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
-
Who Will Lead on Military AI, the Government or Industry?
The military is going to use artificial intelligence. But while planners in the government may have an idea of the best way forward, can they truly lead, or will industry stee...
By Josh Wallin
-
What Trump Really Wants with Venezuela
The Trump administration says it’s targeting narco-traffickers. But critics at home and abroad have decried the attacks and challenged their legal basis. Meanwhile, President ...
By Becca Wasser
-
Defense / Technology & National Security
What to Expect from Military AI in 2030As the US military races to harness artificial intelligence, experts say the biggest AI breakthroughs may not come from “killer robots” or autonomous war machines, but from al...
By Josh Wallin
-
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