Strategic Challenges And The Global Security Environment

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.

The function of the military forces for the United States has had no choice but to evolve as wars wax and wane. As the rise of militant terrorist groups became a threat to the United States and its allies, the armed forces of the United States were deployed by the President to countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Instability in these countries threatened bordering allies, and after September 11, 2001, the threat was brought to U.S. soil. Each president from Clinton to Obama has had to shape the policy of how the armed forces fit into civil-military policies abroad and overseas. In a war time environment, such as Iraq, the purpose of how the military should be deployed is easier to clearly state. But in times when there is no imminent threat, it is much more difficult to transition

The threat environment has expanded from a strategic, nuclear, symmetrical threat from bombers, ICBMs, and air-or-sea-launched cruise missiles, to a continuing symmetrical threat in addition to an emergent asymmetric threat, focused across all domains, borders and agencies. Accordingly, our political leaders recognized a need to transform the military for a new ‘home game’. United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established to assume responsibility for the defence of the US homeland, and this new Command was tasked to provide military assistance to civil authorities (MACA).

The Department of Defense (DOD) must decide how to rebalance the armed forces general force structure to meet future challenges and opportunities in an austere fiscal environment. The general force structure and capabilities of Joint Force 2020 necessary to adjust the force based on current strategic direction and fiscal constraints is a smaller, efficient, adaptable and integrated joint force. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes US military forces will evolve and remain modern, capable, and ready while accepting some increased risk through force reductions. Rebalancing will require innovative approaches and solutions to protect the homeland, build global security, project power, and win decisively with a leaner force.

The Armed Forces of the United States stand at an inflection point. Fourteen years of sustained combat forged a seasoned force capable of success across the range of military operations from military engagement to joint and multinational major combat operations. Today, this seasoned force is tasked to reset from a decade plus of counterinsurgency operations and evolve capability and capacity to defend the Nation from an increasingly complex security environment. Furthermore, this transformation must be completed in the face of a stark fiscal federal budget.

General Dempsey’s NMS underscored strategic challenges to the Joint Staff in rebalancing the JF of 2025 to meet the national security directives in an austere fiscal environment. General Dempsey highlighted strategic imperatives to protect and advance U.S national interests, apply contrasting approaches to state threats (China, Russia) verses non-state threats (ISIL), and adjusting to prolonged campaigns in an unpredictable strategic environment with limited resources.4 The CCJO emphasized enduring proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), rise of competitor states, violent extremism, regional instabilities, transnational crime and competition for resources.5 Furthermore, advancements in mobile technology and social media allow middleweight

As Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford emphasized in his February 26, 2015 statement to the house subcommittee on defense, “The challenges of the future operating environment will demand that our Nation maintains a force-in-readiness that is capable of global response.” Given today's fiscally constrained environment, the United States Marine Corps (USMC) continues to experiment with new tactics, techniques, and procedures to enable mission efficiency and improve combat effectiveness. Recognizing the gap between traditional crisis response capacity and demand, geographic combatant commanders (GCC) require alternative and creative solutions to traditional employment challenges. The Expeditionary Force 21 concept is one way the Marine Corps is answering that challenge. Expeditionary Force 21 is the USMC’s vision and response to threats in the contemporary environment while observing the limitations of

Following over a decade of irregular war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is attempting to reset towards a conventional, regular type of warfare. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review describes a U.S. military shift to the Pacific and the supremacy of capability against near peer nations rather than support irregular of and counterinsurgency operations. As the QDR points out the U.S. military must “be prepared to battle increasingly sophisticated adversaries who could employ advanced warfighting capabilities while simultaneously attempting to deny U.S. forces the advantages they currently enjoy in space and cyberspace.” This is balanced against the reality that “our forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale prolonged

Security is based on military strength. The chief purposes of the nation’s foreign policy are protection of America’s security in an often hostile world. Today, American security policy is worried not only with the procedures of the other nations such as Nazi Germany 1940, soviet Russia 1980; but also with activities of terrorist groups and other hostile non-state actors. To defend the nation and to achieve this goal, united state has built a huge military

In a speech at George Washington University in November of 2015, the United States Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter also addressed challenges facing the United States, stating that the security of the US depends on a force better than it is today. This force not only includes the military services, but also extends to the civilian workforce of the combat support agencies, upon which this paper focuses. The vision of the future force is one that can quickly adapt and achieve success in a sophisticated, highly-technical and rapidly changing environment; maximize the benefits of commercial technology development; and address global military competition to defend the nation and make the world a better place.

Sometime during the course of World War II, the United States became the most powerful nation in the world. During the last two hundred or so years, the United States has fought ten major wars and innumerable smaller military actions. For the most part it has been successful, in some instances defeating some of the world’s most powerful countries. In other instances it has simply been lucky. A common threat throughout the nation’s existence has been the practice of indifference and neglect. Between wars the Army shrinks to a very small size. Funds and attention almost disappear. This policy of the US Army may well indeed danger the nation’s safety in the future

The core goals of U.S. counterterrorism department are the defeat of terrorist organizations, limit the production of new enemies and to uphold the continued safety of the American citizens (Cronin, 2013). Since Sept. 20th, 2001 when the Bush administration declared war on terror, a long term military and intelligence commitment was made in order to seek out and destroy terrorist organizations. In these regards, the war on terror campaign has proved successful. Al qaeda has been sufficiently dismantled and there has not been a major attack on the United States since 9-11. Success, unfortunately, does not mean victory. Terrorists organizations keep expanding, and currently the U.S. finds itself engaging an enemy without clear borders nor with

The United States will not be able to effectively rebalance the Joint Force in 2025 unless sequestration is reversed. The current U.S. strategic direction has prompted a shift of military resources to the Asia-Pacific. Globalization, cyber-attacks and advances in technology will further challenge the Joint Forces in the next ten years. It is imperative that the U.S. Joint Forces be adequately funded in order to identify and develop critical technology, establish policies and maintain adequate force structure to rebalance the Joint Force in 2025.

Realism does not prevent future insurgency acts as there has been an increase in the magnitude of threat and the use of the traditional framework around war. First, a notable political scientist, John Mearsheimer argues that what has changed over time is the magnitude of the threat. What the US is up against is a more formidable and more dangerous adversary that was the case throughout the 1990s. As a counterinsurgency

Thesis: This paper identifies several general key capabilities by service component required to meet the many global threats that will face the Joint Force of 2025. The correct balance of ground force structure and technological superiority in air, sea, and cyber must occur. The global landscape contains threats to U.S. National Interests from state and non-state actors. These threats are spread all over the globe and will require the U.S. Military to strike over long distances need precision munitions, and offensive and defensive cyber technology. It will be difficult to meet these challenges without changes in acquisition strategy, reduction in headquarters staffs, and commitments from allies and partners.