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 & Aerospace Air Power Podcast [Jun 26, 25] Season 3 E25: Focus Forward
Podcast
Just when people were saying the future of air power was small, distributed systems like UAVs, the US struck Iran’s nuclear program infrastructure with an old-fashioned manned...
By Stacie Pettyjohn
-
Podcast
Defense / Energy, Economics & Security
Tariffs & and the Defense Industrial Base with Becca Wasser, plus what’s new in the U.S.-China trade warGeoff and Emily debrief on the latest news in the U.S.-China trade talks. Becca Wasser, senior fellow and deputy director of the CNAS defense program, joins to talk about what...
By Emily Kilcrease, Geoffrey Gertz & Becca Wasser
-
Production Power: The Revitalisation of the U.S. Defence Industrial Base and the Consequences for Europe
Podcast
In episode 15 of Strategy Speaks, Becca Wasser from CNAS speaks with Daniel Fiott about the US defence industrial base and how its revitalisation could affect Europe. The conv...
By Becca Wasser
-
MWI Podcast: The U.S. Defense Industrial Base, from Steel to Software
Podcast
Mobilizing the U.S. defense industrial base. for a future large-scale conflict, however, will look very different than it has in the past. In the information age, data and sof...
By Becca Wasser
