Defense Planning in a Time of Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the 2001–2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, and Implications for the Army — Executive Summary

Abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr1309z1Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. iii PrefaceThe RAND Arroyo Center conducted a study for the U.S. Army titled Defense Planning in a Decade of Conflict. The purpose of the project was to perform a comparative historical review of the four Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDRs) conducted since the first QDR in 1997-including QDR reports in , and March 2014-to identify larger trends, as well as implications and recommendations for the Army to shape the conduct of and thereby improve future reviews. 1 The main product of that project was a report-Defense AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Daniel Klippstein, deputy director of Strategy, Plans and Policy, Headquarters, Department of the Army G-35 SS, for sponsoring our study, as well as COL Jeff Hannon, Headquarters, Department of the Army G-35 SSP, who served as action officer for the study. We also wish to thank Tim Muchmore, Headquarters, Department of the Army G-8, QDR, for his support of our study.Achieving the study's goals required an in-depth understanding of the four Quadrennial Defense Reviews from the perspective of participants in the reviews. Accordingly, the authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the many defense professionals who agreed to participate in structured conversations about their participation in and perspectives on the conduct of the Quadrennial Defense Reviews. As they were promised anonymity, these individuals must remain nameless.We wish to express our gratitude to RAND colleagues Richard Darilek and Burgess Laird and to our external reviewer, GEN Walter L. Sharp, U.S. Army (Ret.), for their very helpful reviews.We also would like to thank RAND colleagues Michael Johnson for his early advice and other assistance on this project, Josh Klimas for his assistance with da...

Effect of Whey Protein Supplementation on Physical Performance and Body Composition in Army Initial Entry Training Soldiers

“…This leads to higher training costs and delayed integration of IET soldiers into operational units for military service. Proper preparation is crucial as the pool of physically ready soldiers has been diminished by repeated deployments [ 34 ], musculoskeletal injury, and a small pool of available recruits resulting from poor health and fitness of the United States general population [ 35 ].…”