The Challenge of Great Power Rivalry The U.S. Defense Department is struggling to adequately prepare for competition with major powers like Russia and China. A new policy paper from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies highlights the challenges posed by current funding priorities that focus more on immediate needs than on long-term strategic threats.

The Impact of the Goldwater-Nichols Reform Act The paper identifies deficiencies within the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Reform Act (GNA) as a key factor contributing to the under-resourcing of critical military capabilities. The GNA restructured the Department of Defense (DOD) in a manner that hampers the ability of service branches to prioritize future threats over immediate operational demands. This has led to a neglect of long-term procurement strategies essential for national defense.

Misallocation of Resources Furthermore, the authors point out that the Pentagon’s prioritization issues extend beyond the short-term versus long-term planning divide to include an imbalance among military services. This has resulted in insufficient funding for the strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific theater, necessitating a reallocation of resources from the Army towards the Air Force, Space Force, and Navy.

Static Defense Budget Shares The paper notes that service budget shares have remained stagnant, with DOD leaders approving Army investments that overlap with capabilities better suited to the Air Force. For instance, the Army’s long-range surface-to-surface missiles, costing $60 to $70 million each, could be more effectively managed by the Air Force’s existing capabilities.

Reforming the Pentagon’s Chain of Command To address these issues, the paper advocates for repositioning service chiefs within the DOD chain of command, empowering them to set future military requirements and allocate funding accordingly. This realignment would enhance their ability to prepare for joint operations while ensuring that strategic needs are met.

Addressing Bureaucratic Inefficiencies The authors, including Richard Andres, retired Air Force generals Michael Moseley and Larry Stutzriem, also highlight the detrimental effects of excessive centralization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). They call for a comprehensive review of OSD-related bureaucracies, shifting missions and authority back to individual services to foster strategic decision-making.

Recommendations for Reform The paper outlines four key recommendations to adapt U.S. military efforts for great power competition:

  1. Reassess National Security: Conduct a thorough evaluation of the current threat landscape while recognizing the limitations of existing strategies.
  2. Restructure the DOD: Implement immediate changes to address organizational deficiencies that have hindered past reform efforts aimed at countering threats from China and Russia.
  3. Increase Defense Budget: Align the defense budget with the evolving security environment to ensure adequate funding for strategic priorities.
  4. Evaluate and Shift Defense Investments: Conduct a holistic review of service contributions to the National Defense Strategy and shift investments based on a cost-per-effect assessment to enhance overall effectiveness in addressing emerging challenges.

Conclusion: The Path Ahead By implementing these recommendations, the U.S. can better position itself to face the challenges posed by great power competition, ensuring that military resources are allocated efficiently and effectively to meet both current and future threats.

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here