The Art of Shaping Defense Policy: Scope, Components, Relationships (but no Algorithms)

Abstract

In 1999-2000, I taught the first defense planning course at the "G.S. Rakovski" Defense and Staff College in Sofia, Bulgaria. All students were senior officers-mostly full colonels-and yet the course had to begin with a thorough explanation of what "defense planning" is and how it differs from and relates to "operational planning." At the time, references to "planning" in regard to the military almost exclusively addressed the intended use of available forces, or what was known as "strategic and operational planning." That is hardly surprising, because-unlike in NATO-defense policy-making and planning in the Warsaw Pact were fully centralized. The capitals, with the exception of Moscow, had either no or very limited knowledge and experience in defense policy and planning. In addition, in the 1990s the defense establishments in the former Warsaw Pact countries and ex-Soviet republics were only a small part of what were immature and generally weak democratic institutions. Even under the impact of declining economies and the lack of an obvious enemy, senior political and military leaders felt safer adhering to inherited force structures and force development models. One result is that, at the time of their accession, very few of the new NATO members had any sizeable contribution to make to the Alliance's capabilities. 1 A reader who is an experienced defense policy maker or defense planner is advised to skip this article. But many defense establishments in Partner countries, as well as in a number of new NATO members, still struggle with the concept of defense policy, the role of civilians in defense, the concept of capability, the linkage between plans and budgets, and the relationship between force development and technological modernization. This article is intended to facilitate an understanding of basic concepts and relationships in defense policy making. It does not provide an algorithm, nor any one-size-fitsall templates of processes and documents. The figures included in this article are intended to illustrate relationships, and not algorithmic steps. Nevertheless, I hope that it

Capabilities-based Planning for Security Sector Transformation

“…The term "capability" is defined as the capacity, provided by a set of resources and abilities, to achieve a measurable result in performing a task under specified conditions and to specific performance standards. 3 Therefore, in addition to the four main components, a more detailed "top-down" part of the planning process requires to define a set of plausible conditions (often design- nated as "planning scenarios"), as well as the set of tasks to be performed in these conditions. Thus, a rigorous planning process links:…”

A Taxonomy of Crisis Management Functions

“…. the capacity, provided by a set of resources and abilities, to achieve a measurable result in performing a task under specified conditions and to specific performance standards" [90]. Paul K. Davis, a renowned author on the issue, argues that the method is about "planning, under uncertainty, to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of modern-day challenges and circumstances while working within an economic framework that necessitates choice" [91].…”

Scenarios for Resource Allocation to Bulgaria’s Defense in the Horizon of 2035

“…The second type of scenarios allows to represent the complexity of the future world through particular instantiations of likely future threats and challenges, and then to derive requirements to defense [1,2,5]. These are known as force planning scenarios [6] or, in the NATO parlance, as "planning situations" [5,7].…”

“…These are known as force planning scenarios [6] or, in the NATO parlance, as "planning situations" [5,7]. The use of this type of scenarios is already a well established practice and 'state-of-the-art' approach in NATO's defense planning, as well as defense planning in NATO nations, Australia and New Zealand [1], South Korea [8], and other countries.…”