The Trump administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 aims for "U.S. military dominance in all warfighting domains-air, land, seas, space, and cyberspace," echoing its FY 20 budget proposal, which supported "Dominance across all domains."9 This view is consistent with the desire for "Overmatch" in the NSS. Overmatch requires the United States to "Restore our ability to produce innovative capabilities, restore the readiness of our forces for major war, and grow the size of the force so that it is capable of operating at a sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios."10.
Under a strategy of restraint, the U.S. Navy and Air Force would be a surge force capable of deploying to crisis zones if local actors prove incapable of addressing threats.
U.S. force planning should be oriented around how the U.S. military can contribute to such operations from a distance as U.S. interests dictate.
Would the United States deploy landing craft like those used on Normandy beaches in 1944 or at Inchon Korea in 1950 during an age of highly sophisticated surface‐to‐surface missiles? Does the U.S. military have functional aviation or naval vehicles that can support large modern amphibious invasions?
118 Under restraint, regional disputes might prove less likely to escalate into great power conflict, and more capable local deterrent forces would help reduce-though not eliminate-demands on the U.S. military and U.S. taxpayers.
These alternatives are often more effective than force and can produce a positive lasting impact by creating a period of stability that endures and that can be sustained by many like‐minded actors, not merely the U.S. military.
A clear consideration of U.S. capabilities, appreciation of our fortunate geopolitical situation, and confidence in our ability to address future challenges will allow the United States to build and maintain a leaner and more efficient military, one that is more than capable of defending U.S. vital interests and deterring attacks against the homeland.
Under a strategy of restraint, the U.S. Navy and Air Force would be a surge force capable of deploying to crisis zones if local actors prove incapable of addressing threats.
U.S. force planning should be oriented around how the U.S. military can contribute to such operations from a distance as U.S. interests dictate.
Would the United States deploy landing craft like those used on Normandy beaches in 1944 or at Inchon Korea in 1950 during an age of highly sophisticated surface‐to‐surface missiles? Does the U.S. military have functional aviation or naval vehicles that can support large modern amphibious invasions?
118 Under restraint, regional disputes might prove less likely to escalate into great power conflict, and more capable local deterrent forces would help reduce-though not eliminate-demands on the U.S. military and U.S. taxpayers.
These alternatives are often more effective than force and can produce a positive lasting impact by creating a period of stability that endures and that can be sustained by many like‐minded actors, not merely the U.S. military.
A clear consideration of U.S. capabilities, appreciation of our fortunate geopolitical situation, and confidence in our ability to address future challenges will allow the United States to build and maintain a leaner and more efficient military, one that is more than capable of defending U.S. vital interests and deterring attacks against the homeland.
No comments:
Post a Comment