October 19, 2021
Why the Pentagon Should Abandon ‘Strategic Competition’
Nearly every child is taught when making a request to “say the magic word”: please. The U.S. Defense Department has recently been taught it too needs to say the magic word in every force, capability, or resource request. But the magic word isn’t please; it’s the phrase “strategic competition.”
The National Defense Strategy (NDS) sets U.S. military priorities and is produced every four years to align with a new administration. As the Pentagon develops the next NDS, scheduled to be delivered in February 2022, it has an opportunity to right where the last strategy went wrong: the concept of strategic competition.
The Pentagon will need to make sure that one magic word or concept is not substituted for another.
The 2018 NDS ushered in an era in which long-term “inter-state strategic competition” with China and Russia reigned. Further complicating matters, Trump administration officials often interchangeably used the phrase great-power competition to describe this development. The concept became a priority mission without a clear definition of what it meant, the actions that comprised it, or what “winning” the competition looked like. Although this might seem innocuous, the establishment of this broad, undefined mission for the Defense Department has had deleterious effects and undermined the strategy’s original intent.
The Biden administration reportedly favors the strategic competition terminology but is differentiating their idea from the Trump-era concept. Although administration officials maintain that strategic competition conveys a focused and disciplined approach, it is likely to have the reverse effect as competition is not a means nor an end in itself. The Trump administration at least emphasized competition with great powers, which delineated the important threats and deprioritized threats like North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. The Biden administration, therefore, appears to be making the next NDS’s centerpiece a term that is even broader and fuzzier than its predecessor.
Read the full article from Foreign Policy.
More from CNAS
-
CNAS Insights | America Isn’t Ready for a Drone War
Commentary
This week, U.S. personnel near El Paso, Texas, tested a high-energy laser as part of their mission to shoot down cartel drones along the southern border. The resulting confusi...
By Stacie Pettyjohn & Molly Campbell
-
Commentary
Defense / Indo-Pacific Security
Trump’s NATO DilemmaThis article was originally published in Foreign Affairs. Last November, Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, startled a gathering of European officials at the Berl...
By Sara Moller
-
What to Expect From U.S., Iran Talks Friday in Oman?
Video
Bloomberg's Becca Wasser & Wayne Sanders state they are not optimistic when discussing what they expect from the US and Iran when both countries speak Friday in Oman. They sug...
By Becca Wasser
-
Opposites Attract (and Execute)
Commentary
Introduction The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in recent months has signaled interest in bringing new entrants into the defense industrial base (DIB), including venture-bac...
By Veronica Daigle & Grace Newsom
