As long
time readers know, one of ComNavOps overarching themes is that all things
military flow from a national geopolitical strategy. Military actions and acquisitions should
follow this simplified chain of actions:
1) Geopolitical Strategy – sets the
nation’s goals and defines our desired relationship with the rest of the world
2) Military Strategy – defines how to
achieve our geopolitical goals via military means
3) CONOPS – defines the role and use of
specific, individual military assets and lays out the tactics that the asset
will employ within the context of the military strategy
4) Acquisition – having defined the
needs and characteristics of specific, individual assets, we can now acquire
them with assurance that they will prove useful
Sadly, the U.S. has not had a valid national
geopolitical strategy for many years.
Because of this, the U.S. military has been adrift, having no
guidance as to what it should do. The
lack of guidance has resulted in haphazard acquisitions where the military has
been focused on acquiring technology rather than assets that would actually be
useful in a specific region and against a specific enemy. Thus, we get the LCS which has no useful
purpose, the Zumwalt which has no mission, the Marine’s expansion into aviation
which duplicates and conflicts with existing national aviation forces, the F-35
which is an international jobs program with dubious combat value, etc.
The lack of
a geopolitical strategy has also paralyzed the military’s actions regarding
potential enemies. Having no guidance,
the military has defaulted to appeasement.
This has given us the Iranian seizure of our boats and crews with no
repercussions, the uncontested seizure of the entire South and East China Seas
by China using largely illegal measures, our passive acceptance of the unremitting
and unsafe harassment of our military units by Russia, and an unhindered build
up of NKorea’s nuclear ballistic missile program.
In short,
due to the lack of a geopolitical strategy, the U.S. has been drifting aimlessly on the
world stage for many years and has accomplished little and, likely, worsened
many situations.
Now, for
the first time in many years, the government, in the form of President Trump,
has put forth a National Security Strategy (1).
Let’s examine it.
Note: I don’t care whether you support President
Trump or not. We’re going to examine the
National Security Strategy (NSS) document as it relates to the military. We’re going to determine whether or not it
provides the guidance necessary for the military to regain a sense of purpose
and direction.
The NSS
begins on a positive note by laying out an underlying foundation:
“Putting America first is the duty of our government and the foundation
for U.S. leadership in the
world.”
Aside from
being one of President Trump’s campaign slogans, this also provides a clear
basis for all subsequent strategic considerations. Agree or disagree but it’s quite clear.
The
document then goes on to list four “pillars” of the strategy:
I.
Protect
the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life
II.
Promote
American prosperity
III.
Preserve
peace through strength
IV.
Advance
American influence
Clearly,
these pillars are based on the “America First” principle as stated in the
introduction to the strategy. This is a
geopolitical strategy that approaches international relations and events from a
very specific perspective – an American perspective. This provides ample guidance to the
government and the military as to what path to follow, what shape our
international relations should take, and what rationale our actions should be
based on.
If the
document contained only those few words and no others, this would almost be
sufficient. However, the strategy also
enumerates specific enemies, threats, and actions that further define the
pillars. Here are some of the noteworthy
items:
1.
Protect
the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life
a. Deploy a layered missile defense
aimed at Iran and NKorea
b. Control weapons of mass destruction
c. Strengthen border control and immigration
policy
d. Eliminate terrorist safe havens
e. Dismantle transnational criminal
organizations
f. Defend
against cyber attacks
2.
Promote
American prosperity
a. Put an end to unequal and unfair
international trading practices
b. Promote domestic economic prosperity
via regulatory and tax relief
c. Pursue energy dominance
3.
Preserve
peace through strength
a. Recognizes that war is a spectrum of
actions, most of which are non-violent but still threatening
b. Reestablish military overmatch
c. Improve readiness
d. Reverse the decline in size of our
military forces
e. Protect and promote the domestic
manufacturing and defense industrial base
f. Use
diplomacy to advance American interests
g. Maintain our position as the
preeminent economic force in the world
h. Modernize the military
4.
Advance
American influence
a. Encourage partnerships that advance
American interests
b. Exercise leadership
c. Champion American values
The
strategy concludes by addressing specific regional concerns.
“The United States must tailor our approaches to different regions of the world to protect
U.S. national interests. We require integrated regional strategies that
appreciate the nature and magnitude of threats, the intensity of competitions,
and the promise of available opportunities, all in the context of local
political, economic, social, and historical realities.”
This very
wisely recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to geopolitics
and it recognizes that individual regions and enemies have specific
characteristics that the government and military need to be aware of and
account for.
The regions
addressed are:
- Indo-Pacific
- enumerates the threat posed by
China and NKorea
- stresses the need for regional
partnerships
- espouses military forward
presence and regional missile defense
- maintain strong ties with Taiwan while recognizing the “One
China” policy and the “Taiwan Relations Act”
- Europe
- recognizes Russia’s subversive activities and
intimidation
- calls on European countries to
increase defense spending
- Middle East
- recognizes the threats posed
by Iran and terrorists
- deny Iranian nuclear progress
- South and Central Asia
- strengthen ties with India
- pressure Pakistan to increase its
counter-terrorism activities
- Western Hemisphere
- combat international crime
- strengthen economic ties and
trade
- Africa
- encourage governmental reform
and sanction repressive governments
- strengthen trade partnerships
- counter terrorist
encroachments
There you
have it – the gist of the National Security Strategy.
Unlike
“strategies” put forth by previous administrations, this one is has a central
theme (America first), names enemies and details
their threats, and offers a surprising amount of specific actions to be
taken. In short, this explicitly defines
our view of other countries and the nature and basis for our relationships with
them.
Here are
few specific thoughts on the strategy.
- The willingness to name enemies
and specifically describe their threats and negative actions is realistic
and refreshing. For example, no
longer will we be forced to try describe a “Pacific Pivot” but deny that it
is aimed at China. You can’t fight an enemy if you won’t
even speak their name (Obama’s refusal to say “radical Islamic
terrorism”). The level of detail
about the illegal, immoral, unethical, and unfair actions of unfriendly
countries is stunning in comparison to all previous Administrations and
strategies.
- The strategy specifically recognizes
the return of great power competition and the impact that has on America, our military, and the
world. This recognition provides
the basis for addressing our own military issues of force sizing,
readiness, procurement, budget, and modernization.
- Refreshingly, after several
years of retreat from the world stage, the strategy emphasizes the need
for American leadership and the value and benefit of that leadership for
the world.
- The strategy recognizes that America is the standard for the world
and the hope for the future of the world.
This is a complete reversal from the previous Administration’s
policy of constant apologies for American existence.
- In one of the notably ambiguous
issues, the strategy is still trying to walk the tightrope on the
Taiwan-China issue by expressing strong support for Taiwan while acknowledging the One
China Policy. This ambiguity will
not assist the military in formulating actions and operations.
- The strategy is notably weak on
African specifics and defaults to generic statements about trade,
economics, and politics. Given that
Africa is a rapidly growing host for
terrorism and is one of China’s focal points for expansion,
this region should have been addressed in much more detail and specifics.
- The strategy stops short of
defining exactly how far we are willing to allow China, Russia, and, to a lesser extent, Iran and NKorea to go in their
endeavors. For example, it does not
say whether we will allow China to expand globally, try to
contain them regionally, contest their existing expansion, or something
else. Similarly, it does not
describe how far we are willing to allow Russia to go. Will we allow Russia to complete a takeover of Ukraine and expand into other
countries? The strategy’s
consistent theme is “America first”. Does that mean we’ll allow Russia to continue invading countries
as long as American interests are not adversely impacted?
While not
perfect, this strategy is a vast improvement over anything that has come before
it and even considered in isolation is quite adequate. It defines our enemies and their threats and
details specific actions we need to take.
Just as importantly, it provides a consistent basis and rationale for
our relationships and actions. This is
exactly what the military needs to formulate military strategies. Given this document, the military should be
able to develop clear and specific strategies for each region and each enemy
that we face.
The
Administration has set a viable geopolitical strategy and it is now up to the
military to support that with specific and effective military strategies. There is no longer any excuse for the aimless
drifting that has characterized American military behavior for the last few
decades.
You can
agree or disagree with this National Security Strategy but it must be
acknowledged that this is a clear, consistent, and fairly specific
strategy. This is the geopolitical
strategy that ComNavOps has been calling for.
The ball is in the Pentagon’s court now.
The President has provided the military with the guidance it needs. The challenge for the military is to now pick
from the range of potential capabilities and actions those that will best
support the NSS and assemble coherent strategies for each region and
country. This is exactly what a
professional warrior should be able to do.
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that we do not have professional
warriors leading our military. If the
military does not quickly provide the President with the required military
strategies then he should initiate wholesale firings of military leadership.
One last
time: the point of this post is not to
agree or disagree with the geopolitical strategy presented but to evaluate
whether it is a viable, effective guidance for the military. In that respect, it absolutely is.
_____________________________________
