John Ferrari, Elaine McCusker and Todd Harrison
The new Pentagon leadership has set itself up to potentially oversee fundamental changes that could dramatically improve military warfighting capabilities for decades to come. In addition to realigning the defense budget, organizational structures, and acquisition policies to support warfighters, key decisions are still pending on how and where America will defend its security and prosperity.
As detailed in a recent American Enterprise Institute working paper, there are steps that the Pentagon should take to position and posture its forces in order to best accomplish the president’s objective of Peace through Strength.
This working paper, loosely based upon the board game of Risk, outlines four areas the secretary of defense should prioritize as he develops the National Defense Strategy: the need for alliances; the importance of strategic terrain; the role of strategic enablers; and the need for sufficient and well-positioned forces to project power, deter aggression, and respond in a crisis.
Simply put, the defense strategy should be based upon strength and not an assumption of poverty. Here’s how these categories break down in real terms.
The need for alliances: Alliances need to be pursued for pragmatic reasons while always ensuring that the United States can act independently. America should support nations that are fighting against adversaries who clearly intend to diminish the position and strength of the United States.
No clearer example of such a situation exists than Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
The military forces Russia has lost (and continues to lose) directly reduce their future threat. A strong, victorious Ukraine, allied with the United States, would mean that key terrain, rich in minerals and agriculture, remains out of Russian hands. At the same time, Russia’s allies in China, North Korea, and Iran would have an important warning about America’s resolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment