Building Military Forces for the 2020s: Implementing Strategy and Exercising Global Leadership in an

[rangerrebew]

Building Military Forces for the 2020s: Implementing Strategy and Exercising Global Leadership in an Era of Reduced Resources
 
February 10, 2021 — Mark Cancian   

Under the Biden administration, trade-offs among readiness, force structure, and modernization will get more difficult as the Department of Defense (DoD) budget flattens out and likely falls. Forces are likely to get smaller—perhaps much smaller in some places―and that will engender significant pushback as the services attempt to maintain global commitments and cover wartime requirements. Force design will also change as the services adapt to meet the needs of great power competition. (Note: This critical questions paper builds on the CSIS annual analysis of military forces, U.S. Military Forces in FY 2021.)

Download full report
Q1: How will the Biden administration’s strategic priorities affect force structure?

A1: The Biden administration, despite its criticism of the Trump administration’s national security policy, will likely retain many key elements of its strategy. In a 2020 Foreign Affairs article, then-candidate Joseph Biden noted that “China represents a special challenge” and that Russia seeks to undermine liberal democracy. He also cited “national security challenges from North Korea to Iran, from Syria to Afghanistan to Venezuela.” This signals continuity with both the Obama administration’s strategy and the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy (although the new administration will be loath to admit that).

To implement this strategy, President Biden has pledged, “the United States has the strongest military in the world, and as president, I will ensure it stays that way.” That pledge and the robust strategy are good news for force structure.

The bad news for force structure is twofold. The first is that the DoD budget will likely fall as the Biden administration focuses on domestic priorities and includes non-DoD initiatives—like climate change and global health—in a broader conception of national security. (For a detailed discussion of the prospective Biden defense budget, see the CSIS transition paper “Defense Budget Priorities for the Biden Administration.”) Second, strategists will emphasize modernization—often termed “capability”—rather than force structure—“capacity.” Many strategists propose cutting the size of forces to invest in the high-end capabilities needed for a great power conflict.The Democratic Party platform proposes retiring “legacy” platforms, as do many strategists. There is disagreement, however, about the definition of “legacy.” The military services typically interpret “legacy” as older weapons. They would retire these older weapons to buy newer versions. Strategists see “legacy” as old kinds of systems that do not meet the needs of new operational concepts. They would redesign military forces to incorporate new operational concepts and move from crewed to uncrewed aircraft. In the end, the military services are likely to win this argument since they control the money.

https://defense360.csis.org/building-military-forces-for-the-2020s-implementing-strategy-and-exercising-global-leadership-in-an-era-of-reduced-resources/