Rarely a day goes by in which we do not hear about the United States military. There is always talk about budgets, overseas wars, arguments about the size of U.S. forces, and even whether there is even a need for a full-time military. 

No worries, however, as in this brief article I won’t debate the wisdom of past wars such as Vietnam, Gulf War II, or the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nor will I discuss the details of the 858-billion-dollar defense budget. For your sake, dear reader, I’ll also skip the discussions surrounding the concepts of a “just war” and/or a “preventative war.” Instead, my goal is to give you a basic idea as how the Department of Defense (DoD) and the military give options to the President and senior leaders. In other words, how the United States organizes it defense and makes grand strategies work.

—Let’s begin with three thoughts:

1. You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you—Leon Trotsky.
2. If the Army loses, the nation perishes—General Douglas MacArthur.
3. The Pentagon said today…

Part 1 – The National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy

Since the beginning of time, if there is an area, or “domain” as it is called in the current military parlance, in which one group or nation can take war to another, then it most certainly will be exploited. The historic domains of land, sea, and air are now joined by those of bio-warfare, cyber-warfare, and space-warfare. The United States, along with its allies, makes clear to potential foes that it will employ warfighting strategies and tactics across all these domains (with perhaps the exception of bio-warfare) to defend its citizenry, its economy, its democratic freedoms, and the fabric and cohesion of its society—indeed a broad remit! 

Since, and perhaps even before, WW2, we can think of our national defense as a long wave that runs through our national decision making. By this, I mean that the defense structure and its priorities remain surprisingly consistent from year to year and even from administration to administration. While certainly not completely immune from the political tides, the national priorities usually enjoy deep and wide support across the body politic.

As an example, think of Teddy Roosevelt launching the Great White Fleet (so called because of the color of the paint used on the ships) to show the world that the U.S. was now a two-ocean power. Every president since, whether Republican or Democrat, has hewn to this course. In fact, it is no longer even a matter of debate as presidents from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden have all endorsed this aspect of U.S. national power. 

But in broader terms, how does the United States define national power and what thinking gives rhyme or reason to it? To answer that question, we must first look at three crucial documents: The National Security Strategy (NSS), the National Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy (NMS). The NSS and NDS are published every four years while the NMS appears every two. 

The NSS, which can be found at the Whitehouse website and only takes about 30 minutes to read, clearly spells out the national interests. What are those? Well, they are the structures that build and maintain free and prosperous nations: Individual and collective freedoms, basic democratic values, economic stability through trade, the importance of allies, the rule of law, and the resolve to parry current and future threats.

While at first glance a reader might find the language rather broad—after all, what does a “call for freedom” have to do with tanks and missiles and Marines? In fact, the NSS provides three critical functions for our nation’s defense. 

The first is that it serves as a common starting point around which all the governmental and defense agencies can align their efforts. The NSS gets everyone, no pun intended, in line and marching toward the same goals. The importance of this unity cannot be overestimated as unity of purpose is crucial to any large-scale organizational effort. 

Second, and almost as equally important, is that it gives a clear description to both our friends and our foes of what the U.S considers important interests, what it considers inimical to those interests, and how robustly it will defend them. While the term “red line” does not, and most likely never will, appear in any of these documents, the NSS describes what the U.S considers its vital organs.

Third, the NSS makes clear to the reader that national defense does not rest solely on the shoulders of the military. Instead, that responsibility is borne collectively across our society, economy, and government.

The NSS is grounded in the bedrock principle that national power is based on four major elements—elements that are easy to remember under the DIME paradigm: Diplomatic, Industrial/Information/Intelligence, Military, and Economic while some modern defense strategists advocate for the MIDFIELD acronym: Military, Informational, Diplomatic, Financial, Intelligence, Economic, Law, and Development. As you can imagine, an effective exercise of national power combines all of these elements and the NSS takes time to discuss each of them to align, and then guide, all the stakeholders. 

Now before I talk about the NMS and NDS, let me describe the structure of the U.S military and the DoD. 

Disinformation and propaganda are, in our modern electronically interconnected world, an extremely serious and growing problem. Apart perhaps from a hegemonic China or a Russia intent on using a nuclear weapon, disinformation and propaganda are direct and immediate threats to the U.S.

Future challenges for both the military and our citizenry 

Disinformation and propaganda are, in our modern electronically interconnected world, an extremely serious and growing problem. Apart perhaps from a hegemonic China or a Russia intent on using a nuclear weapon, disinformation and propaganda are direct and immediate threats to the U.S. 

Nearly every day we see disinformation campaigns being played out against our senior military and civilian leadership. While the protests, for example, against the war in Vietnam were vocal and widespread, they had a single purpose—an end to the conflict in Southeast Asia. Today, expert disinformation efforts by our foes aim to sow seeds of chaos that attack the very credibility of our senior military and political leaders, defense policies, and even the functioning of the U.S. economy. Overall, the intent is to make national security a thoroughly political topic instead of one based on needed capabilities.

While robust Congressional oversight of the military and defense structures is absolutely mission critical, we need to be careful not to let the ebb and flow of political rancor effect our preparedness. Gulf Wars I and II are one thing in that they were, with all due respect, relatively easy. A major multi-domain attack from China, however, is another matter altogether and significantly more threatening. 

Our citizens need to listen carefully to what the DoD and military services are really saying and not what a partisan pundit might opine. There is no need to become a defense policy expert, but having a general idea helps the nation.

As an example, during the Obama administration the DoD and Navy made known to the SECDEF and POTUS concerns about climate change. Almost immediately the TV talking heads were thrashing about as if they were a fish out of water. Accusations were leveled that the military had bought into a global warming scam. 

Well…even the most cursory look at the topic revealed that the military did not stress whether the change was due to man-made warming or not. Nor were they in thrall to moving the country back to pre-industrial age levels of power consumption.  

Instead, with 40% (2.8 billion people) of the world’s population living within 60 miles (100 Km) of a shoreline and the arctic areas now opening to global shipping, it is a subject that the Navy needs to closely watch. Add into the mix that Russia and other nations are casting a beady eye on the mineral deposits under the arctic regions, and the DoD and Navy would be grossly negligent if they were not keeping track of this. 

A second example if I may. Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine there were consistent and ever more shrill attacks from the likes of TV pundit Tucker Carlson as to how our military forces have grown weak, emasculated, effete, and totally ineffective in comparison to the true warrior spirit of Vladimir Putin’s sinewy and masculine Russian troops who, according to this narrative, were steeled and steady fighters. As we have witnessed over the past year, we can see how that myth unraveled but not before the SECDEF Lloyd Austin and the Chairman of JCS General Milley were brought before Congress to provide some answers as to the supposed parlous condition and readiness of our troops. 

As it turns out, General Milley indeed had answers. It is true he conceded that the services are struggling to meet recruitment goals. This seems to be a cyclical problem and he is tasked to find answer to the shortfalls. But the U.S. military is still an incredible nimble, robust, and lethal force. As we have seen in Ukraine, it is American equipment and know-how that the Ukrainians ask for. 

The last example would be the disinformation campaigns claiming that our senior leaders are pushing a woke ideology at the cost of capabilities. General Miley vigorously pushed back against this. 

With some units in the military now nearly 40% non-Caucasian the top commander has to be cognizant of his force structure. Our soldiers must be trained in everything from musketry to nuclear weapons and General Miley, like any competent manager and leader, realizes that he has to understand and motivate the soldiers, sailors, and airmen, who are tasked to defend us. If the Army fails, the nation perishes as per Douglas MacArthur, Knowing and understanding that young men and women of color might not be keen to worship General Lee or Stonewall Jackson is a first step to being an effective leader of soldiers instead of merely a manager. 

As an aside, there is a very good recommendation being floated that the Army posts should be renamed for Medal of Honor recipients. Just as the Navy christens ships in the name of past heroes, the Army could honor their greatest no matter what their race, color, or creed while sidestepping, no pun intended, the minefield of the Civil War.

Again, my point is that important topics need to be understood by the public and not overshadowed by the latest political points being made by the chattering classes. The military has indeed made many errors, some grievous, over the years but it is up to all of us as citizens to make sure that we learn from those mistakes. After all, our existence depends on it.  

I close with the admonition that as voters we have the power of the ballot box and thus civilian control of our national defense establishment. If we have concerns, we can ask questions of our representatives and demand answers—I have done so from the late Senator Arlen Specter’s office and was impressed at the detailed answers I received. With China now as a peer competitor and with both Russia and China showing hegemonic inclinations, we need to make sure that we are keenly aware of the United States elements of power and its defense. With future warfare sure to be fought across multiple domains, we must remember that whether we wish to be or not, we are all in this together!