{
  "id": "R44474",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44474",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 588345,
      "date": "2016-06-02",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T15:46:21.533294",
      "title": "Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "Thirty years after its enactment, Congress has undertaken a review of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (GNA) as well as the broader organization and structure of the contemporary Department of Defense (DOD) more broadly. Most observers agree that in principle a comprehensive review of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is warranted at this juncture. Further, a broad consensus appears to exist among observers that DOD must become considerably more agile while retaining its strength in order to enable the United States to meet a variety of critical emerging national security challenges.\nAgreement seemingly ends there. There appears to be little consensus on what should be changed within DOD and what specific direction reform ought to take. Discussions have begun to coalesce around a number of proposals, including reforming defense acquisition processes, further strengthening the Joint Staff, reducing Pentagon staffs, and better empowering the services in the joint arena. Ideas vary, however, on how, specifically, to achieve those outcomes. Disagreement also exists as to whether or not reorganizing DOD alone will be sufficient. Some observers maintain that a reform of the broader interagency system on national security matters is needed. \nDespite these disagreements, several fundamental, \u201cfirst order\u201d questions appear to be driving the current examination of DOD\u2019s structure. These include, but are not limited to the following:\nWhy, after the expenditure of nearly $1.6 trillion and over 15 years at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, has the United States had such difficulty translating tactical and operational victories into sustainable political outcomes?\nWhy, despite the expenditure of over $600 billion per year on defense, is the readiness of the force approaching critically low levels, according to military officials, while the number of platforms and capabilities being produced are generally short of perceived requirements?\nWhy, despite tactical and operational adaptations around the world, is DOD often seen as having difficulty formulating strategies and policies in sufficient time to adapt to and meet the increasingly dynamic threat environment? \nNo single answer exists for these questions. No one decision, no one individual, no one process led to these arguably less than desirable outcomes. Taken together, however, the issues raised by these questions suggest the systemic nature of the challenges with which the Department of Defense appears to be grappling. In other words, they suggest that DOD\u2019s organizational architecture and culture may merit serious review and analysis.\nThis report is intended to assist Congress as it evaluates the variety of reform proposals currently under discussion around Washington.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44474",
          "sha1": "b49f18df63bb781d85f1bbab9f99b8ac7e9ad56a",
          "filename": "files/20160602_R44474_b49f18df63bb781d85f1bbab9f99b8ac7e9ad56a.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44474_files&id=/0.png": "files/20160602_R44474_images_1cedfcd32a5aad39adf5ed1869941191ac921926.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44474",
          "sha1": "9e46cee57d59634d6be26715e5755665f3d1d891",
          "filename": "files/20160602_R44474_9e46cee57d59634d6be26715e5755665f3d1d891.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4837,
          "name": "Defense Authorization"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4903,
          "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 452475,
      "date": "2016-05-11",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:09:33.397941",
      "title": "Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "Thirty years after its enactment, Congress has undertaken a review of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (GNA) as well as the broader organization and structure of the contemporary Department of Defense (DOD) more broadly. Most observers agree that in principle a comprehensive review of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is warranted at this juncture. Further, a broad consensus appears to exist among observers that DOD must become considerably more agile while retaining its strength in order to enable the United States to meet a variety of critical emerging national security challenges.\nAgreement seemingly ends there. There appears to be little consensus on what should be changed within DOD and what specific direction reform ought to take. Discussions have begun to coalesce around a number of proposals, including reforming defense acquisition processes, further strengthening the Joint Staff, reducing Pentagon staffs, and better empowering the services in the joint arena. Ideas vary, however, on how, specifically, to achieve those outcomes. Disagreement also exists as to whether or not reorganizing DOD alone will be sufficient. Some observers maintain that a reform of the broader interagency system on national security matters is needed. \nDespite these disagreements, several fundamental, \u201cfirst order\u201d questions appear to be driving the current examination of DOD\u2019s structure. These include, but are not limited to the following:\nWhy, after the expenditure of nearly $1.6 trillion and over 15 years at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, has the United States had such difficulty translating tactical and operational victories into sustainable political outcomes?\nWhy, despite the expenditure of over $600 billion per year on defense, is the readiness of the force approaching critically low levels, according to military officials, while the number of platforms and capabilities being produced are generally short of perceived requirements?\nWhy, despite tactical and operational adaptations around the world, is DOD often seen as having difficulty formulating strategies and policies in sufficient time to adapt to and meet the increasingly dynamic threat environment? \nNo single answer exists for these questions. No one decision, no one individual, no one process led to these arguably less than desirable outcomes. Taken together, however, the issues raised by these questions suggest the systemic nature of the challenges with which the Department of Defense appears to be grappling. In other words, they suggest that DOD\u2019s organizational architecture and culture may merit serious review and analysis.\nThis report is intended to assist Congress as it evaluates the variety of reform proposals currently under discussion around Washington.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44474",
          "sha1": "99deb86e9df9477161a0cda7babbb2fb0bb00228",
          "filename": "files/20160511_R44474_99deb86e9df9477161a0cda7babbb2fb0bb00228.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44474",
          "sha1": "a0ebc56c50341c13753f691f85d083cc2f632f98",
          "filename": "files/20160511_R44474_a0ebc56c50341c13753f691f85d083cc2f632f98.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc847504/",
      "id": "R44474_2016Apr20",
      "date": "2016-04-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-06-02T05:26:07",
      "title": "Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "This report is designed to assist Congress as it evaluates the many different defense reform proposals suggested by the variety of stakeholders and institutions within the U.S. national security community.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20160420_R44474_5daec28e97e1cbf1fec518fc9070ee5ee72acdd9.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20160420_R44474_5daec28e97e1cbf1fec518fc9070ee5ee72acdd9.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Defense policy",
          "name": "Defense policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Military policy",
          "name": "Military policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Military personnel",
          "name": "Military personnel"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}