National

Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ National Defense Strategy declares great power competition, not terrorism, the U.S.'s primary national security concern. The strategy succinctly — and rightly — prioritizes Chinese and Russian threats and proposes a battery of changes to accelerate competitive countermeasures at the Pentagon.

Counterterrorism remains an obstacle in balancing present concerns and long-term interests. As Secretary of State Tillerson made clear a few days before the strategy’s release, America’s war in Syria isn’t going away anytime soon. And that’s just one of many simmering conflicts U.S. forces are engaged in.

Secretary Mattis’ guidance is well intentioned, but his predecessors offered similar visions of the world they wanted to build (President Obama's “pivot” to Asia; President Bush's revolution in military affairs and an end to 82nd Airborne troops walking kids to kindergarten), only to find themselves mired in successive crises in the Middle East. Mattis, a former CENTCOM commander, must resist the urge to micromanage those wars and strive to break out of the “tyranny of the now."

The bottom line: Putin and Xi are playing a long game with strategically significant consequences for the U.S. if not adequately countered. The new defense strategy lays a solid foundation, yet sustaining its precepts will require adequately resourcing military efforts in Asia, Europe and the Middle East while still maintaining strategic discipline by concentrating on near-peer threats.

Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Mattis walks strategic tightrope with new strategy

The U.S. must balance Middle East conflicts with long-term threats from China and Russia.

Defense Secretary James Mattis in front of flags in the White House

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis at the White House in December 2017. Photo:  Salwan Georges / The Washington Post via Getty Images

Politics

Expert voices

Expert Voices

World

Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="National Defense Strategy" data-vars-click-url="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf" data-vars-content-id="54243ce8-bf2d-4ead-9317-4927a3b295ca" data-vars-headline="Mattis walks strategic tightrope with new strategy" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf" target="_blank">National Defense Strategy</a> declares great power competition, not terrorism, the U.S.&#x27;s primary national security concern. The strategy succinctly — and rightly — prioritizes Chinese and Russian threats and proposes a battery of changes to accelerate competitive countermeasures at the Pentagon.Counterterrorism remains an obstacle in balancing present concerns and long-term interests. As Secretary of State Tillerson <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="made clear" data-vars-click-url="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/rex-tillerson-syria-military-presence-344315" data-vars-content-id="54243ce8-bf2d-4ead-9317-4927a3b295ca" data-vars-headline="Mattis walks strategic tightrope with new strategy" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/rex-tillerson-syria-military-presence-344315" target="_blank">made clear</a> a few days before the strategy’s release, America’s war in Syria isn’t going away anytime soon. And that’s just one of many simmering conflicts U.S. forces are engaged in.Secretary Mattis’ guidance is well intentioned, but his predecessors offered similar visions of the world they wanted to build (President Obama&#x27;s “pivot” to Asia; President Bush&#x27;s revolution in military affairs and an end to 82nd Airborne troops <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="walking kids to kindergarten" data-vars-click-url="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/21/us/the-2000-campaign-the-military-bush-would-stop-us-peacekeeping-in-balkan-fights.html" data-vars-content-id="54243ce8-bf2d-4ead-9317-4927a3b295ca" data-vars-headline="Mattis walks strategic tightrope with new strategy" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/21/us/the-2000-campaign-the-military-bush-would-stop-us-peacekeeping-in-balkan-fights.html" target="_blank">walking kids to kindergarten</a>), only to find themselves mired in successive crises in the Middle East. Mattis, a former CENTCOM commander, must resist the urge to micromanage those wars and strive to break out of the “tyranny of the now.&quot;The bottom line: Putin and Xi are playing a long game with strategically significant consequences for the U.S. if not adequately countered. The new defense strategy lays a solid foundation, yet sustaining its precepts will require adequately resourcing military efforts in Asia, Europe and the Middle East while still maintaining strategic discipline by concentrating on near-peer threats.Mackenzie Eaglen is a resident fellow in the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

Secretary Mattis’s National Defense Strategy targets readiness, lethality and reforms to better counter great power competition from China and Russia. Yet President Trump’s budget calls for only a 2% annual increase in defense spending — enough to dig the Pentagon out of its current hole, but not enough to pursue the pivot envisioned in Mattis’s NDS or the rebuild touted by Trump on the campaign trail.

Here’s where some of those promises stand:

Grow the Army rapidly (the budget adds just 4,000 active duty soldiers)

Build a 350-ship Navy (now projected to take until the 2050s)

Increase the size of the combat Air Force (two active fighter squadrons will be established in 2019, but one Guard squadron will disbanded)

Although Mattis has said that the spending requests for 2018 and 2019 will restore the U.S. “to a position of primacy,” that remains an open question. The long-term growth projected of 2-3% per year, is a far cry from the 3-5% real annual growth he has previously called for to sustain the health of the force.

In fact, the Pentagon’s five-year budget plan shows inflation-only adjustments, with virtually zero real growth. The budget actually loses ground over time due to inflationgiven that CBO projects it will be 2% annually, so we may see negative real growth for the rest of Trump’s tenure.

Why it matters: Given the deteriorating international situation, the likely outlook for U.S. defense spending dims the prospects for Mattis’s long-term strategic goals — and for the military's ability to catch up after years of atrophy.

How the defense budget falls short of strategic demands

Funding must help the U.S. military pull ahead, not merely catch up.

USS Gerald R. Ford, a Naval aircraft carrier

The USS Gerald R. Ford, the first in a new class of U.S. aircraft carriers. Photo: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ridge Leoni / U.S. Navy via Getty Images

Secretary Mattis’s National Defense Strategy targets readiness, lethality and reforms to better counter great power competition from China and Russia. Yet President Trump’s budget calls for only a 2% annual increase in defense spending — enough to dig the Pentagon out of its current hole, but not enough to pursue the pivot envisioned in Mattis’s NDS or the rebuild touted by Trump on the campaign trail.Here’s where some of those promises stand:

Mackenzie Eaglen

Stories

How the defense budget falls short of strategic demands

Mattis walks strategic tightrope with new strategy