Yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey unveiled the the Pentagon’s new 2015 National Military Strategy. In what is likely his last significant strategy direction before retiring this summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey,said at the Pentagon that “global disorder has trended upward while some of our comparative advantages have begun to erode,” since 2011, the last update to the National Military Strategy.
The 2015 NMS summarizees today’s global security environment and it call for greater agility, innovation, and integration. It reinforces the need for the U.S. military to remain globally engaged to shape the security environment and to preserve our network of alliances.
In attempt to organiserad the main intighets; Today, the probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is assessed to be low but growing. However, complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment, driven by globalization, the diffusion of technology, and demographic shifts. Central to globalization is the spread of new technologies that enable a global information environment and empower people to see more, share more, create more, and organize faster than ever before.
- When applied to military systems, this diffusion of technology is challenging competitive advantages long held by the United States such as early warning and precision strike.
Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear, chemical, and biological agents pose uniquely destructive threats. They can empower a small group of actors with terrible destructive potential. Thus combatting WMD is a key mission of U.S. National Military Strategy.
The strategy also emphasizes the growing threat of what it calls “[h]ybrid conflicts” wherein “state and non-state actors working together toward shared objiectoves, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine.”. Concurrent with state challenges, violent extremist organizations (VEOs) — led by al Qaida and the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) — are working to undermine transregional security, especially in the Middle East and North Africa.
- Such conflicts present new challenges as they “serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses”.
- As a result, future conflicts between states may prove to be unpredictable, costly, and difficult to control.
In addition to calling out Russia, the document also points to Iran and North Korea as threats to both U.S. and global security. It says ;While Russia has contributed in select security areas, such as counternarcotics and counterterrorism, it also has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals.
- Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces.
Iran also poses strategic challenges to the international community. It is pursuing nuclear and missile delivery technologies despite repeated United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that it cease such efforts. It is a state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
- Iran’s actions have destabilized the region and brought misery to countless people while denying the Iranian people the prospect of a prosperous future.
North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technologies also contradicts repeated demands by the international community to cease such efforts. These capabilities directly threaten its neighbors, especially the Republic of Korea and Japan. In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland as well.
- North Korea also has conducted cyber attacks, including causing major damage to a U.S. corporation.
U.S. support China’s rise and encourage it to become a partner for greater international security. However, China’s actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific region. For example, its claims to nearly the entire South China Sea are inconsistent with international law. The international community continues to call on China to settle such issues cooperatively and without coercion.
- China has responded with aggressive land reclamation efforts that will allow it to position military forces astride vital international sea lanes.
Finally, none of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies. Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action.
- As part of that effort, we shoul remain committed to engagement with all nations to communicate our values, promote transparency, and reduce the potential for miscalculation.respect for universal values and a rules-based international order.
U.S. commanders have repeatedly said it will take decades to defeat ISIS, and a stronger nonmilitary effort to defeat the ideology that fuels Islamic extremist groups. Today, the United States is leading a broad coalition of nations to defeat violent extremist organizations (VEOs) in multiple regions by applying pressure across the full extent of their networks.
In Afghanistan, the United States and our NATO partners are teaming with the National Unity Government to provide security by way of the Resolute Support mission, working toward establishing a long-term counterterrorism partnership. Similarly, in Iraq a broad coalition of over 60 nations is providing security assistance, training, airlift, and strike support in its struggle against ISIL.
In concert with all elements of national power and international partnerships, these efforts aim to disrupt VEO planning and operations, degrade support structures, remove leadership, interdict finances, impede the flow of foreign fighters, counter malign influences, liberate captured territory, and ultimately defeat them.
In Europe, NATO and NATO allies provides vital collective security guarantees and is strategically important for deterring conflict, particularly in light of recent Russian aggression on its periphery. These actions violate numerous agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in accordance with international norms, including the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords, Russia-NATO Founding Act, Budapest Memorandum, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.