The United States needs a democratic civ-mil fusion for the future of our country – and the world

CPT Alex Gallo — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:09:33 -0400

The strategic competition between the United States and China is entering a new phase. On each side, steps are being taken to increase their relative competitive advantage – the outcome of which will determine whether the United States or China sets the rules, norms, values for the world in the second half of the 21st century and into the 22nd century.

Those are the stakes. But are we ready for this long-term competition?

The Biden Administration describes this decade as a “decisive decade” both in terms of this strategic competition with China as well as the future standing and role of the United States in the world. You can see this in the Biden Administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy:

- “From the earliest days of my Presidency, I have argued that our world is at an
inflection point. How we respond to the tremendous challenges and the unprecedented
opportunities we face today will determine the direction of our world and impact the security and
prosperity of the American people for generations to come.”

- “The 2022 National Security Strategy outlines how my Administration will seize
this decisive decade to advance America’s vital interests [and] position the
United States to outmaneuver our geopolitical competitors…”

- “President Biden has stated that we are living in a “decisive decade,” one
stamped by dramatic changes in geopolitics, technology, economics, and our
environment.”

- “The most comprehensive and serious challenge to U.S. national security is the
PRC’s coercive and increasingly aggressive endeavor to refashion the Indo-
Pacific region and the international system to suit its interests and
authoritarian preferences.”

What’s interesting is these statements could have also been made by the Trump Administration – and they were in Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy:

- “The United States will respond to the growing political, economic, and military
competitions we face around the world. China and Russia challenge American
power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and
prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to
grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their
societies and expand their influence.”

- “The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of
long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy
classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia
want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto
authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.”

- “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is not the primary concern in
U.S. national security.”

When the Biden Administration and the Trump Administration are saying the same thing, that, my friends, is a consensus. And this consensus in the United States is particularly notable because it coincides with an important, yet not often discussed, reshuffling of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership.

Approximately one-year ago, in October 2022, the leadership of the CCP came together in Beijing for its quinquennial congress. During that meeting, we not only saw Xi Jinping further extend his grip on power over the CCP – to include by gaining a third term. We also saw another important strategic shift within the CCP leadership – one that has been under-reported.

During this quinquennial congress, many of the senior level positions in the CCP did not go to Chinese leaders with the traditional career tracks – provincial level leaders or mid-tier CCP leaders striving to attain senior levels of power. Rather, what we saw were many of the CCP’s senior level positions going to a new group of political leaders – leaders with deep experience at the intersection of the military and civil sectors of China.

What does this signal? Among many things, it suggests a renewed focus by Xi on his strategic vision for a military-civil fusion – the purpose of which is the break down the barriers between the Chinese government, government-controlled universities, state-controlled business, and China’s innovative sector – all geared towards what the US State Department describes as “the CCP’s strategy to develop the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a ‘world class military’ by 2049.”

While China’s mil-civ fusion (MCF) concept has a long history that goes back to the 1980s. What is different now is that Xi’s renewed focus and strategic prioritization of MCF reflects a sense of urgency among China’s leadership – particularly Xi.

Xi may well believe that the state-controlled party, the CCP, and the industrial sector can be further “fused” and, thereby, enable the country to make more significant leaps in China’s military and economic advancements to, in Xi’s own words, make “China central on the world stage,” as reported in the Financial Times.

According to the same report in the Financial Times, as of June of this year, more than one-third of CCP leadership has background and experience in STEM, and some of this new leadership in the CCP, includes:

 Zhang Guoqing – former CEO of a weapons maker
 Liu Guozhong – an ordinance engineer
 Li Ganjie – a nuclear engineer
 Ma Xingrui – an aerospace technology expert
 Yuan Jiajun – a rocket scientist

These new type of CCP leaders will have significant power in the party – from overseeing senior party appointments to managing key tech and innovation hubs within China.

While China has been challenged for decades to effectively and fully implement MCF as a national strategy (one would think given the authoritarian nature of China’s political leadership, it should have been easy) and the suspicion that some of these new appointments also advantage Xi because while these new leaders have tech and innovation chops, they also lack the political base to threaten Xi’s grip on power down the road; the question remains what does this renewed focus on MCF mean for the United States in its long-term, strategic competition with China?

For me, it means we need our own democratic version of civ-mil fusion. If this can be achieved in the United States – in which the value proposition is so strong and so well-articulated for the government, universities, and the private sector to constructively work together – then I am confident that China will not be able to overtake the United States as the leader in the world.

But how do we do it? It starts with real-world problems.

There is a model for national – and even international partner and allied civ-mil fusion. It is Hacking for Defense (H4D).

H4D is an innovation and entrepreneurship program that convenes the government, universities, and the private sector around critical public problems – from national security to natural disasters, energy to the environment. But in addition to the convening aspect of H4D and the constructive problem-solving nature of this national program, the most unique feature is how it gets these various stakeholder groups to work together on real-world problems – not conceptual problems, not theoretical problems, not dreamed up problems. Real problems with people who actually experience the pain point of the problem on a daily basis.

This feature of H4D is critical because it turns what are usually civ-mil partnerships when using abstract and theoretical problems into civ-mil fusion because the problems are being worked on and solved by the civilian and military sectors together.

Problems, as H4D founder Pete Newell says, are “the currency” in this civ-mil fusion marketplace. Moreover, this version of civ-mil fusion – unlike China – is democratic in nature because the government, universities, and the private sector are not being forced to work together as is the case in an authoritarian model. Rather, these sectors and stakeholders in the civilian and military sectors are incentivized to work together because what ties the relationships together is a strong value proposition for each.

The problems – not organizational equities – become the centerpiece of the engagement in the H4D model, thereby, making the “fused work” on the problems between the government, universities, and the private sector constructive in nature.

The H4D model for civ-mil fusion in the United States and our partnered and allied nations leaves me with hope.

Hope for our future, as Americans and Western society, to maintain our leadership position in the world – but not through the failed way we have been currently operating as a fragmented country with diametrically opposing views of the future of the country.

But instead as a “fused” country where we can come together around a common mission.

Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security,
foreign policy, politics, and society. Alex also serves as the Executive Director of the Common
Mission Project, a 501c3, that delivers an innovation and entrepreneurship program, Hacking
for Defense®, which brings together the government, universities, and the private sector to solve the strategic challenges. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/6f388e4b-9c4e-4ca3-8040-49962f1e155d

Xi Jinping’s dream of a Chinese military-industrial complex | Financial Times

The president has promoted technocrats to key posts in a renewed push for one of his core policies

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2023 4:35 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:35:53 -0400

"...Business has defeated everything in it's path..."
[Kings of Power]

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 24 at 2023 5:44 PM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 17:44:52 -0400

In any "fusion" between our civilian leadership and our military, I fear a rapidly advancing of military power, thus pushing our civilian control of the military to the sidelines and eventual eliminated, leaving a military junta in charge.

Response by PO1 Frank Downs made Aug 24 at 2023 10:23 PM

PO1 Frank Downs — Thu, 24 Aug 2023 22:23:58 -0400

We can start by STOP following the same mind set that has lead us to this point, 1) start separating our industries from China and to move them to more friendly countries in the Americas with conditions that they stop their illegal immigration, and restrict any deforestation. 2) remove China from most favorite nations status and G8 membership 3) build a stronger alliance with western Asian nations like the Philippines, Vietnamese and Thailand, 4) demand NATO nations to stop or cut trade with China by 50% if China doesn’t shut down and evacuate the South China Sea Islands

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made Aug 25 at 2023 12:02 AM

Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 00:02:43 -0400

If you want an example of something like this, watch Star Trek, particularly The Next Generation.

I'm not saying it is an example we should follow.

Response by COL Dan Ruder made Aug 25 at 2023 1:05 AM

COL Dan Ruder — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 01:05:15 -0400

I enjoyed reading this article. It will be quite a strategic task for the U.S. to transition the H4D program to a CIV-MIL approach (methodology) for solving “comprehensive” and “intertwined” national security challenges. Unlike China’s MCF national strategy aimed at achieving dominance in key sectors, our H4D focus is still on solving very specific and even limited-focus national security challenges. Working to solve specific “challenges” is one thing. A comprehensive approach to achieving strategic “dominance” is a distinct other matter. How might this H4D approach be implemented within the U.S. to achieve broader national security interests and priorities?

H4D would require a top-down decision-making process. It would need to become a federated approach—federated across the departments of our government (diplomatic, informational, military, intel, economic, energy, law, et al.), academia, and private industry, with one central entity synchronizing (managing) the analytical framework. The “approach” is federated, meaning that the varied H4D tasks of the many all serve a focused and unified purpose of national security.

Given the global nature of the many threats the U.S. faces and potentially competing interests to prioritize H4D efforts, H4D would require a central organizing entity. This entity would synchronize the federated H4D framework and seek decision consensus among the leaders of our country regarding what the federated H4D is working on; arbitrated by the POTUS. That is how unified H4D doctrine would need to become, and the tasks are so broad with competing interests (and resources) that the process must be federated.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Aug 25 at 2023 9:02 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:02:58 -0400

If by fusion you mean joining the military on an equal platform with government leaders, that chain exists. The problem is not the joining rather the de-conjoining (if that's a word).

The military must remain under civilian control, but where we have all of the deputies to this, that and the other should go away. Trying to get civilians to understand to the level of fidelity required to support and not hinder us virtually impossible. The appointed leaders should come with a package of advisors from the appropriate military specialties and all deputies should be military, or freshly retired.

This would in itself lessen the amount of bureaucracy and expedite response times. Additionally it would stand for a stronger retort for modifications to military service, allowing greater continuity amongst the ranks not having to deal with the ever changing landscape of society. Some people/situations/processes are not meant for military service.

Response by CPL LaForest Gray made Aug 25 at 2023 9:11 AM

CPL LaForest Gray — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:11:41 -0400

1.) The China Trap

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Perilous Logic of Zero-Sum Competition

By Jessica Chen Weiss
September/October 2022

“Leaders in both Washington and Beijing claim to want to avoid a new Cold War. The fact is that their countries are already engaged in a global struggle. The United States seeks to perpetuate its preeminence and an international system that privileges its interests and values; China sees U.S. leadership as weakened by hypocrisy and neglect, providing an opening to force others to accept its influence and legitimacy.

On both sides, there is growing fatalism that a crisis is unavoidable and perhaps even necessary: that mutually accepted rules of fair play and coexistence will come only after the kind of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation that characterized the early years of the Cold War—survival of which was not guaranteed then and would be even less assured now.”

SOURCE : https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/china-trap-us-foreign-policy-zero-sum-competition?check_logged_in=1

2.) POWER PROBLEMS • SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

How to Avoid a Zero‐ Sum U.S.-China Relationship

“The increasingly competitive U.S.-China relationship is subject to various perverse incentives and negative feedback loops. Jessica Chen Weiss, Cornell University Professor for China and Asia‐ Pacific Studies, discusses China’s rise and how to avoid a zero‐ sum and conflict‐ prone great power relationship.”

SOURCE : https://www.cato.org/multimedia/power-problems/how-avoid-zero-sum-us-china-relationship

The China Trap

U.S. foreign policy and the perilous logic of zero-sum competition.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Aug 25 at 2023 9:15 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:15:30 -0400

Where to start on this one.
Let's start with the problems of the US Economy. The real threat to the US economy is a privileged elite that has spent the last 30+ years sucking the life blood out of the Middle and Working class while dismantling the industrial base here by offshoring that production to China. Until that problem is resolved, and not much of the present leadership is interested in doing anything more than providing lip service to the issue, China's standing in the World Economy is going to be the least of our issues.

A "Civ-Military" union? Our Foreign Policy problems are the results of the union of Politics, Military, and Industrial cooperation and a revolving door between the Pentagon and the Defense Industry. That union has pushed a policy of military interventions and economic domination since the fall of the Soviet Union and certainly hasn't helped us make new friends. How many interventions since the fall of the Soviet Union? Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, back into Iraq and twenty two years in Afghanistan and now in Ukraine. But instead of building a stronger Military, those interventions lead to a false sense of our true abilities and has left us unprepared for a near peer battle AND without the leadership that has the skills to turn this around. While Raytheon and General Dynamics lobbies for the next big budget project, things like our main battle tanks are 40 years old and any tanker or mech soldier knew after Desert Storm that the Turbine Engine was a mistake. It's still not been corrected. How many expensive High-Tech Destroyers and Cruisers has the Navy mothballed even before they were full deployed?

The last comment will be is military parity the right path to counteract the Chinese move for economic domination? Seems problematic when at the same time we allow their students to our universities, let patent infringement go unpunished, allow them to purchase US companies and farmland. China is not without regional rivals, India, Vietnam, the Phillipines, etc. Developing a realistic trade and business policy with China would solve a lot of our problems. I think they will throw their weight behind any economic issue that favors them, but they really haven't shown a lot of interest in Military Interventions to achieve them. Even in Tiawan, they are huge trading partners with China and would probably remains so if the US would quit rattling sabers.

Response by CPL LaForest Gray made Aug 25 at 2023 9:29 AM

CPL LaForest Gray — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:29:24 -0400

Here’s the FACT of the Achilles' Heel/Trojan Horse of it all -

“When did China and the US become enemies?

1950: Korean War”

Yet the following facts are ongoing and why I state it as both an Achilles' Heel/Trojan Horse based on the following FACTS.
——————————-

The U.S. Government via All its Checks & Balances, from All political parties, from local to state to federal U.S. government agencies have been APPROVING & AUTHORIZING the sell of both land and water as “ Open To The Public” legislation exist … instead of people arguing and pointing fingers, follow the legal documentation.

1.) China is buying up American farms. Washington wants to crack down.

Bipartisan pressure is building to stop foreign nationals from purchasing American farm operations and receiving taxpayer subsidies.

SOURCE :

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/china-buying-us-farms-foreign-purchase-499893

2.) Foreign-owned land accounts for about 2.7% of all U.S. farmland and forest land, which, according to the Department of Agriculture, is about 897 million acres.

That data also shows that the approximately 190,000 acres of farmland owned by Chinese interests has remained virtually unchanged since

“Lawmakers worried that China could gain control over the U.S. food system through land purchases are looking to curb the nation's grip on American farmland, despite no evidence of a recent spike in land sales to Chinese interests, according to an Agri-Pulse analysis of Agriculture Department data.

The most recent data collected under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) shows Chinese investors held a little more than half of 1% of the overall 35.8 million acres of U.S. farmland and forest land under foreign ownership in 2019. Foreign-owned land accounts for about 2.7% of all U.S. farmland and forest land, which, according to the Department of Agriculture, is about 897 million acres.

That data also shows that the approximately 190,000 acres of farmland owned by Chinese interests has remained virtually unchanged since 2013. However, the USDA’s data on foreign farmland ownership is two years old, so Chinese investors could own more or less land than the numbers reflect. Additionally, complex company ownership structures and problems with USDA enforcement of the reporting act, as reported by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting in 2017, may mean those numbers are not accurate or up to date.”

SOURCE :

https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/16846-despite-holding-little-us-land-china-remains-focus-of-foreign-farmland-ownership-discussion

A.) Environment International
Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 178-188

Evolution of China's water footprint and virtual water trade: A global trade assessment

Highlights
•
China's water footprint with its trade partners is investigated.

Three specific water footprints named Green, Blue and Grey are considered.

China represented 11.22% of the global water footprint in 1995 and 13.57% in 2009.

China mainly imports water footprints from the USA, India and Brazil.

China mainly exports water to the USA, Japan and Germany.

SOURCE :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S [login to see] 314582

China is buying up American farms. Washington wants to crack down.

Bipartisan pressure is building to stop foreign nationals from purchasing American farm operations and receiving taxpayer subsidies.

Response by PO3 Shayne Seibert made Aug 25 at 2023 12:19 PM

PO3 Shayne Seibert — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 12:19:22 -0400

Teaching kids stuff that would benefit them in the military while in school wouldn't be a bad thing. JROTC is a good starting point, but there are too few kids involved in that.
The only way this could ever work is by disbanding the Department of Education and putting Education back in the hands of the states. The teachers unions would never bend to teaching real world skills in any form.

Response by CW5 James B made Aug 25 at 2023 4:51 PM

CW5 James B — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:51:42 -0400

A GREAT fusion would be NO civilian interference! Liberal college? We became a superpower on how our military is/was! Not by some flower carrying liberals to become more like our enemy. Capt. I speak for myself wen I say, "Turn in your bars and join the parade."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2023 3:52 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Aug 2023 15:52:55 -0400

Sorry Cpt but no we don't.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Sep 6 at 2023 10:50 AM

SSG Bill McCoy — Wed, 06 Sep 2023 10:50:25 -0400

Were we (military and civilian industry and business), "fused" during WW2? America was thus joined by a sense of patriotism, but more so for our basic survival for ourselves and among other free nations.
Today, the Chinese all but force their philosophy upon its people, or face dire consequences irrespective of their social ladder. Rich or poor, industrialist of laborer, if they don't toe the party line ... well, their at the least ostracized and cut-off from any perks.
America used to be a meritocracy ... but now we base everything, so it seems, upon the DEI concept - Diversity - Equity - Inclusiveness; REGARDLESS of ability or MERIT. So, from the DEI perspective alone, having the military and civilian "fused," simply won't work. If there's no merit, there's no self-initiative other than to scream about their genders, their pronouns and their imagined sexuality.

Response by LCDR Leonard Zuga made Sep 7 at 2023 4:27 PM

LCDR Leonard Zuga — Thu, 07 Sep 2023 16:27:32 -0400

it’s complicated! Over the course of fifty plus years my association with defense industrial policy as a consumer (plank owner two new construction ships, a supplier (two defense industry electronics components companies, an analyst (market research in the period of rapid US defense industry consolidation, and an intelligence analyst (emerging technologies and peer/competitor (read Russia/China/North Korea/Iran, etc.) industrial capabilities and technology transfer rest assured I have recently changed over from pessimism to cautious optimism.

In recent conversations with others re dealing with our greatest long term national threat - Climate Change- i noted that “I am slowly moving from pessimistic to optimistic as I read of bits of technological innovation and collective actions stimulated by the need to address looming energy and climate crises. They show that we can work together culturally, nationally and globally, to solve existential problems and underlying markets can be supportive of those solutions. Americans did just that to vanquish Hitler and TOJO. We can do it with climate change and emerging peer competitors.

Response by SPC Mike Thielen made Sep 10 at 2023 10:38 AM

SPC Mike Thielen — Sun, 10 Sep 2023 10:38:30 -0400

Yes let's be more like China.

Response by PO3 Pamala McBrayer made Sep 27 at 2023 10:44 AM

PO3 Pamala McBrayer — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:44:55 -0400

Well sir, the danger of this model always ends in political assassination, nationalistic wars, and genocide. This model devalues individual liberty, independent thinking, free association, and crushes free markets and innovation.
We don’t have to become like the CCP to compete successfully. The CCP steals our technology and attempts to modify it for their purposes. It struggles under the stymied strictures of politics and the real dangers of the nation state agenda. It’s intellectual elites are crippled by the system inherently. They lack imagination. It is a system that punishes innovation and free thought at every turn and it is ultimately doomed to fail.

Response by SSG Jim Husselman made Sep 30 at 2023 1:48 PM

SSG Jim Husselman — Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:48:47 -0400

First with all due respect this question and the solution will not come from an administration that can not tell the truth and abide by the true constitution that made us the world sand our uper power from its creation!! You cannot be in league with those who have vowed to destroy us and our partner countries! You cannot give terrorist states thier frozen assets back because they have never stopped thier nuclear weapons program just hidden it! You cannot leave soldiers and civilians and equipment behind in a hostile country and on and on! No this administration IS destroying the light on the hill instead of being a good and strong country by doing for themselves and not the people they aresupposed to represent!! They flood our country with illegals that they cannot trace and do not know if they hate us! No first we need to fix our own government!

Response by SPC Dan Phariss made Oct 2 at 2023 12:40 PM

SPC Dan Phariss — Mon, 02 Oct 2023 12:40:31 -0400

Obviously this is the result of spending too much time being indoctrinated by the totalitarian socialists posing as college professors. What needs to be done is to rebuild the military to what we used to have. Keeping it as detailed in the Constitution. NOT as part of the government. Right now our military is so weak as to be irrelevant on the world stage. We don’t even have a viable reaction force from what I under stand since they lack some weapons and are short of ammo. But thats all part of the “plan” and I see this drivel about combining the civ gov’t as part of the “plan”. History repeatedly show that things like this as a REALLY bad idea.