The report of the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy found that “[t]he threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.” Yet, we rarely, if ever, hear mention of these threats from those on the campaign trail, much less how they would deal with them. Whoever is elected in November will face a more complex and dangerous world than any faced by their predecessors in at least 80 years. Several factors contribute to this warning, but there are three that pose unprecedented and especially daunting challenges for the U.S.
First, our adversaries are working together as never before. For its war against Ukraine, Russia is receiving North Korean artillery shells and apparently troops, Iranian drones, and “very substantial help” from China according to the U.S. State Department. Presumably, they are all receiving something back from Russia. This willingness to cooperate and to shore up each other’s weaknesses complicates U.S. planning and presents a more formidable threat than we have faced before. It also makes clear that we cannot look at any region of the world in isolation. They are all connected.
A second unprecedented challenge arises from having two peer nuclear adversaries. Throughout the Cold War, deterrence calculations pitted the U.S. against the Soviet Union with no other nation anywhere close. In recent years, China has embarked upon a major expansion of its nuclear programs, and both Russia and China have warheads far more modern than ours. Decades of research, study, planning, and preparation to prevent a nuclear war against one adversary is of limited value against two, but we have not yet been willing to step up to what may be needed for deterrence in this new environment.
Third, and in many ways the most challenging, is the tremendous effort our adversaries are putting into the cognitive domain of warfare. Opponents have always tried to get inside the mind of their adversary to gain an advantage. But now with the Internet, proliferated and siloed media sources, AI, and advances in psychology and neuroscience, our adversaries have more tools than ever before to fuel our internal divisions, distract us, and undermine our willingness to resist their aggression. They might win without firing a shot. Of course, we often make it too easy for them.
The new administration and Congress must start with a clear-eyed understanding of the threats we face and by ensuring there are adequate budgets for defense and intelligence. In addition, they should focus on these key areas:
Technology lies at the heart of today’s geostrategic competition. Unlike our adversaries, much of the technology we need for defense is in the private sector which does not have to work with government. In fact, we make it too hard to do business with DOD, especially for companies that must be accountable to investors and shareholders. Many studies have provided the roadmap for what needs to be done, but there is a cultural resistance to change within DOD and Congress. A few more work-around programs with limited funding will not deter China. The only thing that matters is getting weapons with modern technology in sufficient quantities into the hands of the warfighters in time to make a difference. And the warfighters must do their homework to be ready to use them effectively. Only strong, persistent leadership at DOD partnering with key allies in Congress can break through the cultural resistance to change and bring our best technology to bear in protecting the nation.
In a world growing increasingly unstable, there can be no higher priority than maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent. We cannot continue to shove nuclear matters over in a corner hoping for the best but must make nuclear deterrence the priority now that it was during the Cold War. That includes a fresh look at the number and characteristics of our warheads, as well as revitalizing our nuclear plants and labs so they can adapt quickly to provide the weapons that will deter most effectively. Programs to modernize our delivery systems must be implemented with the urgency they deserve.
We must put greater effort into uncovering and understanding how adversaries are trying to influence us, and we should expose more of it to the public. We have to treat the cognitive domain as a real, active domain of warfare from the geostrategic to the tactical, individual level. It is not just the military’s job; it requires many parts of society to push back against the efforts to undermine us.
Facing a variety of adversaries working together makes strengthening our own alliances and partnerships essential. We need our friends to contribute more to our common defense, and we need to make it easier for them to work with the United States. There is a long list of outdated laws and policies that make military and technological cooperation with the U.S. much harder than it should be, some of which are ridiculously complex. A bipartisan commission could help overhaul export control laws, for example, and Congress should commit to vote on its recommendations as a package. We can make more use of shipyards, industrial capability, and other resources in allied countries. None of us, even the United States, can face this formidable, unprecedented array of threats alone.
Comments