3
3
0
https://admin.govexec.com//media/ [login to see] 3223431.pdf
Direct link to the new National Defense Strategy. Highly recommend reading at least the first 2 pages. That said, here are the key points:
1. Shift away from counter-terrorism to conventional fight due to the reemergence of long-term strategic competition from revisionist powers China and Russia.
2. U.S. acknowledges eroding technological advantage over adversaries. U.S. must seek to maintain this advantage while adapting tactics, techniques and procedures to account for contested battlespace across all domains of warfare (information, sea, land, air, cyber, etc.)
3. The homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Adversaries and terrorists alike have the ability to target U.S. forces and population centers in any future conflict.
Direct link to the new National Defense Strategy. Highly recommend reading at least the first 2 pages. That said, here are the key points:
1. Shift away from counter-terrorism to conventional fight due to the reemergence of long-term strategic competition from revisionist powers China and Russia.
2. U.S. acknowledges eroding technological advantage over adversaries. U.S. must seek to maintain this advantage while adapting tactics, techniques and procedures to account for contested battlespace across all domains of warfare (information, sea, land, air, cyber, etc.)
3. The homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Adversaries and terrorists alike have the ability to target U.S. forces and population centers in any future conflict.
20180118173223431.pdf
Posted from admin.govexec.com
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
Many issues:
1. we have lost or are losing the initiative. We are reacting to the actions of our adversaries rather than having them react to us.
2. The last 60+ years have shown how asymmetric warfare (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) can be successful against our technological advantages & conventional forces.
3. Cost effectiveness. It is possible to use cheap & relatively inexpensive means to defeat armaments and tactics that cost the US a significant portion of our GDP to develop, deploy, and maintain.
4. Foresight. We are late to the game in cyberspace and our efforts appear to be more concerned with defense than offensive capability.
5. Intelligence. Eyes in the sky still need assistance from feet on the ground for verification/corroboration. We have effectively hobbled our intel capabilities and there are whole regions of the world where we are blind & deaf on the ground.
6. Misc.
A. Political will. No consistent policies.
B. Appearances. We want to be viewed as the ‘good guy’... ain’t gonna happen. Our adversaries can commit ANY atrocity with impunity. Meanwhile, we investigate the killing of armed adversaries as if it were murder. Get over it, the world & the media hate us.
7. We are at war, act like it.
1. we have lost or are losing the initiative. We are reacting to the actions of our adversaries rather than having them react to us.
2. The last 60+ years have shown how asymmetric warfare (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) can be successful against our technological advantages & conventional forces.
3. Cost effectiveness. It is possible to use cheap & relatively inexpensive means to defeat armaments and tactics that cost the US a significant portion of our GDP to develop, deploy, and maintain.
4. Foresight. We are late to the game in cyberspace and our efforts appear to be more concerned with defense than offensive capability.
5. Intelligence. Eyes in the sky still need assistance from feet on the ground for verification/corroboration. We have effectively hobbled our intel capabilities and there are whole regions of the world where we are blind & deaf on the ground.
6. Misc.
A. Political will. No consistent policies.
B. Appearances. We want to be viewed as the ‘good guy’... ain’t gonna happen. Our adversaries can commit ANY atrocity with impunity. Meanwhile, we investigate the killing of armed adversaries as if it were murder. Get over it, the world & the media hate us.
7. We are at war, act like it.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Thanks for your response Wayne. To your point 2: are you suggesting that technological advantage isn't important? Because I think technology is a critical advantage, and decisive if paired with proper training.
I think the real issue with Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq is not that our military failed, but our politicians and leaders failed to properly define and identify strategic objectives that would lead to victory. One can have the best military in the world (and we did in both instances), but if it isn't properly used and isn't given proper guidance, it will fail to achieve a lasting political victory.
I think the real issue with Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq is not that our military failed, but our politicians and leaders failed to properly define and identify strategic objectives that would lead to victory. One can have the best military in the world (and we did in both instances), but if it isn't properly used and isn't given proper guidance, it will fail to achieve a lasting political victory.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
Agreed... that’s why points 2 & 6a-b are important.
We invaded Cambodia to remove sanctuary for the NVA/VC. Will we invade Pakistan? Doubtful.
I’m a firn believer in technology (check my profile)... but we ain’t using it’s full capability.
We invaded Cambodia to remove sanctuary for the NVA/VC. Will we invade Pakistan? Doubtful.
I’m a firn believer in technology (check my profile)... but we ain’t using it’s full capability.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Mattis says US competitive warfighting edge has eroded
WASHINGTON (AP) — Countering China's rapidly expanding military and an increasingly aggressive Russia are now the U.S. military's top national security priorities, outpacing the t
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google