▁focused ▁only ▁on ▁policy . ▁She ▁understood ▁she ’ s ▁not ▁going ▁to ▁manage ▁effectively ▁with ▁a ▁b usted ▁institution .” ▁ ▁The ▁U . S . ▁Global ▁Le ad ership ▁Co al ition ▁comm ended ▁the ▁creation ▁of ▁the ▁Q DD R , ▁calling ▁it ▁" an ▁important ▁step ▁toward ▁elev ating ▁and ▁strength ening ▁the ▁civil ian - led ▁tools ▁of ▁diplom acy ▁and ▁development ." ▁ ▁The ▁Project ▁on ▁National ▁Security ▁Reform ▁said ▁it ▁was ▁important ▁for ▁the ▁Q DD R ▁to ▁m eld ▁a ▁top - down ▁approach ▁to ▁man aging ▁resources ▁to ▁a ▁bottom - up ▁approach ▁of ▁exam ining ▁the ▁needs ▁of ▁each ▁emb ass y ▁abroad . ▁ ▁The ▁Heritage ▁Foundation ▁was ▁ske pt ical , ▁predict ing ▁that ▁" the ▁final ▁Q DD R ▁product ▁will ▁repeat ▁past ▁mistakes ▁by ▁maintain ing ▁a ▁focus ▁on ▁the ▁traditional ▁official ▁government ▁instruments ▁of ▁foreign ▁aid ▁and ▁will ▁fail ▁to ▁achieve ▁the ▁true ▁integration ▁of ▁all ▁the ▁tools ▁of ▁U . S . ▁foreign ▁and ▁security ▁policy ." ▁ ▁The ▁C ato ▁Institute ▁was ▁also ▁ske pt ical , ▁saying ▁that ▁the ▁model , ▁the ▁Pent agon ' s ▁Qu ad ren n ial ▁Def ense ▁Review , ▁had ▁produced ▁" a ▁series ▁of ▁vac uous ▁documents ▁that ▁comm ing le ▁vague , ▁un subst anti ated ▁claims ▁about ▁great ▁historical ▁sh ifts ▁under way ▁... ▁with ▁threat ▁infl ation . ▁There ▁is ▁no ▁evidence ▁that ▁these ▁documents ▁have ▁produced ▁much ▁beyond ▁was ted ▁time ▁and ▁effort ."