ALLIES & EXTENDED DETERRENCE, ARCHIVE, STRATEGIC ADVERSARIES
American Legitimacy and Integrated Deterrence
Joshua Thibert
As the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture argued in its October 2023 report, the United States neglected to sustain political legitimacy through a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape by allowing the nation’s nuclear deterrent to degrade over the past three decades, despite the clear resurgence of Russia, China, and North Korea. Integrated deterrence, a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s defense strategy, is a multifaceted approach aimed at preventing conflict and coercion by combining military might with diplomatic, economic, and informational tools. While this strategy may hold promise for addressing some of the complex security challenges of the decades ahead, it also presents significant risks and uncertainties. Indeed, while integrated deterrence recognizes that military force alone is often insufficient to deter adversaries in today’s interconnected world by incorporating diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and information operations, it also aims to create a more comprehensive and resilient extended deterrent posture emphasizing strengthening alliances and partnerships, recognizing that collective action can amplify deterrence effects. This approach can certainly help pool resources, share intelligence, and coordinate responses to threats, making aggression less appealing to potential adversaries.
Though integrated deterrence outlines a comprehensive strategy, the complexities of integrating diverse tools and actors across multiple domains can be incredibly challenging. Coordinating actions between military, diplomatic, economic, and informational agencies require seamless communication, shared goals, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. Even then, it still may not work. It is arguable that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the first example of integrated deterrence’s failure.
Prioritizing non-military tools within an integrated deterrence strategy can mitigate the risk of escalation and unintended conflict while providing proportionate responses to aggression, potentially avoiding the need for military force. Despite the application of various non-military measures, Russia was not dissuaded from its invasion, demonstrating the limitations of this approach in altering aggressive behavior when considering the impacts on Russia’s political influence, economic stability, and military capabilities. Economic sanctions against Russia over the past two years are proving an abject failure, as are diplomatic efforts to isolate Russia.
https://globalsecurityreview.com/american-legitimacy-and-integrated-deterrence/
