military and the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) now have on a possible conflict with China over Taiwan. It is equally uncertain that it would have looked beyond the relatively narrow regional focus the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and Central Command (CENTCOM). It would have largely ignored the need to define a clear longer-term strategy for each major regional command – especially for the U.S. It would have supported funding more research and development but done so without really addressing priorities for action and the key challenges like implementing a capability for joint all-domain operations (JADO). military service’s procurement programs documented by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Congressional Research Service (CRS). It would not have addressed the gross problems in each U.S. There would have been no clear plans for reshaping U.S. If the draft strategy followed the path of the FY2023 budget submission, it also would not have defined or costed a credible Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). It also seems likely that it would have singled out China without containing practical plans, programs, and budgets to deal with the longer-term aspects of competition– much less any detailed strategies, force plans, and longer-term goals to deal with the rest of the world. force posture in Europe in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, it would not yet have had a clear reason to call for new efforts at rebuilding U.S. In fairness, it does seem likely that if the Biden administration had issued a more detailed unclassified version of its strategy, it would have made a stronger call for maintaining strategic partnerships in NATO and Asia.
has new plans for reshaping its global strategic partnerships.
#Strategic war full#
They did not provide any hint that the full strategy would have any supporting net assessments nor were there any indications that the U.S. They did not provide any detailed plans, programs, and projected budgets. In fact, the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance that the Biden administration issued in March 2021 and the FY2023 defense budget submission issued in March 2022 had a strangely bipartisan character and were remarkably similar to the Trump administration’s strategies and budget submissions. Looking at the lack of any detailed strategic content in the administration’s proposed FY2023 defense budget, however, it seems all too likely that it would have remained as vacuous as the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy documents. The new document would almost certainly have still focused on China and paid little more than lip service to meeting the threats from Iran and North Korea without defining a credible regional approach to either of these threats or dealing in any serious way with the rest of the world.
It seems all too likely, however, that those changes would not have gone all that far beyond the vacuous generalities of the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance that the White House issued in March 2021. forces and the desired changes in strategic partnerships. One can only guess at the level of detail the Biden administration might have released regarding the nature and cost of the changes such a strategy would call for in reshaping the size, nature, and location of U.S. If Russia had not invaded Ukraine, the Biden administration would have almost certainly issued a more detailed unclassified version of the Interim National Defense Strategy provided to Congress on March 28, 2022. was on the edge of committing an act of bipartisan stupidity. It is one of the many ironies of the Ukraine War that it began at a time when the U.S. National Strategy: The Need for a Credible Global Force Posture and Real Plans, Programs, and Budgets Responding to Egregious Human Rights Abuses.Building Sustainable and Inclusive Democracy.Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and Immunizations.Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Impacts.Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation.Defense Industry, Acquisition, and Innovation.Intelligence, Surveillance, and Privacy.
0 kommentar(er)
