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
-
Defense / Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
To Compete with China on Military AI, U.S. Should Set the StandardsThe United States has an opportunity to lead in global norms and standards for military AI at a critical moment, when the foundations laid today could shape how militaries use...
By Jacob Stokes, Paul Scharre & Josh Wallin
-
Defense / Energy, Economics & Security / Technology & National Security
The Outlook CEO Perspectives on Risk, Resilience and ReturnsJoin David Schwimmer and Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for New American Security, as they explore the current national security landscape and its impacts on global econo...
By Richard Fontaine
-
Are We Ready? | America’s Next Battlefield, with Thomas Shugart
Thomas Shugart, adjunct senior fellow at CNAS, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss how the tools and tactics of warfare have changed in the past decade and whether the ...
By Tom Shugart
-
How Are China, Ukraine and the U.S. Actually Using Military AI?
Artificial intelligence is being used on the battlefields of Ukraine right now — or is it? That’s one of the questions driving the second part of Breaking Defense's roundtable...
By Josh Wallin