The bipartisan commission, facilitated by USIP from 2008-2009, was tasked by Congress to "examine and make recommendations with respect to the long-term strategic posture of the United States."  The Commission issued its final report to Congress on May 6, 2009.

 

Quick Facts About the Commission 

  • The Commission consisted of twelve members nominated by Congress - 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans were selected by the House Armed Services Committee; 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans were selected by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  • USIP contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), which provided substantive expertise and support for classified discussions and materials.
  • Fifty policy experts served in five Expert Working Groups that advised the Commission.  Working Groups examined: (1) national security strategy and policies; (2) deterrent force posture; (3) countering proliferation; (4) nuclear infrastructure; and (5) external conditions and threats.
  • There were 12 plenary meetings of the Commission from May 2008 to April 2009.
  • The Commission met with 75 people in and out of government as it prepared its report, including representatives of foreign governments.
  • The Commission and its supporting Expert Working Groups traveled to several key sites of the U.S. nuclear complex, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Y-12 National Security Complex.

 

Related Publications

China’s Security Force Posture in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia

China’s Security Force Posture in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

By: John Bradford

China’s geo-economic influence is empowering the expansion of its security force posture in the Lower Mekong region, which should be of concern to both maritime Southeast Asia and the United States. While Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia—the geographic core of mainland Southeast Asia—are demonstrating resilience and sustaining some strategic autonomy, several trends indicate that their options may be increasingly limited. This report looks at China’s security force posture in these nations, the possible ramifications of that posture, and considerations for balancing U.S. policy and outreach. 

Type: Special Report

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

U.S. Diplomatic Boycott of Beijing Olympics: No Longer 'Business as Usual'

U.S. Diplomatic Boycott of Beijing Olympics: No Longer 'Business as Usual'

Thursday, December 9, 2021

By: Lauren Baillie;  Mirna Galic;  Rachel Vandenbrink

On Monday the Biden administration announced it would not send an official United States delegation to the Beijing Winter Olympic Games as a statement against China's "ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang," as well as other human rights abuses such as in Hong Kong. U.S. athletes will still be allowed to compete in the Games, which start in February. USIP’s Lauren Baillie, Mirna Galic and Rachel Vandenbrink discuss the rationale behind the decision, how the boycott fits into the U.S. strategy surrounding the Uyghur crisis and how China and U.S. allies are responding.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global PolicyHuman Rights

Neither Summit, nor Sidebar: Assessing the Biden-Xi ‘Virtual Meeting’

Neither Summit, nor Sidebar: Assessing the Biden-Xi ‘Virtual Meeting’

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

By: Carla Freeman, Ph.D.;  Andrew Scobell, Ph.D.;  Jennifer Staats, Ph.D.

To address growing tensions between the United States and China, particularly over Taiwan, President Joe Biden and General Secretary Xi Jinping met virtually on Monday night (Tuesday morning in Beijing) for a three-hour discussion that covered a wide array of contentious issues. Both sides downplayed expectations for the session beforehand and have been relatively subdued albeit somewhat positive in their respective post-meeting statements and spins. Less formal than a summit and more structured than a sidebar, what if anything did the extended virtual top-level bilateral discussion achieve?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

How China Responds to Instability on Its Periphery: Lessons from Afghanistan and Myanmar

How China Responds to Instability on Its Periphery: Lessons from Afghanistan and Myanmar

Monday, November 1, 2021

By: Alison McFarland;  Andrew Scobell, Ph.D.

China’s timid rhetoric and underwhelming actions vis-à-vis recent political upheaval in two different neighboring countries belie the image of a confident and assertive Beijing. What explains this apparent paradox? Despite the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s outward bravado, combined with unprecedented expansion of China’s regional and global activities and presence, Xi Jinping and his Politburo colleagues remain wary when it comes to taking risks abroad. Certainly, when China believes its interests are being directly attacked, such as in recent disputes with Australia and India, the state has opted for riskier, more aggressive moves. But where Beijing is not a direct party to the conflict, caution can override its willingness to take action that would show its hand or put China in a situation where it is not guaranteed to avoid a messy exit, à la the United States in Afghanistan.

Global PolicyConflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications