Gordon Adams | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: Separating the U.S. civilian and defense missions

Gordon Adams — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:56:44 -0500

The State Department and USAID are in the midst of conducting an unprecedented Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which is intended to bolster the civilian capabilities of U.S. statecraft. It is taking place in the context of calls by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen to enhance our civilian capabilities in order to avoid the "militarization" of U.S. foreign policy. This, of course, is a positive step forward.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: The graveyard for U.S. foreign policy planning?

Gordon Adams — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:54:53 -0400

The foreign policy machinery in the Obama administration is finally grinding away on a difficult long-term policy and institutional problem: What should the U.S. development and foreign assistance strategy be? Such an examination raises a seemingly endless set of questions: What roles should the Defense Department, State Department, and USAID play in the development, security, and foreign assistance mix? How should these agencies tackle their responsibilities in fragile and post-conflict states? What should be the long-term structure of the U.S.

Strategic planning comes to the State Department

Gordon Adams — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:31:16 -0400

Can the State Department do a strategic plan and link it to setting budget priorities? We're about to find out. Tucked away in the month's news was a small, but important, announcement: The State Department and USAID are about to do something the Pentagon has done every four years since 1993--a quadrennial review. In this case, however, it will be a review of U.S. diplomatic strategy and development priorities, dubbed a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).

Budgeting for national security

Gordon Adams — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:25:14 -0400

When taking into account the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. defense budget has more than doubled since fiscal year 2001. And yet, despite this growth, the appetite for more defense funding has continued unabated, and our security dilemmas appear to grow.

Evaluating the Obama administration's national security budget and planning process

Gordon Adams — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:15:59 -0400

In its first 100 days, the Obama administration has had to confront a series of pressing foreign policy and national security issues--North Korean missile launches, a revamping of the war strategy in Afghanistan, the Taliban's continued rise in Pakistan, and, of course, the Iranian nuclear program. As with all new administrations, the issues have come faster than the Obama administration can cope with them. Thus, improvisation has been a major feature of the administration's response--especially with only part of the team in place.

Obama's first budget test

Gordon Adams — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:32:47 -0400

During his campaign, President Barack Obama promised to end funding national security programs, including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, through emergency budget requests. He was especially critical of supplemental requests for programs and activities unrelated to Iraq or Afghanistan or that clearly belonged in the regular defense and foreign affairs budgets.

Increasing the U.S. defense budget won't stimulate the economy

Gordon Adams — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:20:54 -0500

The next war--the battle for even more defense spending--is now under way. Major weapons program manufacturers are worried that Defense Secretary Robert Gates may be serious about looking for "hard choices" that need to be made in the Pentagon's procurement program.

Obama's test: Bringing order to the national security policy process

Gordon Adams — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:59:28 -0500

During the Bush administration, funding for the Defense Department, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security more or less doubled. But in all three cases, the goal of the budget increases wasn't to create functioning, efficient, and effective bureaucracies. Instead, it was to push a political agenda--at the cost of effective management. As a result, all three departments emerge from the last eight years less focused, less disciplined, and less effective.

Establishing the next president's national security agenda: Strengthening the civilian instrument

Gordon Adams — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:41:46 -0400

The next president will inherit a severe and growing imbalance in the tool kit he has available for dealing with the national security challenges of the early twenty-first century. In the first three parts of this series, I described these challenges and recommended steps to strengthen the White House's capability to define policy and provide guidance to agencies. I have also underlined the importance of getting defense planning and budgeting under control.

Establishing the next president's national security agenda: How to confront the defense budget morass

Gordon Adams — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:55:11 -0400

When we think about controlling the budget, we think about things like Medicare, Social Security, and urgent domestic needs such as education and alternate minimum taxes. But the most urgent fiscal and planning challenge the next president will face is the defense budget.

Establishing the next president's national security agenda: The role of the White House

Gordon Adams — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:35:00 -0400

As I outlined in the first part of this three-part series, the national security agenda facing the next president demands that the White House's role in setting policy and coordinating its implementation be seriously revamped.

Establishing the next president's national security agenda: Part I

Gordon Adams — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:57:00 -0400

With the presidential primaries ending this week, it's time to focus on the general election and the key national security challenges that the next president will face. Over the next three columns, I will outline what national security issues I think the candidates should be debating.

Getting U.S. foreign assistance right

Gordon Adams — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:17:00 -0400

The United States badly needs to get its act together in promoting its national interests and national security objectives. And it badly needs to "rebalance" its statecraft toolkit, so U.S. civilian tools can perform their missions. Currently, too much of the domestic dialogue about our role in the world has focused on near-term security problems--namely, defeating Al Qaeda and stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan.

The true cost of U.S. defense spending

Gordon Adams — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:00:00 -0400

With the likelihood of significant political change in January 2009, the Pentagon has been thinking a lot about next year's defense budget request (fiscal year 2010), which the new president will inherit when it's sent to Congress in February 2009. Budget planners and senior leaders in the Defense Department and armed forces face four possible options:

New funds for foreign aid

Gordon Adams — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:00:00 -0500

Observers declared the new Bush administration budget request dead on arrival because it contains only a $70 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan, assumes the president's tax cuts will be extended, and cuts Medicare. When it comes to security spending, however, Congress should seize the opportunity to begin rebalancing the tools of U.S. statecraft. The 8.5 percent increase proposed for diplomacy and foreign assistance promises to begin the process of strengthening U.S. civilian instruments, which badly need reform and additional funds.

How much defense spending is enough?

Gordon Adams — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:00:00 -0500

In 2008, the United States will spend more than $600 billion on defense, including funding for the Iraq War. If Congress adds the remainder of what President George W. Bush has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, spending will top $700 billion.

U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance: The momentum for reform

Gordon Adams — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:00:00 -0500

Four recent reports outline ways in which Washington can fix the dysfunctional, underfunded civilian agencies that define and implement U.S. foreign policy and assistance activities.

A look at the 2008 defense budget

Gordon Adams — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:00:00 -0500

Congress is once again working overtime to complete the federal budget. National security is at the forefront of the debate, as Congress has finally passed (and the president has signed) its $459.3 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. (The bill also contains another $11.6 billion in emergency spending for the new mine-resistant, ambush-protected armored personnel carrier intended for the army and marines in Iraq.)

Reforming the State Department

Gordon Adams — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:00:00 -0400

For Washington to successfully address the security challenges it faces, the mission and culture at U.S. foreign-policy agencies such as the State Department must be revamped.

When national security meets government bureaucracy

Gordon Adams — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:00:00 -0400

Too often Washington confronts its national security challenges by installing a "czar" to knock heads and inspire collaboration among government agencies. Here’s why that approach doesn’t work.