Bad Idea: Relying on “Integrated Deterrence” Instead of Building Sufficient U.S. Military Power
Dec 30th, 2021
COMMENTARY BY
Thomas Spoehr
Director, Center for National Defense
Thomas W. Spoehr conducts and supervises research on national defense matters.
Among the many definitions of deterrence, a simple one is to “prevent an enemy power [from] taking the decision to use armed force.” U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Mician
Key Takeaways
While at first blush, the idea sounds attractive, policymakers should view this notion with caution.
While the U.S. should employ all tools available, the most certain means of deterring conflict is to build sufficient military power in concert with our allies.
Using the idea of integrated deterrence in lieu of building sufficient U.S. military power is a Bad Idea in National Security.
This summer, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin debuted the term “Integrated Deterrence” to describe the Biden administration’s proposed new concept to avert military aggression. Austin described integrated deterrence as being able to draw on the capabilities of not just the military, but on “federal agencies, partner nations and allies, as well.” He summarized the approach as “using every military and non-military tool in lock-step with allies and partners.”
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/bad-idea-relying-integrated-deterrence-instead-building-sufficient-us-military
