US Rolls Out New Military Strategy

This latest version of the NMS, an update from 2011, recognizes that Russia does not want a direct military conflict with the United States or its NATO allies and that the United States needs “to engage Russia in areas of common interest” while trying to persuade Moscow to behave more in accordance with international law.

Last week, the Pentagon released the latest iteration of the National Military Strategy (NMS) of the United States.

Although the text acknowledges that Russia has contributed to security in select areas such as counter-narcotics and counterterrorism, the document complains that Russia’s actions are undermining security directly and through proxy forces.

In addition to concerns about Russia, the document expresses alarm about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terrorism, North Korea’s dangerous pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technologies, and China’s claims to the South China Sea and numerous islands.

Furthermore, the document highlights the threat from violent extremist organizations (VEOs), which is evolving. Whereas Al-Qaida was more centralized and more inclined to engage in only targeted acts of violence, the Islamic State group has allowed many other groups to align for inspirational rather than ideological considerations and more inclined to random acts of violence. The Pentagon says that the U.S. will build local and regional networks in response to combat the Islamic State.

The new NMS offers a lengthy discussion regarding “hybrid warfare,” placing it in the middle a continuum of types of conflict ranging from the one extreme of state conflict to the other extreme of non-state conflict. The goal of hybrid conflict is to create ambiguity, seize the initiative, and paralyze the adversary. It achieves this through a blend of conventional and irregular forces, and through a mix of traditional military means and asymmetric systems.

The last major focus of the strategy document is the diffusion of U.S. military advantages. Globalization has enabled the spread of new technologies, while groups and individuals have greater access to information and can gather and act upon that information quickly. States are using information sharing and technological innovation to develop their own advanced military capabilities. This development is only partly related to Russia, such as when Russian defense firms sell missiles and other weapons to China, Iran, and other potential military adversaries.

The current version of the NMS drops the formulation of the 2011 text that identifies four important ways the U.S. military exercises security leadership in the international arena—as a “facilitator, enabler, convener, and guarantor.” Nonetheless, the 2015 NMS reiterates support for deploying US Joint Forces in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East in order to promote regional stability. The U.S. global military posture will seek to balance forward deployed U.S. military with more centrally available enabling assets based in the United States.

Foreign partnerships are an important tool that the United States uses to counterbalance state and non-state threats. In the case of VEOs, the Pentagon will limit its support to “select combat forces, enabling technologies, and training in support of local partners,” but it wants those foreign countries under attack to supply “the majority of forces necessary to restore and secure their homelands.” The U.S. will enable other countries to perform their international security roles more effectively by bolstering their capacities.

In the case of Russia, NATO is the critical partner since it “provides vital collective security guarantees and is strategically important for deterring conflict, particularly in light of recent Russian aggression on its periphery.” The U.S. military is committed in support of NATO with exercises, training and the prepositioning of U.S. military equipment in states near Russia.

Yet, foreign partners are considered vital but not essential. Like other U.S. government documents, the latest National Military Strategy says that “While we prefer to act in concert with others, we will act unilaterally if the situation demands.” 

Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.