By James P. Micciche, Divergent Options: “ ... limited military operations (small wars) will be useful in transforming counterterrorism methods, which previously dominated U.S. foreign policy, into being only one facet of a synchronized whole of government response in pursuit of U.S. policy objectives in contested spaces."
By Seth Cropsey, RealClearDefense: "Military historians tend to emphasize dramatic turning points and climactic engagements. Salamis, Lepanto, Aboukir, Trafalgar, Jutland: each confrontation functionally decided the victor of the conflict in question."
Corvette Carriers: A New Littoral Warfare Strategy
By Colin D. Smith, Proceedings: "With the renewal of great power competition, the Navy–Marine Corps team must employ ships that can threaten adversaries in their home waters."
By Daniel L. Davis, RealClearDefense: "Unlike “preemptive” war—launching a first strike to forestall an actual or imminent attack, a critical component of U.S. deterrence—going to war merely to destroy the weapons of another nation we don’t care for (even absent any intent to use it against the U.S.) is a dangerously low threshold for using military force. And it’s all too common in establishment thinking."
'Many foreign policy experts have said that the world is in a new era of great-power competition. But viewing today's global politics this way is both inaccurate and dangerous, says RAND's Michael Mazarr. If Washington thinks of itself as "one desperate, self-interested geopolitical chess player among many, grasping for temporary and transactional advantages," then its role as leader of the international order will likely further diminish. Read more »
by James Goodby via PolicyEd
Failing to move on from the Cold War mindset about nuclear weapons encourages their development and increases the risk that they will be used.
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
The US could develop more than a dozen different land-based weapons for $7 to $12 billion, thinktank CSBA estimates.
By Mark B. Schneider, RealClearDefense: "The U.S. mainstream view of Russia has changed quite a bit in the last twenty years, particularly in the last five. We have moved from the fantasy that there was no threat from Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union to a recognition of a serious Russian threat to the U.S. and its allies, including a nuclear threat in the last two years of the Obama administration and the Trump administration."
Matthew P. Goodman writes: Again, the United States starts with tremendous advantages in the Indo-Pacific. We don’t need to spend trillions of dollars on grand initiatives to sustain our economic leadership there. Nor will we succeed by hunkering down behind a wall of tariffs, investment restrictions, and visa denials; that is the road to perdition for a United States that has built its strength on openness. What we do need is a comprehensive, coordinated, and confident economic diplomacy that plays to our strengths—the kind of strategy I’m sure George Kennan would advocate were he writing from our embassy in Beijing today. – Center for Strategic and International Studies