Bad Idea: Using the Phrase 'Military Requirements'
It’s a familiar military story: a new weapon system has certain “requirements”—say a range of X miles and a total quantity of Y. Later, when testing shows a range of less than X and fiscal pressures cut the procurement quantities, the service nevertheless goes ahead because this new system is better than what is currently available. So, is the “requirement” not actually required? The answer is no; military “requirements” are actually goals that can be changed. This might be chalked up to quirky military jargon, but the notion of “requirements” has two perverse effects. The first is that it encourages advocates to ask for maximum capabilities. The second is that it sets goals without a sense of trade-offs. The term should be abolished.
The notion of “requirements” is deeply embedded in military jargon and decision-making processes. For example, the Joint Staff runs the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which, not surprisingly, sets “requirements” for new systems. New systems are described in “Operational Requirements Documents.” The concept is not limited to acquisition. There is the Manpower Requirements Report, which describes the numbers and organizational allocation of DOD personnel, and operational matériel requirements documents, which set logistics demands, to name just a few.
Mark Cancian is a senior adviser with the CSIS International Security Program.