风险业务：国防部的未来战略和兵力选择（英）-2021.7-新美国安全中心-39页_711kb

Summary of "Risky Business: Future Strategy and Force Options for the Defense Department"

Core Content

This report by Stacie Pettyjohn, Becca Wasser, and Jennie Matuschak analyzes the potential future strategies and force structures for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) under the Biden administration. The authors explore how the DoD can align its budget and force planning with the evolving strategic landscape, particularly in the context of great-power competition with China and Russia.

Main Views

• Strategic Uncertainty: The Biden administration has not yet clearly defined how the next National Defense Strategy (NDS) will prioritize threats and the role of the U.S. military. The report highlights the tension between competing below the threshold of armed conflict and preparing for large-scale war.
• Three Alternative Strategies: The authors propose three ideal-type defense strategies that reflect different approaches to the U.S. military's role:
  • High-End Deterrence: Focuses on deterring conventional aggression and preparing for large-scale conflict.
  • Day-to-Day Competition: Emphasizes daily military contest with Beijing and other adversaries while avoiding escalation.
  • Full-Spectrum Competition: Aims to hedge against a wide range of threats and balance near-term competition with long-term preparedness.
• Budget Constraints: The FY22 defense budget is seen as an inherited one, and the authors argue that it is not sufficient to support all strategic objectives simultaneously. They stress the need for strategic discipline and hard choices to realign the force structure.
• Risk of Overstretch: The full-spectrum competition strategy is criticized for potentially leading to overstretch, long-term technological disadvantage, and inadvertent escalation.
• Integrated Deterrence: The concept of integrated deterrence, which spans diplomatic, information, military, and economic domains, is presented as a key element of the new NDS, but the report questions whether the DoD is adequately implementing this approach.

Key Information

• Strategic Priorities: The Biden administration has emphasized diplomacy, development, and economic statecraft as the leading instruments of foreign policy, with military force as a last resort. It has also highlighted transnational threats such as climate change and biothreats, as well as the rise of authoritarian populism.
• Force Structure and Capabilities: The report stresses the need to modernize conventional forces, invest in advanced technology, and maintain the nuclear triad. It also points to the importance of enhancing cyber and electronic warfare capabilities.
• Testing Framework: The authors used tabletop exercises (TTXs) to evaluate the effectiveness of each proposed strategy in countering China and Russia in high-end and sub-conventional scenarios.
• Recommendations:
  • The high-end deterrence strategy is considered the most viable for ensuring U.S. military preeminence.
  • The DoD must accept near-term risk to build a force capable of winning a major conflict and countering sub-conventional aggression.
  • Congress and Pentagon leaders must collaborate to make necessary resource trade-offs and realign the force structure.
  • The 2022 NDS and FY23 budget must prioritize and accept more risk to address the most consequential threats.

Strategic Priorities and Force Planning

• The 2018 NDS shifted focus to great-power competition, emphasizing the need to deter and prevent adversaries from threatening the U.S. and its allies.
• The two-war construct—a legacy of post-Cold War force planning—has proven inadequate for addressing the complexities of great-power competition.
• The new force planning constructs must reflect the administration's stated priorities, including:
  • Threat Prioritization: Focusing on China as the primary threat, with Russia as a secondary concern.
  • Military Role: Preparing for large-scale conflict while also managing sub-conventional and gray zone tactics.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the U.S. military must make difficult choices to align with the Biden administration's strategic vision. A strategy of high-end deterrence is recommended as the most effective path forward, but it requires clear threat prioritization, strategic discipline, and congressional support. The authors warn that failing to make these choices will result in a growing gap between U.S. strategic objectives and the ability to achieve them, risking the loss of military technological advantage and the potential for conflict with great powers.

Table of Contents Overview

• Executive Summary: Outlines the key findings and recommendations.
• Introduction: Sets the context for the new NDS and the challenges it faces.
• Strategic Priorities: Details the administration's broader security and foreign policy goals.
• Three Alternative Defense Strategies: Explains each strategy, its force structure, and its implications.
• Assessing Alternative Strategies: Uses TTXs to evaluate effectiveness.
• Budget Analysis: Reviews the FY22 budget and its alignment with strategic goals.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and calls for strategic clarity and resource reallocation.

Recommendations

• The DoD should accept near-term risk to build a force capable of large-scale conflict.
• Congress must support the high-end deterrence strategy through budget flexibility and policy alignment.
• The 2022 NDS should prioritize great-power competition and integrated deterrence.
• The force structure must be reformed to reflect the new strategic priorities, including a focus on high-end capabilities and the role of allies in managing sub-conventional threats.