Thread by @becca_wasser

I’ve seen many tweets about how the Global Posture Review is a flawed exercise that doesn’t prioritize, won’t produce change on a reasonable timeline, and examined the wrong things. Some of that is true, but it reflects misunderstandings about the review. [THREAD]

What is the GPR? It is a review of US global bases, forces & access arrangements, among other things. It is meant to adjust posture gradually rather than radically change it. It also provides a baseline to measure future deployment and posture requests.

defense.gov/News/News-Stor…

The GPR is standard but was hyped by the Biden admin as part of its messaging about shifting focus to China and the Indo-Pacific. Doing so set the stage for discussions with allies and partners around the globe to start making the admin’s desired posture changes a reality.

There are two admin posture priorities in the interim NSS:
1) improve Indo-Pacific posture by strengthening US presence & deploying new capabilities
2) “rightsize” Middle East posture by reducing forces & changing the basing structure.

whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…

These two priorities are linked as reductions in one theater enables a plus up in the other. But the GPR has not announced any new or game-changing posture shifts in the Indo-Pacific and has claimed that more studies are needed to determine posture adjustments in the Middle East.

I’m not surprised. The posture priorities require changes to access—new and enhanced access in the Indo-Pacific and greater contingency access in the ME. Access is determined by host nations and require incentives and lengthy consultations to sort out. cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/…

Changing access takes time and altering fixed posture takes longer, so we’re not seeing major changes to posture anytime soon. When changes do occur, they are usually at a smaller scale and more subtle than folks realize. For example: stripes.com/branches/army/…

Folks have also criticized the GPR for what it didn’t examine, like the US ability to conduct two simultaneous conflicts. That is a specific force planning construct and may not be the selected construct in the forthcoming NDS. It is outside the purview of the GPR.

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1465426283924537354

This is my biggest gripe—I don’t agree with the sequencing of the GPR before the NDS. I see NDS implementation driving posture requirements, not the other way around. In the absence of a strategy (and a force planning construct), folks are reading into the GPR for more.

In sum, routine strategy reviews like the GPR rarely create rapid, major change. There is always a longer implementation process. The GPR was never going to magically alter posture tomorrow, but it may result in useful posture changes several months to years from now.