DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoring US Power Projection Capabilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoring US Power Projection Capabilities Perspective C O R P O R A T I O N Expert insights on a timely policy issue July 2018 Restoring U.S. Power Projection Capabilities Responding to the 2018 National Defense Strategy David Ochmanek .S. defense strategy and forces today could be at some- postures that can improve the ability of the United States to deter thing of an inflection point. The National Defense and defeat large-scale aggression by the most-threatening adversary UStrategy promulgated by the Trump administration in states. But even the $165 billion in additional money that would early 2018, and the largely positive reception that it has be added to DoD’s topline in the coming two years will not be suf- enjoyed, signals the emergence of a recognition that the capabili- ficient to fund every worthy claimant on DoD’s resources.2 Choices ties of U.S. military forces have been eroding vis-à-vis those of will have to be made if future U.S. forces are to meet the opera- key adversaries, especially China and Russia.1 As a consequence, tional challenges confronting them. the United States’ ability to deter aggression and intimidation, to This Perspective is intended to help inform those choices. It assure allies, and to influence events in East Asia and Europe is addresses four aspects of the problem: being undermined. Unless steps are taken to reverse these trends, • What are the most important military challenges facing the United States could find itself playing a greatly diminished role U.S. forces today and in the future? internationally, irrespective of the strategies and intentions of this • What sort of armed force is appropriate for the United administration or its successors. States, and why? The passage by Congress of a two-year budget agreement • How and in what ways do U.S. forces today fall short of for fiscal years (FYs) 2019 and 2020 that substantially increases that standard? funding for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) opens up the • What sorts of measures are called for to fix the problem, possibility of making investments in new capabilities and regional and how feasible is it to implement these? Underwriting a Strategy of Leadership from terrorist threats, to limit the proliferation of weapons of In the aftermath of World War II, a broad consensus emerged mass destruction, to ensure adherence to fair trade practices, or to among Americans that the nation could no longer accept the risks protect the environment, real progress will require the participa- of a strategy that eschewed engagement in the security affairs of tion and support of a broad range of international actors. No state, key parts of Eurasia. History’s most destructive conflict showed no matter how powerful, can achieve these objectives unilaterally. that the security and well-being of Americans could only be assured Given the continued global diffusion of knowledge, technol- through active engagement abroad and that a priority goal of that ogy, wealth, and other instruments of agency, and the increasing engagement had to be to ensure that no powerful hegemon gained connectedness of the global economy, this reality is not going to dominance over the Eurasian landmass.3 With the adoption by the change. It is not unreasonable, then, to expect that U.S. national Soviet Union of a hostile, militarized, and expansionist approach security strategy will continue to be animated by the realiza- to international relations, implementing this strategy led to the tion that no realistic alternative to international engagement and adoption by Washington of a strategy of containment by means of leadership exists, rhetoric touting an “America first” approach a U.S.-led Western alliance. That strategy featured the forward sta- notwithstanding.4 tioning of upward of 500,000 U.S. military personnel abroad. Over Under these circumstances, what sort of armed forces should time, the U.S. military alliances with the industrialized democra- the United States have? The first strategic priority should be to cies evolved into a dense web of relationships that encompassed maintain peace and stability in regions where the nation has impor- political, economic, technological, and cultural dimensions. tant interests and alliance commitments that are under stress: East That strategy of engagement and leadership survived the Asia and Europe. This means that the first military priority is to collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. By the ensure the viability of key alliances and to prevent any state with early 1990s, it was widely recognized that, in an increasingly inter- interests hostile to those of the United States and its allies from dependent world, Americans could not hope to achieve security gaining a position of overwhelming dominance in those regions.5 and prosperity at home without the ability to influence actors and In practical terms, this means today that U.S. forces must be pos- shape events abroad. Whether the goal is to protect Americans tured to deter aggression by China, Russia, and North Korea and, Whether the goal is to protect Americans from terrorist threats, to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to ensure adherence to fair trade practices, or to protect the environment, real progress will require the participation and support of a broad range of international actors. 2 in conjunction with allies and partners, to defeat such aggression should deterrence fail.6 At present and for the foreseeable future, In addition to deterring and defeating large-scale aggression by the United States alone has the military state adversaries, U.S. forces must also continue, for the indefinite wherewithal to project large-scale military future, their campaign against violent extremist organizations, such forces over intercontinental distances and as ISIS and al Qaeda, that have the potential to attack U.S. citizens or to destabilize countries or regions of importance to U.S. inter- conduct sustained military operations across ests. As the fight to date against terrorist groups shows, long-term a broad range of mission sets. success depends on keeping the group’s leaders and networks under unrelenting pressure and building the capabilities of local forces forces over intercontinental distances and conduct sustained military and governments. Much of the campaign against such groups operations across a broad range of mission sets. This capability is will involve financial, intelligence, diplomatic, and informational essential in order to offset major imbalances in military power and instruments. But the U.S. armed forces play crucial roles in train- to sustain the United States’ role as the security partner of choice ing, advising, and assisting partner governments in countering for like-minded states. Without it, the credibility of the U.S. deter- terrorists and in conducting direct attacks, when appropriate. U.S. rent and of U.S. alliance commitments would erode, as would U.S. special operations forces play a leading role here, but they often power and influence. require transportation, logistics, and other types of support from the general-purpose forces. Unfavorable Trends Finally, U.S. forces are called upon to protect the United States In the post–Cold War period, the ability of U.S. forces, in conjunc- itself from attack. Under normal circumstances, this means keep- tion with allies, to defeat aggression by the forces of its regional ing the national missile defense system and elements of the strategic adversaries—states such as Iraq, Serbia, and Libya—was unques- nuclear forces on alert, being prepared to intercept airborne threats tioned. U.S. and allied forces repeatedly demonstrated that, in from hostile powers or terrorists, and assisting the Department of conflicts against these adversaries, they could quickly seize the Homeland Security in monitoring the nation’s borders. initiative; dominate military operations in the air, at sea, on land, This is a very demanding set of missions. Fighting and win- in space, and in cyberspace; and achieve their campaign objectives ning major wars on the territory of distant countries or in their swiftly. This military dominance yielded strategic benefits, not only “backyards” is particularly daunting, but this is what the bulk of helping to deter challenges to the U.S.-led global order, but also America’s armed forces have been trained and equipped to do since serving as the “glue” that held together coalitions of like-minded World War II. At present and for the foreseeable future, the United States alone has the military wherewithal to project large-scale military 3 counter violent extremist groups elsewhere that are deemed to pose Both China and Russia are investing heavily threats to citizens of the United States and of its allies. The ensuing in conventionally armed, precision-guided operations have been a drain on attention, money, and patience at ballistic and cruise missiles that have a time when economic constraints have limited defense spending. Training for large-scale power projection operations against highly sufficient accuracy to destroy even hardened capable adversaries has also suffered. As one result, the armed forces facilities. of the United States today, like those of many of its allies, are faced with fleets of aging platforms, the need to rebuild training and readi- states that promoted common action on a wide range of interna- ness for high-end combat operations, and inadequate funding for the tional issues. types of modern weapons and systems needed to meet the challenges Unfortunately, the era of unquestioned U.S. military superior- posed by their most capable adversaries.8 ity has not persisted. A variety of factors are responsible for this. China and Russia pose the most far-reaching challenges. First, the vision proffered by the United States and other demo- Both have invested heavily in capabilities intended to disrupt U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of UN Peacekeeping in China's Expanding Strategic Interests
    UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Marc Lanteigne This Special Report assesses China’s evolving participation in international peacekeeping missions in the context of its rise as a major economic and military power. The report is based on data collection on Chinese foreign and security policy issues as well as fieldwork in China and Norway. Supported by the Asia The Role of UN Center at the United States Institute of Peace, the report is part of USIP’s broader effort to understand China’s engagement in the peace processes and internal conflicts of other nations. Peacekeeping in ABOUT THE AUTHOR Marc Lanteigne is a senior lecturer in security studies in the China’s Expanding Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University in New Zealand. Previously, he was a senior research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, where he specialized in Chinese and Northeast Asian politics and foreign Strategic Interests policy, as well as Asia-Arctic relations, international political economy, and institution building. He has written on issues related to China’s regional and international relations as well as Summary economic security, the politics of trade, and energy issues. • Despite its growing status in the international system, including in the military sphere, China continues to be a strong supporter of United Nations peacekeeping operations (UNPKO), a stance commonly considered to be more the purview of medium powers. China is also a major contributor of peacekeeping personnel and support.
    [Show full text]
  • The Navy's Changing Force Paradigm
    Naval War College Review Volume 62 Article 4 Number 2 Spring 2009 The aN vy’s Changing Force Paradigm Robert C. Rubel Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Rubel, Robert C. (2009) "The aN vy’s Changing Force Paradigm," Naval War College Review: Vol. 62 : No. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rubel: The Navy’s Changing Force Paradigm Professor Rubel is Dean of Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College. Before retiring from the U.S. Navy in the grade of captain, he was an aviator, participat- ing in operations connected with the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis, and DESERT SHIELD. He commanded Strike Fighter Squad- ron 131 and served as the inspector general of U.S. Southern Command. He attended the Spanish Naval War College and the U.S. Naval War College, where he served on the faculty and as chairman of the War Gam- ing Department, in the Center for Naval Warfare Stud- ies, before his present appointment. He has a BS degree from the University of Illinois, an MS in management from Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Is- land, and an MA in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College (1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Power Projection in Historical Perspective
    THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY JAPANESE ENERGY SECURITY AND CHANGING GLOBAL ENERGY MARKETS: AN ANALYSIS OF NORTHEAST ASIAN ENERGY COOPERATION AND JAPAN’S EVOLVING LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE REGION IN HARM’S WAY? CHINESE POWER PROJECTION IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE RICHARD J. STOLL PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY Prepared in conjunction with an energy study sponsored by The Center For International Political Economy and The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy Rice University – May 2000 In Harm’s Way? Chinese Power Projection in Historical Perspective Introduction China is clearly a major power, and has had a long series of years of significant economic growth, and while China's economy may slow its growth, there is every reason to believe that China will continue to enhance its position in Asia and throughout the world. Should this be a cause for concern? Should we view China at the turn of the 21st century as comparable to Germany at the turn of the 20th century – i.e., as a state growing more powerful that will seek to use its industrial might to build a significant ability to project power, and engage in conflictual behavior as part of a drive to achieve dominance? Or will China enhance its position, particularly in Asia, by becoming a source of stability in the region? There are a variety of ways to examine this question. I choose to cast my gaze back in time and study the historical record.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Power in Cyberspace: CNA As a Political Means
    2016 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict Permission to make digital or hard copies of this publication for internal use within NATO and for personal or educational use when for non-profit or non-commercial Cyber Power purposes is granted providing that copies bear this notice and a full citation on the N.Pissanidis, H.Rõigas, M.Veenendaal (Eds.) first page. Any other reproduction or transmission requires prior written permission by NATO CCD COE. 2016 © NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn Hard Power in Cyberspace: CNA as a Political Means Ragnhild Endresen Siedler Analysis Division Norwegian Defence Research Establishment Kjeller, Norway Abstract: This analysis is a contribution to the scholarly debate on how cyber power influences international relations. It answers the following question: In what ways can an actor apply CNA to dominate an opponent, and what may restrict him in this effort? It uses Schelling’s (2008) argument for dividing power into coercion and brute force, and thus the paper distinguishes between actions that inflict harm and those that impose limitations. Through this approach, it describes the difference between CNA as a means of pure destruction and CNA as a means of forcible accomplishment in order to elucidate different ways of using CNA. This analytical approach aims at generating insight into the nature of CNA threats, which in turn, facilitates development of appropriate responses. The paper argues that defensive cyber strategies and doctrines primarily should focus on CNA as a means of forcible accomplishment. However, it also discusses CNA in the form of coercive threats. It explores this type of power by assessing how the technological and organizational preconditions of CNA apply to severity of consequences and credibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Control and Expeditionary Power Projection
    Sea Control and Expeditionary Power Projection Tailored Force Packages To Meet Our National Strategy Brigadier General Thomas L. Conant, USMC Director, Capabilities Development Directorate Marine Corps Combat Development Command1 Quantico, Virginia Our Mission • “ ...THE SEIZURE AND DEFENSE OF ADVANCED NAVAL BASES AND FOR THE CONDUCT OF SUCH LAND OPERATIONS AS MAY BE ESSENTIAL TO THE PROSECUTION OF A NAVAL CAMPAIGN. • ...DEVELOP, IN COORDINATION WITH THE ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE, THE DOCTRINE, TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED BY LANDING FORCES IN AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONS. • …PERFORM SUCH OTHER DUTIES AS THE PRESIDENT MAY DIRECT.” NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 AS AMENDED BY TITLE 10, U.S. CODE IN 1952 2 Our Tradition: Most Ready When the Nation is Least Ready Why We’re Unique • Maneuver Warfare Philosophy – Nature of war: a violent struggle between hostile, independent, irreconcilable wills… – …Chaos, friction, & uncertainty – Combine high-tempo ops with a bias for action – …To achieve advantage – in any dimension. • Expeditionary Heritage – Primarily a naval force, equally home at sea or ashore – Operating from very austere environments – worldwide – Across the full range of military operations • Concepts: Organize, Deploy, Employ – Integrated concepts – The Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) 3 The Naval Operating Concept (NOC) A Mandate for Change 4 NOC Focus Areas “A Shared Navy - Marine Corps Assessment” Focus Areas Long-standing Emerging The NOC provides the conceptual foundation for Naval capability 5 development in support of CONPLAN 7500 and Homeland Defense. Recent Operations by U.S. Amphibious Forces 76 applications of amphibious capability in the past 23 years, covering the range of activities described in the National Defense Strategy; 21 can be classified as forcible entry operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy
    Summary of the 2 0 1 8 National Defense Strategy of The United States of America Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….…. 1 Strategic Environment ………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Department of Defense Objectives ……………………………………………………………... 4 Strategic Approach ……………………………………………………………………………… 4 Build a More Lethal Force ………………………………………………………………. 5 Strengthen Alliances and Attract New Partners …………………………………………. 8 Reform the Department for Greater Performance and Affordability ……………………10 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….……….. 11 NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY INTRODUCTION The Department of Defense’s enduring mission is to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our nation. Should deterrence fail, the Joint Force is prepared to win. Reinforcing America’s traditional tools of diplomacy, the Department provides military options to ensure the President and our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength. Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security. China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors. As well, North Korea’s outlaw actions and reckless rhetoric continue despite United Nation’s censure and sanctions. Iran continues to sow violence and remains the most significant challenge to Middle East stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Strategic Intentions
    APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Russian Strategic Intentions A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) White Paper May 2019 Contributing Authors: Dr. John Arquilla (Naval Postgraduate School), Ms. Anna Borshchevskaya (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), Dr. Belinda Bragg (NSI, Inc.), Mr. Pavel Devyatkin (The Arctic Institute), MAJ Adam Dyet (U.S. Army, J5-Policy USCENTCOM), Dr. R. Evan Ellis (U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute), Mr. Daniel J. Flynn (Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)), Dr. Daniel Goure (Lexington Institute), Ms. Abigail C. Kamp (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Roger Kangas (National Defense University), Dr. Mark N. Katz (George Mason University, Schar School of Policy and Government), Dr. Barnett S. Koven (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Jeremy W. Lamoreaux (Brigham Young University- Idaho), Dr. Marlene Laruelle (George Washington University), Dr. Christopher Marsh (Special Operations Research Association), Dr. Robert Person (United States Military Academy, West Point), Mr. Roman “Comrade” Pyatkov (HAF/A3K CHECKMATE), Dr. John Schindler (The Locarno Group), Ms. Malin Severin (UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC)), Dr. Thomas Sherlock (United States Military Academy, West Point), Dr. Joseph Siegle (Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University), Dr. Robert Spalding III (U.S. Air Force), Dr. Richard Weitz (Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Prefaces Provided By: RDML Jeffrey J. Czerewko (Joint Staff, J39), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Editor: Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Should the United States Reject MAD? Should the United Charles L
    Should the United States Reject MAD? Should the United Charles L. Glaser and States Reject MAD? Steve Fetter Damage Limitation and U.S. Nuclear Strategy toward China China’s growing in- vestment in nuclear forces, combined with increasing strains in the U.S.-China relationship, are raising concern at home and abroad about the adequacy of U.S. nuclear strategy and forces.1 The key strategic nuclear choice facing the United States is whether to attempt to preserve and enhance its damage- limitation capability—that is, the ability to reduce meaningfully the costs that China can inºict against the U.S. homeland in an all-out nuclear retaliatory at- tack. The most recent U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which was completed in 2010, did not present a clear position on whether the United States would ac- cept growing vulnerability to massive Chinese nuclear retaliation or instead attempt to preserve the U.S. ability to destroy most of China’s nuclear force.2 Chinese experts reacted distrustfully: “If the United States cannot answer so simple a question as ‘do you accept mutual vulnerability or not?’ then some- thing must be seriously wrong in the relationship.”3 With a few exceptions,4 this critical choice has generated little public attention. Nevertheless, because it lies at the heart of U.S. nuclear strategy, the question of whether the United States should preserve and enhance its damage-limitation capability against China deserves thorough analysis. Damage limitation differs fundamentally from deterrence, which is the most Charles L. Glaser is a professor in the Elliott School of International Affairs and the Department of Political Science at George Washington University; he directs the Elliott School’s Institute for Security and Conºict Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Military Power Projection and US National Interes
    1 U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission Hearing on “China’s Military Power Projection and U.S. National Interests” February 20, 2020 Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2172 Written Testimony of Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (retired) Outline The purpose of this hearing of the USCC is to understand China’s global military ambitions, its power projection capabilities, and what they mean to the United States. As is true for most assessments of China’s future developments, there can be no certainty. However, it is possible to analyze China’s officially stated future military goals and objectives and to assess its current forces and their capability. It is possible to project the unstated but likely or possible future goals and objectives, and in addition to assess the strategic environment in the global regions where future Chinese power projection forces will be brought to bear. Finally, it is important to draw the implications for the United States and recommend actions this country needs to take to safeguard its national interests. The Party Line Chinese official statements and publications do not list power projection as an objective or task of the People’s Liberation Army. The closest the latest white paper, “China’s National Defense in the New Era,” published in July 2019, comes to the concept of power projection is in the section headed “Protecting China’s Overseas Interests.” It says: The PLA actively promotes international security and military cooperation and refines relevant mechanisms for protecting China’s overseas interests. To address deficiencies in overseas operations and support, it builds far seas forces, develops overseas logistical facilities, and enhances capabilities in accomplishing diversified military tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Retaining and Expanding Military Missions: Washington State's Importance and Opportunities for the Department of Defense In
    Retaining and Expanding Military Missions RETAINING AND EXPANDING MILITARY MISSIONS Increasing Defense Spending and Investment Washington State’s Importance and Opportunities for the DENNYMILLER HYJEK & FIX, INC. associatesDepartment of Defense in Achieving Its Strategic Initiatives ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE NATIONAL GUARD COAST GUARD DEPT. OF ENERGY ● DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY Acknowledgments..............................................v APPLIED PHYSICS LAB PNNL Executive Summary...........................................ix ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE Introduction.........................................................1 Table of NATIONAL GUARD COAST Section 1..............................................................5 Strategic Framework for the United States GUARD DEPT. OF ENERGY and Department of Defense Strategy and Guidance Documents DEPT.Contents OF HOMELAND SECURITY Section 2............................................................35 APPLIEDRetaining PHYSICS & Expanding LAB PNNL Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ARMYMilitary NAVYMissions AIR FORC Section 3............................................................41 Military and Related Federal Assets NATIONAL GUARD COAST in Washington State GUARD DEPT. OF ENERGY Department of Defense ● Joint Base Lewis-McChord.....................43 DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY Yakima Training Center Naval Base Kitsap...................................53 APPLIED PHYSICS LAB PNNL Bangor Bremerton ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & NATIONAL GUARD COAST Intermediate
    [Show full text]
  • Army Is Preparing for Cyber and Electronic Warfare Threats, but Needs to Fully Assess the Staffing, Equipping, and Training of New Organizations
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees August 2019 FUTURE WARFARE Army Is Preparing for Cyber and Electronic Warfare Threats, but Needs to Fully Assess the Staffing, Equipping, and Training of New Organizations GAO-19-570 August 2019 FUTURE WARFARE Army Is Preparing for Cyber and Electronic Warfare Threats, but Needs to Fully Assess the Staffing, Equipping, and Training of New Organizations Highlights of GAO-19-570, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The rise of great-power competitors, The Army is changing aspects of its doctrine, organizations, and training to such as China and Russia, prompted develop a force that can effectively engage great-power competitors—Russia the Army to transform the way it plans to and China—through multi-domain operations by 2028. Multi-domain operations fight. The Army is developing a new present adversaries with multiple challenges across multiple domains (land, air, warfighting concept to guide how its sea, cyber, and space) in contested environments. To this end, the Army is forces will engage jointly with other revising its doctrine to guide how the force and specific units will function. The services in multiple domains, especially Army is also reorganizing its force by creating new units to conduct missions in in cyber and space. multiple domains and by updating the responsibilities of key Army formations, The House Armed Services Committee such as Army divisions. Also, the Army is training its combat forces for multi- included a provision in House Report domain operations in part by increasing the focus on cyber operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Persian Gulf Security: Improving Allied Military Contributions
    RR Persian Gulf Security: Improving Allied Military Contributions Richard Sokolsky, Stuart Johnson, and F. Stephen Larrabee - Excerpt - Summary R Persian Gulf Security: Improving Allied Military Contributions | Summary Richard Sokolsky, Stuart Johnson, and F. Stephen Larrabee Persian Gulf Security: Improving Allied Military Contributions Richard Sokolsky, Stuart Johnson, and F. Stephen Larrabee - EXCERPT - SUMMARY The United States remains the prime guarantor of Western security, especially in protecting common interests outside Europe. In the future, however, the task of sustaining this burden single-handedly is likely to become increasingly difficult for the United States for both economic and domestic political reasons. Political and military imperatives exist for having allies that are capable of bearing greater responsibility for defending common Western interests both within and outside Europe. During the U.S. Senate’s consideration of NATO enlargement, serious bipartisan concerns were raised about the growing imbalance between the security commitments and military capabilities of the United States and those of its NATO allies. In ratifying enlargement, the Senate expressed its clear sense that the United States can no longer tolerate a situation in which its European allies are incapable of responding to common threats that originate beyond Europe, such as rogue- state aggression, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the disruption of vital resources. In addition, there may be future circumstances in which the United States finds itself heavily engaged in another conflict during a military emergency in the Persian Gulf and will thus need an important military contribution from its European partners. In such a situation, political imperatives will dictate that the United States act in concert with its allies regardless of considerations of military expediency.
    [Show full text]