excess of 4% in each of those five years.
5083
span

95
 At that rate, the defense plan is underfunded by $48 billion.
5091
List

96
 By adding the negative wedge 
5084
List

97
and recalculating the remaining program 
5085
span

98
using a more probable inflation estimate, 
97
means-e

99
we arrive at a baseline program 
5087
span

100
costing $1.7 trillion between 1990 and 1994.
99
elaboration-object-attribute-e

101
 Step 2 examines how four progressively lower budget scenarios would change the baseline 
5095
Consequence

102
and how these changes would affect our national security. 
5095
Consequence

103
The graph on the right 
5096
span

104
(which assumes a 4% rate of inflation), 
103
elaboration-additional-e

105
places these scenarios in the context of recent appropriations 
5097
Same-Unit

106
(see accompanying illustration 
5099
span

107
-- WSJ Oct. 30, 1989).
106
elaboration-additional-e

108
 Note how the baseline program assumes a sharp increase in future appropriations.
5098
interpretation-s

109
 Step 2 will answer the question:
5103
span

110
 What happens 
5102
span

111
if these increases do not materialize?
110
condition

112
 Scenario 1, 
5104
span

113
known as the Constant Dollar Freeze, 
112
elaboration-additional-e

114
reimburses the Pentagon for inflation only 
5105
Same-Unit

115
-- it slopes upward at 4% per year.
5197
Sequence

116
 This scenario has been the rough position of the U.S. Senate since 1985,
117
background

117
 and it reduces the baseline by $106 billion between 1990 and 1994.
5107
span

118
 Scenario 3, the Current Dollar Freeze, has been the approximate position of the House of Representatives for about four years.
5193
background

119
 It freezes the budget at its current level,
5193
Sequence

120
 and forces the Pentagon to eat the effects of inflation until 1994.
5193
Sequence

121
 This reduces the baseline by $229 billion.
5194
Cause-Result

122
 Scenario 2 extends the recent compromises between the House and the Senate; 
5112
background

123
it splits the difference between Scenarios 1 and 3, 
5112
span

124
by increasing the budget at 2% per year.
123
means

125
 It reduces the baseline by $169 billion.
5113
Cause-Result

126
 Finally, Scenario 4 reduces the budget by 2% per year for the next five years 
5115
span

127
-- a total reduction of $287 billion. 
126
consequence-s-e

128
This can be thought of as a pessimistic prediction, 
5116
span

129
perhaps driven by the sequestering effects of the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction law or possibly a relaxation of tensions with the Soviet Union.
128
elaboration-additional-e

130
 The strategic planners in the Joint Chiefs of Staff would construct the most effective defense program for each scenario,
5121
span

131
 maximizing strengths 
5120
List

132
and minimizing weaknesses.
5120
List

133
 They would conclude their efforts 
5122
span

134
by producing a comprehensive net assessment for each plan 
5123
span

135
-- including the assumptions made, an analysis of its deficiencies and limitations, the impact on national security, and the best strategy
134
elaboration-set-member-e

136
 for working around these limitations.
5123
purpose-e

137
 This exercise would reveal the true cost of a particular program 
5125
span

138
by forcing the strategists to make hard decisions.
137
means

139
 If, for example, they choose to keep the B-2 Stealth bomber,
5128
condition

140
 they would have to sacrifice more and more other programs 
5127
span

141
-- such as carrier battlegroups or army divisions -- 
140
example-e

142
as they moved toward lower budget levels.
5127
circumstance

143
 These trade-offs would evolve priorities 
5130
span

144
by revealing 
145
attribution

145
when the cost of the B-2 became prohibitive.
5129
span

146
 Some may be tempted to argue 
5136
attribution

147
that the idea of a strategic review merely resurrects the infamous Zero-Based Budgeting 
5135
span

148
(ZBB) 
147
restatement-e

149
concept of the Carter administration. 
5135
elaboration-additional-e

150
But ZBB did not involve the strategic planners in the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
5138
Cause-Result

151
 and therefore degenerated into a bean-counting drill 
5139
span

152
driven by budget politics.
151
elaboration-object-attribute-e

153
 Anyway, ZBB's procedures were so cumbersome 
5140
span

154
that everyone involved was crushed under a burden of marginalia.
153
consequence-s

155
 A strategic review is fundamentally different.
5147
span

156
 It would be run by the joint chiefs under simple directions: 
5144
span

157
Produce the best possible force for each budget scenario 
5143
List

158
and provide the Secretary of Defense with a comprehensive net assessment 
5141
span

159
of how that force could be used 
5142
span

160
to achieve U.S. goals.
159
purpose-e

161
 It might be feared that even thinking about lower budgets will hurt national security 
5154
Cause-Result

162
because the door will be opened to opportunistic budget cutting by an irresponsible Congress.
5154
Cause-Result

163
 This argument plays well in the atmosphere of gaming and mistrust 
5155
span

164
permeating the Pentagon and Congress, 
163
elaboration-additional-e

165
and unfortunately, there is some truth to it.
5155
evaluation-s

166
 But in the end, it must be rejected for logical as well as moral reasons.
5163
span

167
 To say that the Pentagon should act irresponsibly 
5157
span

168
because acting responsibly will provoke Congress into acting irresponsibly 
167
cause

169
leads to the conclusion 
5159
span

170
that the Pentagon should deliberately exaggerate its needs in the national interest; 
169
elaboration-object-attribute-e

171
in other words, that it is justified in committing a crime 
5160
span

172
-- lying to Congress -- 
171
elaboration-general-specific-e

173
because it is morally superior. 
5160
reason

174
 Strategy is not a game between the Pentagon and Congress; 
5167
Contrast

175
it is the art of the possible in a world 
5166
span

176
where constraints force us to choose between unpleasant or imperfect alternatives.
175
elaboration-object-attribute-e

177
 If we want meaningful priorities, 
5169
condition

178
we must understand the trade-offs 
5168
span

179
they imply 
178
elaboration-object-attribute-e

180
before we make commitments.
5168
temporal-before

181
 Strategy is not a separate event in an idealized sequence of discrete events; 
5173
Contrast

182
it is a way 
5171
span

183
of thinking 
5172
span

184
that neutralizes threats to our interests in a manner consistent with our financial, cultural and physical limitations.
183
elaboration-object-attribute-e

185
 Mr. Spinney is a permanent Pentagon official. 
5186
List

186
This is a condensed version of an essay 
5185
span

187
that will appear in the January issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings.
186
elaboration-additional-e

188
 The views expressed do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense.
5186
List

5001
span
5002
span

5002
span
5188
span

5003
multinuc
5004
span

5004
span
5002
definition

5005
span



5006
span
13
cause

5007
span
5012
span

5008
span
5007
span

5009
span
5008
span

5010
span



5011
multinuc
5007
explanation-argumentative

5012
span
5048
span

5013
span



5014
span
5026
span

5015
span
5018
Sequence

5016
span
5018
Sequence

5017
span
5018
Sequence

5018
multinuc
5023
span

5019
multinuc
5023
consequence-n

5020
span
5021
Same-Unit

5021
multinuc
5019
List

5022
span



5023
span
5190
span

5024
span



5025
span



5026
span
5048
explanation-argumentative

5027
span
5028
span

5028
span
5044
span

5029
span
5027
elaboration-additional

5030
span



5031
span
5191
span

5032
span
5042
Contrast

5033
multinuc
5192
Cause-Result

5034
span
5039
Cause-Result

5035
span
5039
Cause-Result

5036
span
5037
Same-Unit

5037
multinuc
50
attribution

5038
span
5041
span

5039
multinuc
5192
Cause-Result

5040
span
43
elaboration-set-member-e

5041
span
5028
evidence

5042
multinuc
5033
Reason

5043
span



5044
span
5190
evidence

5045
span
5014
evidence

5046
span
5047
span

5047
span
5012
circumstance

5048
span
5049
span

5049
span
5184
Problem-Solution

5050
span
5059
manner

5051
span
5052
span

5052
span
5056
Sequence

5053
span
5054
span

5054
span
5056
Sequence

5055
span
5056
Sequence

5056
multinuc
5179
span

5057
span
5178
span

5058
span



5059
span
5055
span

5060
span



5061
span
5153
span

5062
span
5063
span

5063
span
5094
span

5064
span
5065
Same-Unit

5065
multinuc
5062
elaboration-object-attribute-e

5066
span
5074
span

5067
span
5068
Same-Unit

5068
multinuc
5072
Cause-Result

5069
span
5071
purpose

5070
span
5073
span

5071
span
5070
span

5072
multinuc
5066
elaboration-general-specific

5073
span
5072
Cause-Result

5074
span
5092
background

5075
span
5076
Same-Unit

5076
multinuc
5077
span

5077
span
5089
span

5078
span
5076
Same-Unit

5079
span
86
elaboration-object-attribute-e

5080
span
5088
Contrast

5081
span
5082
Same-Unit

5082
multinuc
94
attribution

5083
span
5088
Contrast

5084
multinuc
5087
means

5085
span
5084
List

5086
span
5091
List

5087
span
5086
span

5088
multinuc
5077
circumstance

5089
span
5091
result

5090
span



5091
multinuc
5092
span

5092
span
5093
span

5093
span
5063
explanation-argumentative

5094
span
67
elaboration-general-specific

5095
multinuc
5101
span

5096
span
5097
Same-Unit

5097
multinuc
5098
span

5098
span
5100
span

5099
span
5097
elaboration-additional-e

5100
span
5095
evidence

5101
span
5152
span

5102
span
5199
Question-Answer

5103
span
5101
elaboration-general-specific

5104
span
5105
Same-Unit

5105
multinuc
5197
Sequence

5106
span



5107
span
5198
Cause-Result

5108
span



5109
span



5110
span



5111
span



5112
span
5195
span

5113
multinuc
5118
List

5114
span



5115
span
5117
span

5116
span
5115
evaluation-s

5117
span
5118
List

5118
multinuc
5199
Question-Answer

5119
span



5120
multinuc
130
manner-e

5121
span
5200
Sequence

5122
span
5200
Sequence

5123
span
5124
span

5124
span
133
means

5125
span
5132
span

5126
span
5131
span

5127
span
5128
span

5128
span
5126
span

5129
span
143
means

5130
span
5126
consequence-s

5131
span
5125
example

5132
span
5200
consequence-s

5133
span



5134
span



5135
span
5136
span

5136
span
5137
span

5137
span
5146
Contrast

5138
multinuc
5145
span

5139
span
5138
Cause-Result

5140
span
5138
elaboration-additional

5141
span
5143
List

5142
span
158
elaboration-object-attribute-e

5143
multinuc
156
elaboration-general-specific

5144
span
155
explanation-argumentative

5145
span
5146
Contrast

5146
multinuc
5148
Contrast

5147
span
5148
Contrast

5148
multinuc
5181
List

5149
span



5150
span
5151
List

5151
multinuc
5061
elaboration-general-specific

5152
span
5151
List

5153
span
5176
span

5154
multinuc
5164
span

5155
span
5156
span

5156
span
5154
evaluation-s

5157
span
5158
Same-Unit

5158
multinuc
5162
span

5159
span
5158
Same-Unit

5160
span
5161
span

5161
span
5158
interpretation-s

5162
span
166
explanation-argumentative

5163
span
5164
interpretation-s

5164
span
5202
span

5165
span



5166
span
5174
span

5167
multinuc
5175
Contrast

5168
span
5169
span

5169
span
5170
span

5170
span
5166
explanation-argumentative

5171
span
5173
Contrast

5172
span
182
elaboration-object-attribute-e

5173
multinuc
5175
Contrast

5174
span
5167
Contrast

5175
multinuc
5181
List

5176
span
5179
elaboration-general-specific

5177
span



5178
span
5056
explanation-argumentative

5179
span
5180
span

5180
span
5182
span

5181
multinuc
5180
explanation-argumentative

5182
span
51
question-answer-n

5183
span
5184
Problem-Solution

5184
multinuc
5187
TextualOrganization
Text
5185
span
5186
List

5186
multinuc
5187
TextualOrganization
Footnote
5187
multinuc



5188
span
5011
Contrast

5189
multinuc
15
condition

5190
span
5045
span

5191
span
5033
Reason

5192
multinuc
5038
consequence-n

5193
multinuc
5196
span

5194
multinuc
5118
List

5195
span
5113
Cause-Result

5196
span
5194
Cause-Result

5197
multinuc
5198
Cause-Result

5198
multinuc
5118
List

5199
multinuc
109
elaboration-object-attribute-e

5200
multinuc
5201
span

5201
span
5153
elaboration-additional

5202
span
5181
List

