The Military We Have Vs. The Military We Need
By Gregory D. Foster Professor, National Defense University Read bio
June 28, 2020
We only pretend to build armed forces to confront the threats we face.
“Disruptive change†is probably the most rhetorically popular, yet intellectually vacuous, turn of phrase now in use throughout the U.S. defense establishment. For an inherently conservative, parochial institution whose conception of the future is dominated by its preference for a canonical past, disruptive change is an attractive meme meant to convey progressive imagery to audiences inside and outside who might otherwise be inclined to expose the institution’s well-established lack of imagination and originality.
What is seen as the blueprint for disruptive change is the National Defense Strategy, or NDS, promulgated by the Trump administration’s first Defense Secretary, James Mattis, and his Marine brother in arms, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford. Together, they passed this ideological tract off as a legitimate strategy based on bona fide strategic thinking to indoctrinate the defense establishment and its bureaucratic and political disciples. Their successors and their successors’ subordinates have unquestioningly and unthinkingly endorsed the stultifying received truths of the document, so much so that any thought of meaningful transformative change within the institution, however much needed, seems frustratingly out of the question in the absence of some jolt to the system.
https://cdn.defenseone.com/a/defenseone/interstitial.html?v=9.22.1&rf=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseone.com%2Fideas%2F2020%2F06%2Fmilitary-we-have-vs-military-we-need%2F166470%2F%3Foref%3Dd-river
