战略与国际研究中心-US-Strategy-Strategic-Triage-and-the-True-Cost-of-War--Supporting-Enduring-Commitments-versus--Endless-Wars-_36页_1mb

U.S. Strategy: Strategic Triage and the True Cost of War

Core Content

This document, authored by Anthony H. Cordesman with Max Molot, provides an analysis of the U.S. military strategy in the context of long-standing conflicts in the Middle East and other regions. It argues that while the U.S. has faced numerous challenges and has made significant cost reductions in its military engagements, it has also failed to address the underlying civil and political issues that contribute to instability and conflict.

The report highlights the concept of strategic triage, which refers to the selective deployment of U.S. military resources to areas where they are most effective, rather than attempting to maintain a broad and unsustainable global military presence. It stresses the importance of tailoring military efforts to reduce costs and risks while maintaining strategic influence.

Main Views

• The U.S. does not face endless wars, but it does face endless threats and instability. These are not limited to the Middle East but extend to South Asia, Central Asia, and other regions.
• Extremist and terrorist movements such as ISIS, Al Qaida, and their affiliates continue to pose a significant threat despite the collapse of the ISIS "Caliphate."
• Strategic triage is essential for the U.S. to maintain its global leadership without overextending its military resources or economic capacity.
• The U.S. must not retreat from the world or rely on transactional burden sharing. It needs to focus on sustainable and effective strategies rather than repeating past mistakes.
• Neo-isolationism is not a viable option, as other states like Russia, China, and Iran will exploit U.S. strategic vacuums to advance their own interests.

Key Information

Strategic Triage and Military Cost Reductions

• The U.S. has significantly reduced the annual cost of war through changes in its military strategy.
• Shift from large-scale deployments to smaller U.S. advisory forces and host country ground forces supported by precision air strikes has been a major factor in cost reduction.
• The cost of war is now a minor portion of U.S. defense spending, with the majority of the burden coming from baseline expenditures for peacetime deterrence and defense.

Civil-Military and Gray Area Operations

• A critical failure in civil-military operations has led to instability and continued threats.
• The U.S. has made major cuts in nation-building efforts and civil programs, which are essential for long-term stability and security.
• Afghanistan and Iraq are highlighted as case studies where the U.S. failed to address corruption, ineffective governance, and economic failure, leading to persistent conflict and weak host country institutions.

Casualty Reductions

• The number of U.S. casualties has dropped dramatically due to strategic changes.
• The use of host country forces and precision air strikes has led to lower risks and fewer U.S. military deaths and injuries.
• From FY2008 to FY2019, the U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq dropped significantly, showing the effectiveness of the new approach.

Economic and Budgetary Impact

• U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP has declined sharply from ~4.5% in FY2010 to ~3.2% in FY2019.
• OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) costs have dropped significantly, indicating that the U.S. can afford to sustain its military presence without overburdening the economy.
• The total government-wide Appropriated cost for wars has decreased from $190 billion in FY2008 to $83 billion in FY2013 and $70 billion in FY2019.

Strategic Implications

• The U.S. must refine its global engagements and active military commitments.
• It should focus on strategic triage, limit over-commitment, and build partner capacity.
• The U.S. cannot ignore the structural causes of instability, as they continue to pose long-term risks.
• The failure to address civil instability has undermined strategic goals and allowed extremist groups to thrive.

Conclusion

The report concludes that while the U.S. has made important financial and strategic changes, it has not adequately addressed the civil and political dimensions of its military campaigns. The reduction in military costs and casualties is a positive trend, but without a comprehensive strategy for nation-building and governance, the U.S. risks recreating instability in the regions it seeks to influence. The U.S. must continue to adapt and prioritize strategic engagement over transactional burden sharing, and ensure that its military efforts are aligned with long-term strategic interests.