 military plays such an enormous role in setting America’s foreign policy, it’s a document that demands careful study. And it’s also vital to examine the gap between the soaring ambitions of the QDR and the hard realities of the budget.

This year’s QDR, the Obama administration’s first, portrays the security challenges of the future as fundamentally different from those of the past. In the 21st century, conventional U.S. military superiority will increasingly drive potential adversaries toward asymmetric responses to American power. Recognizing this new state of affairs, the./ QDR emphasizes the nontraditional threats posed by WMD terrorist attacks, hybrid warfare combining high- and low-tech tactics, and the loss of shared access to the global commons in air, sea, space, and cyberspace. Even potential competitors like China are more likely to attack the United States using asymmetric means, such as by countering American power in cyberspace rather than in a blue-water naval battle in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Together, these asymmetric security challenges could erode America’s freedom of action and ability to influence the course of world events in the years ahead — if the United States does not begin to prepare for them now.

While the new defense budget released alongside the QDR continues to reallocate resources in response to nontraditional threats, it is difficult to compel dollars and plans to follow words. The quip about past QDRs — "Civilians propose and services dispose" — still holds true today. In its innovative "Quad Chart," the 2006 QDR masterfully sketched out the four main challenges facing the United States in the future. However, the Government Accountability Office judged that the 2006 report did not comprehensively consider "different options for organizing and sizing its forces to provide needed capabilities." Similarly, the 2010 QDR concedes that further narrowing of the gap between vision and reality may be required. In its own words, the new QDR "describes some of the tradeoffs that Defense Department leaders have identified to enable the rebalancing of U.S. mili­tary capabilities," but admits, "More such tradeoffs could be necessary in the future."

The new QDR and defense budget illustrate the challenge of matching vision to reality, even with more than $700 billion in annual funding for the Department of Defense. Closing the distance between strategic priorities listed in the QDR and realistic budgetary plans to implement them will prove
military plays such an enormous role in setting America ’s foreign policy, it ’s a text file that demand careful study. And it ’s also critical to probe the gap between the soaring ambition of the QDR and the intemperate realities of the budget. 

 This class ’s QDR, the Obama presidency ’s first, portray the security challenges of the future as basically different from those of the past. In the 21st century, conventional U.S. military superiority will increasingly drive potential adversary toward asymmetric responses to American power. recognize this new state of personal business, the./ QDR emphasizes the nontraditional menace posed by WMD terrorist attacks, hybrid warfare combining high- and low - technical school tactics, and the loss of shared access to the global commons in tune, sea, space, and cyberspace. Even potential competitors like China are more likely to attack the United States using asymmetric means, such as by counter American power in cyberspace quite than in a aristocratic - water naval battle in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. in concert, these asymmetric security system challenges could erode America ’s freedom of action and ability to determine the course of world events in the years ahead — if the United States does not begin to prepare for them now. 

 While the new defense budget released alongside the QDR continues to reapportion resources in reply to nontraditional threat, it is difficult to compel dollars and plans to follow word. The quip about past QDRs — " Civilians propose and service dispose " — still holds true today. In its advanced " Quad Chart, " the 2006 QDR masterfully sketched out the four main challenges facing the United States in the future. However, the Government Accountability Office judged that the 2006 report card did not comprehensively consider " unlike options for organizing and sizing its forces to leave needed capabilities. " Similarly, the 2010 QDR concede that further narrowing of the gap between imagination and reality may be required. In its own words, the new QDR " describes some of the tradeoffs that Defense Department leaders have identified to enable the rebalancing of U.S. mili­tary capabilities, " but admit, " More such tradeoffs could be necessary in the future. " 

 The new QDR and defensive structure budget illustrate the challenge of matching imagination to reality, even with more than $ 700 billion in annual funding for the Department of Defense. Closing the distance between strategic priority listed in the QDR and realistic budgetary plans to implement them will prove
 mipitary plays such an enovmous role in sejtung Amxrica’s roreign oolicy, it’s a document that dxmanes caeeful study. And it’s alro vital no examinw tht gap between the soaring ambitjlns mh the QDR and tme hard reanities of the tuagzt.

This year’s QDR, the Obama administrwtion’s gigst, portrays tre stcuwity bhcllenges of the future as fundajentallj different from yhose of the past. In the 21sh cejtury, conventional U.S. militari su[wriority wilu increasingly drive pktential adversaries toward asyometrnc responsew ro Wkerican powxr. Recjgnizing this new stdte of sffairs, the./ QDV empiasizes the nontraditionan threats posed by WMD terrmrnst attacks, hybrid waefqre cmmbiting yigf- ahd lkw-tech tartics, and tge loss of whared access to tht gjibal commons jn air, sqa, space, and cyberspace. Even potential bompstitors like China are nore likely to attack the Unitqd States using asymmetric means, such as by countaring Xmexlgan oiwfr in cyberspace rather than in a blue-water nwbak nattle in the mibdle of the Pacigif Psean. Together, these asgmmetric security fhallendes ciuld erodt Ametica’s freedom of action and ability to pnflyence the course oy world evencs in jhe yesrs ahead — if the Uniteb Statss does not begin to orepare for them noe.

Wvile the new defense budgee releasev alougside tfe QCR coneinues to geallocate resources in gespouse tm nontradihional threats, it is difficult vp compel dolkass dnd planf to nollow words. Thq quip about pcst QDRs — "Civklians proiose and vervices difpose" — still vllds true tovay. In itf inbovarive "Quxa Chart," the 2006 QCR masteryblly sketxhed out the four kaiv challenges facnug the United Stayes in tje ftdure. However, the Goxrrnmevt Accountanilkty Pffice judged that tve 2006 deport did not comlrchensiveli considew "different oltions for organizlng aid sizmng itx fjrces to provide needed capabimities." Sililwrly, the 2010 QDW cokcedgs that furcher narrowing of the gap between vision and reality may bw required. In its ocn words, the iew QDW "describas some of the tradeiffs that Defense Department leaders hzve idantifled to enable the rebalancing of U.S. mili­tary capabilities," but admits, "More such vrwdeoffs coumd br necvsscry in thq fuvuce."

The new QDR and defense budget illustrate the rhallenge mf matching vision to reality, rvdn with more jhan $700 billion in annual fuhding fot the Department of Defense. Cloxing the distance betweek strateguc prjoritiva uisted in the QDR snd reclistix budgerary plans to impuemrnb them wilp prpvz
military plays such an enormous role in foreign it’s a that demands careful to the gap between soaring ambitions of QDR and the hard realities of budget. This year’s QDR, the Obama administration’s first, portrays the security challenges of future as fundamentally different from those of the past. In the 21st century, U.S. superiority increasingly potential adversaries toward asymmetric responses to American power. Recognizing this new state of affairs, the./ QDR the nontraditional threats posed by WMD terrorist attacks, warfare combining high- and tactics, and the loss of access the global in sea, and cyberspace. Even competitors like China are more likely to attack the United States using asymmetric means, such as by American power rather than a naval in the middle Pacific Ocean. Together, these asymmetric security America’s freedom of action and ability to influence course of events in the years ahead — the United States does not begin to prepare them now. While the new defense budget released alongside the QDR continues to reallocate resources to nontraditional threats, it difficult to compel and to words. quip about QDRs — "Civilians propose and services dispose" — still holds true In its innovative "Quad Chart," the 2006 QDR masterfully sketched four challenges facing the States in the future. the Accountability Office judged that report not options organizing sizing its forces to needed capabilities." Similarly, the 2010 concedes that further narrowing and reality may be required. In its own the new QDR "describes some of the that Defense Department leaders have identified to enable the rebalancing of U.S. capabilities," but such tradeoffs could be necessary in the future." new QDR and defense illustrate the challenge of matching vision to reality, even more $700 billion annual funding for Department of Defense. the distance between listed in QDR realistic implement them will prove
 military plays such an enormoUs role in seTting ameRicA’s ForeIgn pOlicy, it’s a documENt thAt demands careful study. ANd it’s AlSO vitAL tO examIne the gAP bETWeeN tHe SoaRiNG aMbitiOns Of the QDr and the harD reAlIties of the buDGeT.

This year’s qDR, The Obama admiNisTratioN’s FirST, portRayS the sEcuritY ChalleNges of the FuTUre as fUNdamentALLy DiffErent from those of tHE pASt. In the 21st centuRy, convEnTIoNAL U.S. MilItary superIoRity wILl increASiNGLY drIVe potential adVersaries toWArd AsymmeTrIc rESponseS to AmErICan Power. RecognIzinG this new sTate of AFfairs, tHE./ QDR empHasizeS thE noNtraDItIoNal ThREatS PoSed BY WMd terroriSt AtTacks, HybrID WARfarE coMbinIng hiGh- and low-tech tActIcs, aND thE loss Of shaRed aCcEss to The gloBal coMmOns in air, sea, spacE, and CyberspacE. EvEn PotEnTial cOMpetitOrs LikE China aRe more lIKelY tO ATTaCk the United States uSiNG AsYmmetric Means, sUCh As BY counterInG AmEricAN Power In cyBErSpace ratHer thaN In A bLue-wateR nAval baTtLe iN thE middLE of tHe PaciFic Ocean. togetHEr, these asymmetRIc security chaLLeNGEs COuld EroDe America’s fReedOM of aCtioN AnD abILity tO inflUeNCe THe course of world evenTs In the yEars aHead — if the UnitEd States doES NOt begin tO prePArE For them now.

WhilE the nEw defense bUDget releAsed aLongside The QDR conTINues to reAllOcaTe rEsoURCeS in response to NONtraDiTional tHreAts, it is DifFicUlt To cOmPel dollarS and planS tO fOlLoW woRds. ThE Quip abouT pAst qDrs — "CIviliANs propOse anD serViCeS DisPose" — stiLL hOLDs trUe ToDay. IN itS iNnovaTive "qUad chart," thE 2006 QDR masteRfuLLy skEtChEd out thE four main chalLeNges facing ThE UnIted StATEs in the fUture. However, the GovernmeNT AccounTabIlity offiCe judged tHat The 2006 repOrt DId not cOmprehEnsivElY coNSIder "dIFFeRenT oPtions for oRGAniZing aNd SiziNg its foRces to provide needeD CapAbilities." SimiLarLy, thE 2010 qdR ConCEdES thAt FUrtHER narrowing of the Gap between ViSIoN and realitY May Be RequireD. In its oWn worDS, the new qDR "descriBes some of ThE traDEOffS that DefenSe DepartMent leadeRS have IDeNtifiEd tO enablE tHe rEbalaNcing oF u.S. mIli­taRy capaBiLities," But adMiTs, "More suCh tradeoffs could be necesSary in The fuTurE."

The new QDr anD DefEnse budgeT illUstrate the ChaLleNge of MatCHing vIsioN To ReaLIty, evEn wiTH more than $700 BIlLioN IN aNnual fundinG FOR thE DepaRtmENt of DeFensE. Closing the distanCE between strateGic pRIOriTieS ListEd In the QDR and reaLisTiC BUdgetary PlAns to implemEnt them wIlL Prove
 military plays such an en ormous rol e inset tin gAmer ica’ s foreign poli c y, i t’s a document that de mands  c a refu l  s tudy.  And it ’ sa l sovi ta l t oe xa minethe  gap be tween thesoa ri ng ambitions of  the QDR a ndthe hard rea lit ies of  t heb udget .
Thisyear’s QDR, t he Obamaad m inistr a tion’sf i rs t, p ortrays the secur i ty challenges ofthe fu tu r ea s  fu nda mentally d if feren t  from t h os e o f t h e past. In th e 21st cent u ry,  conve nt ion a l U.S.  mili ta r y s uperioritywill  increasi ngly d r ive pot e ntial a dversa rie s t owar d  a sy mme tr i c r e sp ons e s t o Americ an  p ower.  Rec o g n i zing  th is n ew st ate of affair s,the. /  QD R emp hasiz es t he  nont raditi onalth reats posed byWMDterrorist  at ta cks ,hybri d  warfa recom bininghigh- a n d l ow - t e ch  tactics, and thelo s s  o f shared  acces s  t ot he globa lcom mons i n air , se a ,space, a nd cyb e rs pa ce. Eve npotent ia l c omp etito r s li ke Chi na are m ore l i kely to attack the United St a te s us i ng a sym metric mean s, s u ch a s by co unt e ringAmeri ca n  p o wer in cyberspace r at her th an in  a blue-water  naval bat t l e  in themidd l eo f the PacificOcean . Together ,  these a symme tric sec urity cha l l enges co uld  er ode  Am e r ic a’s freedom o f acti on  and ab ili ty to i nfl uen cethe  c ourse ofworld ev en ts  i nthe  year s  ahead —  i f t he  Un itedS tatesdoesnotbe gi n  to  prepar e  f o r  the mno w.
Whi le  thenewd efe nse bud get relea sed alon gs id e the Q DR continuesto  reallocat eres ources i n respon se to nontraditional th r eats, i t i s dif ficu lt to com pel  dolla rsa nd pla ns tofollo wwor d s . The q ui p a bo ut past QD R s  —"Civi li anspropose  and services disp o se"  — still hold s t ruet o da y.I ni tsin n ova t i ve "Quad Chart, " the 2006  Q D Rmasterfull y  sk et ched ou t the f our m a in chal lenges fa cing theUn ited S tat es in thefuture.However,t he Go v er nment  Ac counta bi lit y Off ice ju d ged  that  the 2 00 6 repo rt di dnot comp rehensively consider "d iffere nt op tio ns for or gan i zin g and siz ingits forces  to  pr ovide  ne e ded c apab i li tie s ." Si mila r ly, the 2 0 10  QD R co ncedes that f u rth er na rro w ing of  the  gap between visi o n and realitymayb e  re qui r ed.In  its own words , t he n ew QDR " de scribes som e of the  t r adeof fs tha t Defe nse Dep a r tm e nt lea ders  ha ve identi fie dt o enabl eth e  rebal anci ng  of U. S. mil i ­tar y capabilities," b ut ad m i ts, " M ore  such  t radeoff s  cou ld be nece ssary in th e futu re." 

The  new QD Rand de fen se  budget il l ustrate t he ch allenge  o f ma tch ing vi sion t o rea lity ,eve n with mo r e  t h an  $ 7 00bill ion i nannu al fundin g  for the  De p artment  o f D e f ense.C lo s i ng the dis tan ce be t w een strate g ic p r io r ities  liste d in t he QDRa ndre alistic  bu d g etary pla ns to imp l eme nt  the m will p ro ve
 military_plays such_an enormous role in_setting America’s_foreign_policy, it’s_a_document that demands_careful study. And_it’s also vital to_examine the gap_between_the soaring ambitions of the QDR and the hard realities of the budget.

This year’s_QDR,_the Obama_administration’s_first,_portrays the security challenges of_the future as fundamentally different_from those_of the past. In the 21st century, conventional_U.S._military superiority will_increasingly drive potential adversaries toward asymmetric responses to American_power. Recognizing this new state of_affairs, the./ QDR_emphasizes_the_nontraditional threats posed by_WMD terrorist attacks, hybrid warfare combining_high- and low-tech tactics, and the_loss of shared access to the global_commons in air, sea, space, and_cyberspace. Even potential competitors like_China are_more likely to attack the_United States using_asymmetric means,_such as by_countering American power in cyberspace rather_than in a_blue-water naval battle in the middle_of_the Pacific Ocean._Together,_these_asymmetric security_challenges could erode_America’s_freedom of_action_and ability to influence the course_of_world events in the years ahead —_if the United States_does_not begin to prepare_for them now.

While the new_defense budget released alongside the QDR_continues to_reallocate resources_in response to nontraditional threats, it is difficult to compel dollars_and plans to follow words. The_quip about past QDRs_— "Civilians_propose_and services dispose"_—_still holds_true today. In its innovative "Quad Chart,"_the 2006_QDR masterfully sketched out the four_main challenges facing the_United_States in the future. However, the_Government Accountability Office judged that the_2006 report did not comprehensively_consider_"different_options for organizing and sizing_its forces to provide needed capabilities."_Similarly, the 2010_QDR concedes that further narrowing of the_gap_between vision and reality may be_required._In its own words, the new_QDR_"describes_some of the tradeoffs that_Defense Department leaders have identified to_enable the rebalancing of U.S. mili­tary capabilities," but admits,_"More such tradeoffs_could be necessary in the_future."

The_new_QDR and defense budget illustrate the challenge of matching vision_to reality,_even with more_than $700 billion in annual funding for the Department of_Defense. Closing the distance between strategic priorities_listed in the QDR and realistic budgetary plans to implement them_will prove