I read through the new defense strategy, focusing mostly on the cyber-issues. You can find it here, attached to a New York Times op-ed titled A Leaner Pentagon.
It didn't say anything groundbreaking with regard to cyberwarfare. One major point of the strategy was that the US military must be able to project power despite anti-access/area denial challenges. That speaks directly to cyberwarfare, and indirectly to China (which would utilize cyberattack as an area denial weapon). Accordingly, the strategy says that the US military must "maintain the ability to project power when an adversary uses cyber warfare to complicate the operational calculus." Moreover, the strategy notes that both China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter US power projection.
The strategy mentioned cyberspace as one of the DOD's primary missions. That bullet is below:
"Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space. Modern armed forces cannot conduct
high-tempo, effective operations without reliable information and communication
networks and assured access to cyberspace and space. Today space systems and their
supporting infrastructure face a range of threats that may degrade, disrupt, or destroy
assets. Accordingly, DoD will continue to work with domestic and international allies
and partners and invest in advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational
capability, and resiliency in cyberspace and space."
Consequently, I think this defense strategy represents a major shift, but its impact may be overstated. The strategy places emphasis on "reversibility" and preserves "our ability to make a course change that could be driven by many factors, including shocks or evolutions in the strategic, operational, economic, and technological spheres." That flexibility is essential, and allows for a transition back towards the two-war concept (if it is ever needed). Donald Rumsfeld also favored a leaner military going into Iraq and Afghanistan; that obviously changed. The emphasis on cyberwarfare is here to stay, but I don't think the two-war concept is dead.
The aforementioned NYT op-ed expresses a similar sentiment. The op-ed notes the projected cut in the Marine Corps and Army, but argues that "there must be a clear plan on how to build up again quickly if needed." The NYT op-ed also makes an important point: "the real impact of the strategy will be seen in the budget [President Obama] unveils later this month."
The NYT op-ed can be found here. Again, the strategy can be found here.
***
On Jan. 6th, 2012, Gopal Ratnam reported for Bloomberg on the new defense plan, and called it "a diagnosis without prescription." In effect, the strategy's aim is proper, but no one knows whether the DOD will have the resources "to fill the prescription." The article explains that the defense strategy lacks specifics in how it will achieve its broad goals.
The article notes that the DOD will present its 2013 budget request to Congress in February. According to SecDef Panetta, we'll get a better idea of how DOD plans to meet its goals at that time.
***
CNN reported that China urged the US to use the "utmost caution" and avoid acting like a "bull in a china shop" with regard to the new US defense strategy. An editorial from Xinhua went on to say that a US role in Asia can be conducive to regional stability, but the US "should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this won't help solve regional disputes."
Leave a Reply