• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Mattis: Biden Should Reject Trump's Security Strategy for Defence in Depth

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,475
Points
1,040
Defense In Depth: Why U.S. Security Depends on Alliances—Now More Than Ever
By Kori Schake, Jim Mattis, Jim Ellis, and Joe Felter
November 23, 2020

The world is not getting safer, for the United States or for U.S. interests. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, the 2017 National Defense Strategy described an international environment of increased global disorder, long-term strategic competition, rapid dispersion of technologies, and eroding U.S. military advantages. Protecting the United States requires a strategy of defense in depth—that is, of identifying and dealing with global problems where they occur rather than waiting for threats to reach American shores.

To achieve defense in depth, simply strengthening the U.S. military is not enough; nor the even more urgent task of strengthening U.S. diplomacy and other civilian elements of national power. Enhancing national security must start with the fundamental truth that the United States cannot protect itself or its interests without the help of others. International engagement allows the United States to see and act at a distance, as threats are gathering, rather than waiting for them to assume proportions that ultimately make them much costlier and more dangerous to defeat. Defeating emerging threats in particular puts a premium on having visibility far from the homeland to allow for early warning and rapid adaptation to unanticipated developments.

As capable as the U.S. military is, the United States’ principal adversaries are more constrained by its network of alliances than by its military might. But continued failure to adequately invest in relationships with allies and partners and to cooperate with them to shape the international environment risks the erosion of this network—allowing a long-tended garden to become choked with weeds. Even worse, it could result in the emergence of other, competing networks, presaging an international order from which the United States is excluded, unable to influence outcomes because it is simply not present.

The United States today is undermining the foundations of an international order manifestly advantageous to U.S. interests, reflecting a basic ignorance of the extent to which both robust alliances and international institutions provide vital strategic depth. In practice, “America first” has meant “America alone.” That has damaged the country’s ability to address problems before they reach U.S. territory and has thus compounded the danger emergent threats pose.

...

See rest of article here

:cheers:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,432
Points
940
While i agree with his premise, and I know he first hand understands the cost. But are the average people willing to fight more generational wars? I see general fatigue about fighting wars where there is no will or focus to win.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,582
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
While i agree with his premise, and I know he first hand understands the cost. But are the average people willing to fight more generational wars? I see general fatigue about fighting wars where there is no will or focus to win.

The easiest way to avoid fighting the next war is to 'pre-surrender' :)
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,475
Points
1,040
Colin P said:
While i agree with his premise, and I know he first hand understands the cost. But are the average people willing to fight more generational wars? I see general fatigue about fighting wars where there is no will or focus to win.

You should have been around for Vietnam. Now that was fatigue.

9/11 changed all that. It's surprising how willing and focused the people became after that. The will and the focus was there for a considerable time (and still is for many). The ability to win was another issue; sometimes you just can't push a rope.

:cheers:
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
592
Points
890
I don't think anybody wants to engage in more generational wars - especially as the world becomes more and more globalized, and younger people from around the world engage with each other more and more.

Social media, access to information, and a new focus on saving the planet I think will present 'some' challenges for conflicts to become generational, which is a good thing.


In the context of the article (Which I admit I haven't read yet, just what was posted - will read when I get home) - Mattis understands US allies are key, especially in the context of Russia and China.  Especially China.

Having strong alliances with Japan, Australia, India, and some of the other smaller countries in the region (which can nevertheless be equipped to contribute above their weight) I believe is just as important to the fight as the strength of the US military itself.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,432
Points
940
I caught the fatigue and betrayal felt by the US military in the 80's. The reality is that some fights like Afghanistan, can only be won by a generational war with a fairly consistent focus and effort. Part of the problem with the West is we don't honestly talk about what the real costs are before going in and then people feel they been sold a sack of poop. It's great to have all these lofty ideas, but some of them need blood spilled for that to happen. Hard to convince a generation grown up on singing unicorns and Disney movies that bit of reality.

Plus people are continually told stuff that not true. The US did beat the NVA and Vietcong after Tet and dragged them to the Peace Table. It was after the US pulled out the bulk of it's forces (prematurely) that the North broke the agreement and invaded. Most history classes also neglect to teach about the Malay Emergency as well.   
 
Top