WASHINGTON — Defense Policy Board Chairman John Hamre, in a visit to Capitol Hill Thursday, threw his weight behind the Senate's plan to shake up the defense acquisitions hierarchy.

Hamre, a former senior Pentagon official and the current chief of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an influential Washington think tank, also endorsed a House defense policy bill that would require the National Security Council advisor to be confirmed by the Senate, if the NSC's staff rises above 100. It stands at about 450.

Testifying before the full House Armed Services Committee before it conferences its defense policy bill with its aggressive Senate counterpart, Hamre said he supports a provision to end the office of the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer and divide its duties between two positions, one of them a new chief technological innovator for the Defense Department.

"The No. 3 position in the department needs to be the chief innovation officer, who's going to bring superior technology and put it in the hands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, going forward," said Hamre. "I strongly support this provision."

The two bills offer differing, but significant, changes to defense acquisitions, DoD's structure and to the National Security Council.

The White House has threatened to veto both bills, and Defense Secretary Ash Carter has charged that the bills represent "micromanagement" from Congress. A White House policy memo last month insisted the Senate measures on acquisitions, "would roll back the acquisition reforms of the last two decades," calling them "inappropriate" as other acquisition reforms begin to show progress.

Hamre, asked by the HASC to weigh in on five of the most significant portions of the Senate bill, drew a distinction between this round of defense reforms and the major reforms of 30 years ago. The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation, he said, was borne out military operational failures without a counterpart today.

"We do not have failure in the field today," he said. "We have policy failure, but it's not military. We need to make changes now because we don't have the resources to support the needs we have. We have to make this organization more agile and streamlined."

Hamre urged lawmakers to use caution.

"Looking at this legislation and how it changes the department, please be careful, we're at war," he said. "We've got at least two wars going on, operations around the world, we're about to change governments, and so I'd ask you to approach this with prudence, please."


1. Elevating the director of defense research and engineering and diminishing the director of acquisition, technology and logistics (AT&L): Yes. 

Past bureaucratic changes inadvertently cost DoD better access to innovative hardware. Today AT&L, is "not an innovation organization, they are a compliance organization," Hamre said. "If we have to restore innovation to the department, we have to create a lean, superior position in the department."

2. Cutting general and flag officers by 25 percent: No, but delay the cuts and ask DoD for its plan to make them.

"Simply imposing a cut of 25 percent is pretty arbitrary right now," Hamre said. "My recommendation is to keep the cut in place, but keep the implementation a year away."

3. Cross-functional teams: No. 

"I understand the sincerity of the proposal, but I think it's profoundly wrong for Congress to dictate the operational activity of the department," Hamre said. "Hold him accountable, and let him organize to achieve those goals.

4. Bring the Joint Chiefs chairman into the chain of command for select administrative matters: No, as it erodes civilian control of the military, Hamre said.

"Civilian control is a toggle switch, either its on or its off," Hamre said. "It's not a rheostat where you can dial some level of civilian control and give powers directly to the chairman."

5. Capping the National Security Council: Yes. 

Hamre backed an amendment from  HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, that would require the Senate to approve the president's national security advisor, if the staff of the NSC rises above 100.

The Senate bill would cap the NSC staff at 150 people.

"The status of the National Security Council rests at a fault line in the Constitution," Hamre said. "Is the NSC an extension of the work of the departments, where Congress has oversight? Or is the NSC an extension of the president where the right of presidential privilege gives privacy and autonomy to its deliberations?"

Email: jgould@defensenews.com

Twitter: @reporterjoe

Joe Gould was the senior Pentagon reporter for Defense News, covering the intersection of national security policy, politics and the defense industry. He had previously served as Congress reporter.

Share:
More In Home