Global Security Challenges Facing The United States Military

Over the course of history, the strategic environment has changed rapidly and is now more complex than ever before – it is currently characterized by unpredictability and disorder, and may yet manifest itself in the collapse of nuclear armed nations, destabilizing conflict in geo-politically vital regions, and humanitarian crises. A world of disparate actors – not all nation states – now exists. Unpredictable events will continue to cause strategic surprise. The widespread effects of past conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam and the Iraq war are still being felt and have created significant strategic repercussions. The failures of these conflicts are the result of our military and political leaders’ failure to quickly adapt to wartime conditions. This occurs because of a general refusal to commit to a military culture of learning that encourages serious debate, critical assessments of our military operations, and challenges to our doctrine in the face of emerging change. Additionally, leaders have struggled with the critical responsibility of forecasting and providing for a ready force, one that is well-resourced and prepared to conduct future operations. It is the responsibility of our military and political leaders to send our military to war with a ready force, and a strategy that will ultimately result in victory. But understanding war and warriors is critical if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy.

P.W. Singer and August Cole’s 2015 novel, Ghost Fleet, demonstrates how the American military’s trending dependence on high-tech, networked warfighting may be vulnerable to foreign near-peer and hybrid threats. Merging expertise from Washington-based foreign policy think tanks and defense technology sectors, the authors weave a fictional, yet plausible depiction of a near-future war featuring the United States, China, and Russia.

We all know that the United States of America is one of the top powerful countries. As a powerful nation we need a strong army, fierce military forces and the enough power to use international seas and air. Also, our country must be able to protect us in any case and protect us from enemies that want to challenge our interests. According to the 2015 Index, USA can not face two major regional contingency (MRC) because we don't have the sufficient strength to face it and we are not ready to do our duties productively. Military power is about the people and the equipment necessary to control including weapons, airplanes, ships and communication systems. If the US is not able to use all this with objective and competency, we will lose. In order to

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) examines “the national defense strategy and priorities”, and “sets a long-term course for the DoD”. The QDR "assesses the threats and challenges that the nation faces, while seeking to re-balance DoD‘s strategies, capabilities, and forces to address today‘s conflicts and tomorrow's threats." The QDR is required by Congress every four years and is produced by the Secretary of Defense (SecDef). The three pillars that the 2014 QDR rests on are: protect the homeland; build security globally; and project power and win decisively. One of the ways that the US armed forces support the QDR is through the application of airpower. Airpower is “the ability to project military power or influence through the

Former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter, in his article “Adapting to the Threat Dynamics of the 21st Century” states that the U.S. military needs to be well prepared for unannounced attacks from “terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else al-Qaeda and its associates appear.” China and other nation have higher advantages in many key manufacturing areas than U.S. the military needs to have abundant funds, trained soldiers, invest in the air and sea mobility assets, and updated technologies. Winter acknowledges that a temporary reduction in some key manufacturing areas could cause the U.S. industrial stupendous harm. “It is the matter of ensuring the survival of America and the free world.”

The challenges were that there was not a well-trained army, the white male population size, the loyalist, and money.

Political support is the primary and foremost key component in developing successful innovation. Furthermore, military innovation cannot deviate from the strategic guidance of the nation, without reconstructing the defense strategy and military vision. Nonetheless, this reconstruction can occur if the current innovation and military development is defined upon outdated technology. Therefore, peacetime innovation is an opportunity to combat deficiencies as well as capability gaps, in order to maintain the competitive edge against potential enemies or threats to a nation. Most importantly, the cost of the innovation, training, and implementation must be feasible through funding and allocation with approval by bureaucrats. Spending outside ones means in this factor will result in both incomplete and inadequate innovation. 1

Political support is the primary and foremost key component in developing successful innovation. Furthermore, military innovation cannot deviate from the strategic guidance of the nation, without reconstructing the defense strategy and military vision. Nonetheless, this reconstruction can occur if the current innovation and military development is defined upon outdated technology. Therefore, peacetime innovation is an opportunity to combat deficiencies as well as capability gaps in order to maintain the competitive edge against potential enemies or threats to a nation. Most importantly, the cost of the innovation, training, and implementation must be feasible through current funding and allocation and approved by bureaucrats. Spending outside ones means in this factor will result in both incomplete and inadequate innovation. 1

In order to keep up with modern warfare, the United States must have the ability to keep up with the production of the latest technology, which includes Obama’s plan to modernize to nation’s nuclear arsenal. The need to update the nuclear arsenal stockpile stems from the tensions that are arising between the United States and the rogue superpowers with an equal supply of nuclear weapons. However, this plan

The wars at the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the new century are entirely different from the other ones, mainly since September 11th, 2011. The nature of the strategic environment of the warfare has undergone a series of transformations because of the globalization, technology, economic relationships, and cultural changes. They influence the war and create an environment characterized as volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). This new environment has shifted the conventional use of arms, likewise, the strategies and the genius of the participants.

Clausewitz defines war as an “act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each followed by a discussion of US strategic guidance and ending with an analysis of the training resources and force structure requirements needed to achieve success for all types of

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US

War, military drive and composed savagery have been key to the globalization of human undertakings for a lot of history, particularly in the cutting edge age and all the more as of late exposed to the harsh elements War period.