Is a Responsible Strategic Threat Assessment Too Much to Ask For?

[rangerrebew]

Thu, 09/26/2024 - 2:41am
Is a Responsible Strategic Threat Assessment Too Much to Ask For?

By al Dhobaba
 
Well, my last article failed to generate a cacophony of calls from recruiters eager to get me back into a uniform, so I suppose I’ll step on a few more toes.
 
As early as 2008, Army Colonel and West Point history professor Gian Gentile led a chorus of voices that characterized counterinsurgency operations as a dangerous distraction from what might be characterized as “real soldiering”: combined arms maneuver, force-on-force combat, and engagements against what are popularly referred to as “near-peer threats.” By 2015, most of the American defense establishment was onboard! Counterinsurgency was over! Land wars in developing countries were passé! China was a rising power, and America would pivot its attention to the Pacific to contain it! Russia was resurgent, threatening the interests of America and American allies the world over! It was time to reconfigure the service branches to deter or defeat these strategic competitors!
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm also concerned about strategic competition from Russia and China. However, I offer a modest proposal: shall we take a deep breath and conduct a sober threat assessment before we all go overboard on “managing the risks” from these supposed “near-peer threats”?
 
First, let's just disabuse ourselves of the notion that the phrase “near-peer threats” carries any real meaning in either of these cases.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/responsible-strategic-threat-assessment-too-much-ask

[Kamaji]

Good article.

And the inevitable rebuttals? Xi Jinping wants to use the Belt and Road initiative to retake China's place as a global superpower!  Vladimir Putin wants to reassemble the Soviet Empire! Yeah, and I want to surreptitiously acquire some bootleg Uranium from some Libyans so that my best friend, a discredited and geriatric nuclear physicist, can help me make a few specific alterations to the timeline. Unfortunately for me, Xi, and Vlad, there's often a difference between what we want, and what's actually possible. In neither case has either state earned “near-peer” status, and neither state is a serious conventional military threat to the United States. If you disagree, I just don't think you're paying close enough attention (or else, you may have an ulterior motive of one sort or another, but let’s table that for the time being).

[MeganC]

We need to respond proportionally to various threats. While it's fun to fly around and play navy there are still simple terrorists out there who need to be killed. And if the US military doesn't want the job then hire someone who does.