Carl Conetta. PDA Briefing Memo #52, 25 October 2011.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1110bm52.pdf

Excerpt:

The sharp rise in the Pentagon’s base budget since 1998 (46% in real terms) is substantially due to strategic choice, not security requirements, per se. It reflects a refusal to set priorities as well as a move away from the traditional goals of military deterrence, containment, and defense to more ambitious ends: threat prevention, command of the commons, and the transformation of the global security environment. The geographic scope of routine US military activity also has expanded.

companion piece: The Pentagon’s New Mission Set: A Sustainable Choice?, by Carl Conetta. An updated and expanded excerpt from the Report of the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget (USB) for the United States, August 2011. http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/111024Pentagon-missions.pdf

Capitol Visitors Center, 11 June 2010.

Fawzia Sheikh. Inside Defense, 29 September 2009.

Excerpt:

…the South Korean air force will maintain a combined headquarters with American forces; this headquarters will be led by U.S. 7th Air Force and report to the head of the ROK military, Sharp added. In this case, the United States is taking the lead because it offers strong air power, which must be fused with the necessary intelligence collection of North Korean activities, he said, adding that in the event of war on the peninsula the air component would “take out the long-range artillery” of the northern adversary and support ground troops as they move north “for the complete destruction of the North Korean military.”

Anita Dancs. Foreign Policy in Focus, 3 July 2009. Posted on the Commonwealth Institute Website (printable .pdf file.)

Government Accountability Office, 02 July 2009. Hosted on the Inside Defense Website.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09706r.pdf

Michele Flournoy and Shawn Brimley. Proceedings Magazine, US Naval Institute, July 2009.

Charles Knight, Carl Conetta, and James P. McGovern. Minuteman Media, 1 January 2009.

excerpt:

Any adjustment in national security planning is bound to be controversial – and it should be. But we can no longer afford to shy away from that controversy. Our current circumstance demands that we enter into a broad and deep discussion about national strategic priorities, including security priorities. And this necessarily entails looking behind the curtain that shields the defense budget from more serious scrutiny.

Patrick M. Cronin, editor. Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2009.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/index.cfm?type=section&secid=8&pageid=126

Eugene Gholz and Daryl G. Press. presented at America and the World, a Tobin Project Conference at Airlie, 14-16 November 2008. Hosted on the Commonwealth Institute website.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/08Gholz&Press.pdf

Excerpt:

… an “over-the-horizon” approach would protect vital US oil interests without incurring the serious costs of the current strategy. It would counter the traditional military threats to Gulf oil interests as effectively as the current strategy, and it would do a better job mitigating the more serious future threats in the Gulf: terrorism against oil infrastructure and domestic instability within oil-producing countries. Furthermore, an over-the-horizon approach would bring US policy in line with American values.