Global Force Posture Review

Global Force Posture Review
Name	Global Force Posture Review
Date	2013–present
Country	United States
Type	Strategic review

Global Force Posture Review

The Global Force Posture Review is an interagency strategic assessment conducted to evaluate the disposition, size, and basing of United States Armed Forces relative to global commitments, alliances, and contingencies. It synthesizes analyses from the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. European Command, and regional combatant commands alongside inputs from the Department of State, National Security Council, Congress and allied partners such as NATO, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Background and Purpose

The review originated as a response to shifting security dynamics after the Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), the Libyan Civil War (2011), and the rise of the People's Republic of China's military modernization programs, with policy drivers including the Pivot to Asia (Obama), the 2018 National Defense Strategy, and lessons from the Goldwater–Nichols Act reforms. It aims to reconcile force posture with obligations under treaties such as the Treaty of Brussels (NATO), bilateral agreements with Japan–United States Security Treaty, and status-of-forces arrangements like those involving Germany, Italy, and Okinawa.

Scope and Methodology

The review covers force levels, basing, rotational deployments, prepositioned equipment, logistics hubs, and command-and-control architectures across theaters including Europe, Indo-Pacific, Middle East, and Africa. Methodology blends force-planning constructs from the Defense Planning Guidance, risk assessments from the National Intelligence Council, wargaming from the Rand Corporation, modeling from the Institute for Defense Analyses, and lessons from operations such as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Inherent Resolve.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Findings typically identify shortfalls in surge capacity, gaps in anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) resiliency against capabilities fielded by the People's Liberation Army Navy, and sustainment challenges similar to those revealed during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force. Recommendations often include rebasing initiatives inspired by prior actions like the 2004 Base Realignment and Closure Commission, increased rotational presence modeled after Marine Corps Forces Pacific deployments, expansion of access agreements akin to those with Australia and Philippines, and enhanced prepositioning reminiscent of U.S. Army Europe's stocks.

Regional Assessments

Assessments produce region-specific directives: in the Indo-Pacific they propose posture adjustments to counter PRC power projection and protect sea lines near the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait; in Europe they recommend reinforcement to deter Russian Federation incursions similar to responses after the Crimea annexation and Donbas conflict; in the Middle East they balance counterterrorism efforts against groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda while managing relations with partners such as Saudi Arabia and Israel; in Africa they focus on capacity-building with actors like the African Union and United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Force Structure and Basing Implications

Implications include adjustments to carrier strike group rotations involving the U.S. Navy, repositioning of forward air bases used by U.S. Air Forces Europe and Pacific Air Forces, consolidation of Army brigade combat teams and rotational brigades similar to transformations under the Modular Force concept, and changes to Marine Corps Marine Air-Ground Task Force basing patterns following the Force Design 2030 initiatives. Proposals often reference precedents such as Camp Humphreys expansion, withdrawal from Iwakuni, and basing negotiations like those that established Al Udeid Air Base.

Budgetary and Logistical Considerations

Cost estimates draw from budgeting practices in the Defense Budget, the Budget Control Act of 2011 constraints, and programmatic implications for procurement programs like the F-35 Lightning II, Zumwalt-class destroyer, Virginia-class submarine, and logistics platforms maintained by the Military Sealift Command. Logistical planning references global supply nodes exemplified by Diego Garcia, prepositioning sites akin to those at Kuwait and Bahrain, and contractor support models used in Operation Iraqi Freedom sustainment.

Implementation and Timeline

Implementation typically phases over multi-year timelines aligned with the Quadrennial Defense Review cadence, Congressional authorization and appropriations cycles, and multinational coordination with organizations such as NATO and partners like United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Milestones include congressional hearings, environmental reviews under statutes involving the National Environmental Policy Act, and bilateral status-of-forces negotiations that mirror past agreements with South Korea and Japan.

Strategic and Political Implications

Strategically, posture revisions affect deterrence relationships among actors including the Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, Islamic Republic of Iran, and non-state networks such as Hezbollah while influencing alliance cohesion with NATO, ANZUS, and U.S.-Japan Alliance. Politically, changes provoke domestic debate in legislatures like the United States Congress and parliaments in Japan, South Korea, and Germany, impact public opinion in host communities such as those near Okinawa and Guam, and intersect with international law frameworks overseen by institutions including the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

Category:United States defense policy