Two broad themes emerge when viewing 20th century national security history through a military capability lens: (1) Deterrence works and (2) Competitors adapt. This second phenomenon requires that the US and its allies adapt as well.
Latest in National Security Strategy
In an event yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) released the House Republican's 2016 national security strategy.
In the eyes of the DC foreign policy establishment, issuing threats without any intention to back them up with action is a cardinal sin. Bluffing, the thinking along think tank row goes, dangerously undermines U.S. credibility abroad. As Vice President Joe Biden succinctly put it, “big powers don’t bluff.” While this pillar of presidential policymaking is often presented as a truism, it is not as uncontroversial as it may seem.
Editor's Note: Most national security bureaucracies regularly go through time-consuming reviews and strategic planning exercises. Are these efforts valuable? Jordan Tama of American University argues that they are – at least some of the time and under select conditions. Reviews can change policy when an external crisis or failure challenges existing policy and when the president or other senior leaders are directly involved. In addition, they can help bureaucracies achieve buy-in and otherwise sort themselves out.
On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community to Congress.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and DIA Director Lt. General Vincent Stewart will provide an overview of the intelligence community's Worldwide Threat Assessment before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning.
DNI James Clapper’s statement for the record, including the Worldwide Threat Assessment, may be found here; Lt. General Stewart’s assessment may be found here.
Last week, the Pentagon released a new Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy document outlining the Department's plan for ensuring the freedom of the seas and the broader security of the region. While the strategy is careful to not exclusively focus on the rise of China, the country's central role in U.S.
Editor's Note: Last week we looked at how the lack of attention to governance has hindered effective U.S. security sector assistance. This week Gordon Adams of American University and Richard Sokolsky of Carnegie take their arguments one step further. First they go into some depth on current U.S. programs and then they offer a new paradigm for assistance that incorporates governance more systematically and offers ideas for how to change U.S. assistance programs.
Editor's Note: We’re breaking new ground here at the Foreign Policy Essay—a two-part series. So many of the problems identified in past Foreign Policy Essays and for Lawfare in general revolve directly or indirectly around the question of allied security forces. Competent local security forces can mitigate problems like terrorism and regional stability. Where they work well (let’s say Denmark—we all like Denmark, right?), then U.S.
Yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey unveiled the the Pentagon's new 2015 National Military Strategy. Revising the 2011 National Military Strategy, General Dempsey indicated that the security landscape the United States faces is dramatically different than four years ago.