02:29 GMT +316 June 2019
Listen Live
    U.S. Soldiers of 173rd Regiment, Brigade Support Battalion prepare for a convoy to a tactical operation center during exercise Swift Response 17 at the U.S. Army’s Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany, Oct. 11, 2017

    US’ Current Military Strategy ‘Will Not Work’ in Deterring China, Russia - Report Finds

    © Photo: U.S. Army / Spc. Randy Wren
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL
    9472

    A Wednesday report from the Center for a New American Security has determined that the US’ current military strategy “will not work” in the event that it goes to war in a bid to tackle Chinese or Russian aggression.

    “While the Department of Defense (DoD) has taken its military superiority for granted and focused on defeating nonstate adversaries, China and Russia have been devising strategies and developing new concepts and weapons to defeat the United States in a war should the need arise,” reads the report.

    “They have offset their relative weakness versus the United States by using time and geography to their advantage and by focusing their weapons - and concept-development efforts on finding ways to attack vulnerable nodes in US military operations.”

    “These Chinese and Russian strategies, which once seemed implausible or far in the future, are beginning to pay off. They are shifting military balances in key regions and pushing allies and partners to reconsider US security guarantees,” it adds.

    According to Chris Doughtery, the report’s author, the response by Pentagon officials to the growing security environment has been “piecemeal and lethargic, largely because the Pentagon has failed to fully grasp the systemic nature and fundamental implications of the problem it faces: The American way of war that emerged following the Cold War will not work in an era of great-power competition.”

    Dougherty goes on to break down the US’s current military strategy, picking apart its operations to deter enemy operatives, its bulking up of combat power and its use of Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). The report also makes note of the US’ use of diplomatic and economic means for “coercive leverage,” among other tactics.

    “The current American way of war will not work in a strategy focused on deterring Chinese and Russian aggression,” the report states. “To continue investing money in flawed concepts is a waste of resources and, given constrained resources, an enormous lost opportunity to make better investments.”

    Dougherty told Military.com on Tuesday that times are definitely changing for the US military, noting that while there may have been a point in time where it was the US deciding on when and where to fight its opponents, that’s simply no longer the case.

    "I think that that assertion, if it was ever valid, is increasingly not valid against states like China and Russia," he told the outlet. "These are great powers with significant military capabilities and, in all likelihood, if war were to break out [between] the United States and one of those two powers, it would likely be the time and place of their choosing."

    The CNAS report is just the beginning of a two-year effort meant to bring together Pentagon insiders in order to obtain answers on how to best strengthen the US military moving forward. Initial meetings are expected to include “military strategists, operational planners, analysts, and force planners to discuss the problems identified,” the report concludes.

    Related:

    US, Lockheed Martin Reach 'Handshake' Deal to Cut F-35 Cost by Nearly 9 Percent - Pentagon
    Trump Orders Pentagon to Take Steps to Expand US Production of Small Drones
    Counterfeit US Military Uniforms, Gear Lead to Arrest of New York Man
    Beijing Has a Plan to Outpace the US Military’s Weaponry by 2049
    US Acting Defence Secretary Shanahan Does Not Rule Out Fort Trump Military Base in Poland
    Tags:
    Center for a New American Security, report, Russia, China
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik