On March 3, 2021, President Joseph Biden released his “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” According to the White House, the interim guidance was issued “to convey President Biden’s vision for how America will engage with the world,” and ensure the actions of federal departments and agencies are in alignment with the President’s forthcoming National Security Strategy. Biden’s guidance and the foreword to it signal changes to policies and priorities that could profoundly impact the Army.
The President highlights that the challenges the U.S. faces are global in nature, require “common cause with our closest allies and partners,” and should be met by a balanced application of all sources of our national power. Reclaiming America’s position of strength requires building back economic foundations, regaining technological advantages, emphasizing diplomacy, working through international institutions, continuing the modernization of the military, and going so far as to say that we must commit to renewing faith in the apolitical nature of the military.
For the Army, Biden’s guidance signals fundamental changes in current national security, foreign policy, and federal spending priorities. Changing priorities challenge the Army to adapt modernization investments; create more agile policy and decision-making processes; anticipate non-traditional missions; and scrutinize its own profession as it relates to civil-military relations. Failure to address these presidential priorities appropriately could put the Army cross-wise with the administration and negatively impact the service’s relevance in the years to come.
Impacts to Modernization
Over the course of the last four years, the Army renewed investment in critical modernization initiatives. Indeed, “modernization” and “disciplined investments” continue to be a top priority for the current President and Department of Defense. However, as with all things defense-related, politics plays a huge role in the budgetary process. The days of the military being unable to confidently plan defense investments because of budget cuts and continuing budget resolutions are, hopefully, over. However, with mid-term elections easily capable of changing current power dynamics in Congress, legislative gridlock could cause defense spending to become politically leveraged once again. Regardless, the Army must adjust its modernization strategy to conform with the new administration’s spending priorities while maintaining close relations with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Electoral politics will still influence how defense spending unfolds over the course of the next four years. Campaign promises that commit to demilitarizing decades-old conflict and leading with diplomacy are a signal to anticipate defense-spending cuts and cost-saving measures. If past is prologue, the Army should (and does) expect significant resource constraints over the next two to three years. However, as the 2024 election nears, expect military spending to potentially grow. Increased military spending close to an election can garner increased electoral support in congressional districts, states, and nationally.
Archaic Policy and Decision-making Processes
Closely associated with the Army’s modernization initiatives, is a new buzzword in the defense industry and halls of the Pentagon – “convergence.” Advancing technology is creating a revolution in military affairs. Quantum and “edge” computing technologies, nanotechnology, neuro-technology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, augmented reality, unmanned weapons, hypersonic vehicles, and space- and cyber-based capabilities are all individual fields of technological advancement that are driving this military revolution. When these technologies “converge” to create new, unanticipated capabilities, the speed and velocity of the revolution increases exponentially.
This revolution has profound impacts on archaic policy and decision-making processes, particularly as it relates to national security. The military is laboring to maintain pace with current technological developments. Combatant Commanders allude to the challenges in their congressional testimonies. Having an agile policy and decision-making process that can respond in a timely, preventive manner to dynamic and dangerous challenges to U.S. national security interests, is imperative. To cope with and respond to international events and national security challenges, decision-makers will be tempted to expand delegation of decision-making authorities down the chain of command from the President to senior military leaders.
While increased delegation may not necessarily be a negative development, there are national, strategic, and political implications for delegating increased authorities to senior military leaders. There must be accountability and oversight. Civilian political leaders are accountable to the American electorate, whereas the military is not. Striking a healthy balance between delegation of authority, civilian oversight, and political accountability will require continuous consideration and review in the decades ahead. Regardless, the U.S. must retain the ability to act proactively and rapidly respond to the challenges that the current technological revolution will bring to national security and military arenas.
Anticipating Non-traditional Missions
When the President states that the U.S. will “lead with diplomacy,” revitalize alliances, and work through international institutions to take collective action against global threats, the Army should anticipate an increased supporting role in non-traditional missions. The President’s guidance states that “many of the biggest threats we face respect no borders or walls, and must be met with collective action.” The military implications of this approach require the Army to be ready to respond to and support whole-of-government stabilization missions.
Stabilization efforts, as outlined in Joint Publication 3-07, typically require a joint, interagency, inter-organizational, and multinational approach to addressing conflict, fostering host-nation resiliencies, and creating “conditions that enable sustainable peace and security.” Stability operations are meant to support economic and political instability by providing assistance to a range of “stability sectors,” such as “security, justice and reconciliation, humanitarian assistance and social well-being, governance and participation, and economic stabilization and infrastructure.” To this end, multiple sources of national power are brought to bear against complex challenges short of war that can require protracted commitment. Stabilization missions can be frustrating to Army leaders, because although they are typically led by a host nation or other governmental agency, “when there is no competent lead organization,” the military tends to take ownership of the mission in an attempt to achieve unity of effort.
Professional Scrutiny and Civil-Military Relations
As the Army anticipates and plans for the external challenges that lay ahead, it also needs to consider and address internal challenges that can quickly gain traction, distract from core missions, and have strategic societal and political impacts. The Army knows that it continues to face workplace challenges related to sexual harassment and sexual assault. In the shadow of the past several years, the military has had to face the reality that a very small population of white supremacists in its ranks are having a strategic impact on the enterprise, as well. Finally, from an over-arching civil-military relations perspective, the military needs to heed the President’s call to become less partisan and political.
The Army profession and ethos require constant reflection and review. While elected leaders have a responsibility to provide oversight of the military, as a community of professionals, scrutiny is often most constructive when it comes from within. How the Army indoctrinates new members into its sacred profession, must reinforce the values that set it apart from other vocations. When the President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces – feels compelled to issue guidance that the military must recommit to renewing faith in its apolitical nature, soldiers need to consider that admonishment on a personal level. For while the military has never been apolitical in its history, it must strive to be non-partisan and reinforce its commitment to the principle of civilian control.
Learning from History
Nearly 70 years ago, only a few months into his first term, President Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower warned Americans of “humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” Eisenhower faced an era of great power competition, ballooning defense spending, an unprecedented budget deficit, an economy at risk, and global challenges that required coordinated response from a strong alliance. Eisenhower perceived the challenges he faced as existential to America’s democratic principles and values. Ike understood that national security must be achieved through balanced application of America’s sources of national power.
Senior Army leaders disagreed vehemently with Eisenhower’s “New Look” agenda and dependence on a theory of “Massive Retaliation.” General Matthew Ridgway, General Maxwell Taylor, and Lieutenant General James Gavin worked tirelessly in opposition to Eisenhower’s national security agenda. They lobbied Congress, gave media interviews, stymied progress through the conduct of protracted studies, openly opposed the president in front of domestic and foreign audiences, captured and reflected their opposition in Army doctrine, and tried to win over allies among the Joint Chiefs and within the National Security Council. They purposefully took their message to the American public, becoming personally involved in domestic political issues. On retirement, both Taylor and Gavin quickly published books critical of Eisenhower’s policies and came back to serve in President John Kennedy’s administration. These overtly political generals, heroes to many, challenged the principle of civilian control, believing their personal policy positions were superior to Eisenhower’s and in the best interest to the nation.
In a recent engagement with students at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Army Chief of Staff General James McConville cautioned his audience of up-and-coming officers that the military “finds it increasingly hard to stay out of domestic politics.” However, he continued, “We can’t let there be a perception that we choose sides – we can’t have a side!” In previous engagements, he has echoed similar sentiments, warning of politicians attempting to politicize the military and using the military as a political pawn for electoral advantage. In every case, the military must resist these attempts and strive to avoid being put in compromising political positions.
The President’s “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” provides the Army with an azimuth for where the current administration is going with national security and foreign policy. The document signals change for which the Army must be prepared to respond. There is no doubt that there will be friction as the military adapts to the leadership of a new administration. However, there is an opportunity to renew America’s faith in the non-partisan nature of the military and its undying allegiance to the Constitution — not political party, platform, or presidential personality.