By Jim Garamone DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2017 — The U.S. military advantage
against near-peer competitors is eroding, and America must invest in
capabilities to ensure deterrence, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
said at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Massachusetts
earlier this week.
Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford -- an alumnus of the school --
said Russia and China have examined U.S. operations since the Gulf War and
invested in capabilities and doctrines to counter America's conventional
overmatch.
Two U.S. advantages come to the fore: the network of allies
around the world and America's ability to project power around the world,
Dunford said.
These are linked capabilities, he explained, citing U.S.
intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 as the classic example. The United States
was attacked on 9/11 by terrorists operating out of Afghanistan. Within a
month, U.S. service members were on the ground taking the fight to al-Qaida --
a move made possible by cooperation from allies and the ability of the American
military to move people on a global scale and sustain them once they arrived.
Strategies to Minimize Advantage
Russia and China -- and other nations -- have studied the
American way of war and devised capabilities and strategies to minimize this
American advantage, the chairman said.
"As an example, if you take the naval alliance in
Europe, Russia understands that the transatlantic link is critical for us to meet
our NATO commitments," he added.
The "anti-access, area denial" strategy looks to
develop systems to limit U.S. ability to move into the region and then to
operate freely within the region to meet alliance commitments, Dunford said.
"So there's two issues there," he added. "One is actually our
ability to meet our alliance commitments. The other is deterrence, which is
closely linked to the assurance of our allies."
Today, the United States has a conventional competitive
advantage against any potential adversary, the nation's top military officer
said. "I also will tell you that in the last 10 or 15 years, that
competitive advantage has eroded, and it's no longer as decisive as it was some
years ago," Dunford added.
Russia, China and others have concentrated funding and
resources in areas such as electronic warfare, cyber capabilities, anti-space
capabilities, anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles. These
systems have "the express purpose of keeping us from projecting power into
the Pacific, or into Europe as the case may be, in meeting our alliance
commitments," the chairman said.
Russia has absolutely no desire to fight a conventional war
with the United States and NATO, Dunford said. "What Russia has done over
time now is they've combined political influence, economic coercion,
information operations, cyber operations and military posture to advance their
interests," he said, referring to the dynamic as "adversarial
competition."
This type of conflict has a military dimension, the general
said, but it falls short of traditional armed conflict.
"Because of the form of government in Moscow, they're
much more … able to combine all elements of national power to advance their
interests," he said. "And while we may be inhibited in peacetime from
using certain capabilities -- certain cyber capabilities, conducting certain
activities, conducting certain information operations and so forth -- they
don't share the same restrictions. They're actually conducting activities and
employing capabilities that we may associate with war, but they're doing it on
a day-to-day basis in the context of this adversarial competition."
The same is true on the other side of the world in the South
China Sea, he said.
Effective Deterrence
"I think we do have effective deterrence in the
conventional fight against Russia, and frankly see China's methodology in
dealing with issues like the South China Sea or in dealing with [terminal
high-altitude area defense missiles] in South Korea," he said. "When
THAAD was fielded in South Korea, China's response was to put really heavy
economic pressure on South Korea. The decision they made -- the costs imposed
on South Korea for fielding THAAD -- is billions of dollars. That affects
political decision-making."
All of this is not in isolation, the chairman emphasized,
noting that this is the most volatile, complex security environment since World
War II.
He stressed that all the threats facing the United States
are interrelated and that none can be viewed in a vacuum. Terrorist actions in
East Africa affect operations in the Middle East and Asia, and drug networks in
South and Central America could be used by terrorists to ship people or weapons
into the United States, he pointed out. All are aspects that the United States
must deal with right now, he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment