So I think that the proposition put forward by the article's author is definitely valid and much cause for concern. The article is well worth the read and gives cause for thought.
European leaders misjudged World War I. America shouldn’t repeat their mistake.
foreignpolicy.com
Let's see.
The problem with this renewed emphasis on lethality is that the United States already has an impressive panoply of coercive power, one capable of dishing out more lethality than any of several other nations on the planet combined, including Russia and China. Yet despite this lethal overmatch, it hasn’t been able to achieve U.S. policy preferences—the very purpose of war—for a generation or more. That’s something that is unlikely to change no matter how much more lethal it becomes.
I think it is false. And i don't understand why it is tied to "
achieve U.S. policy preferences" concept. Military power allow you to conduct your own policy independently, it does not directly translates to "
achieve policy preferences". Especially if you are democratic country, as democratic countries reluctant to use military power to "
achieve policy preferences".
America’s adversaries, recognizing this, are moving beyond mere lethality. They’re still building tanks, planes, and ships, of course—but they’re also working to seize first-mover advantages by recognizing the asymmetric potential of a globally integrated datasphere and the revolutionary applications of autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence.
Here i'm lost, investments in
"applications of autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence" are investments in lethality. There is no definition of lethality in article, but i assume they mean not just power, but also first see, first shoot capability and precision of munition.
USA invest a lot in it, as are other western countries.
Russia’s “new-generation war” is characterized by an emphasis on information weapons, for instance. Its goal is to achieve Russian political preferences by changing foreign citizens’ moral values and undermining state authority—not through the application of lethal force. But Russia has also invested billions of dollars in autonomous systems that it has extensively tested in Syria.
They identified essential need of democratic government to justify military action to population, so they invest in capability to subvert it. But it does not work other way around, we(West and US in particular) can't really use such methods to counter them.
Autonomous systems, Syria? Don't understand. May someone clarify.
China’s “Three Warfares” doctrine synchronizes the employment of strategic psychological operations, the manipulation of global media narratives, and the weaponization of legalism to establish precedent, foster doubt, and erode international norms—to which the People’s Liberation Army’s growing capacity to deliver lethal force is but an adjunct. China’s concept of systems confrontation warfare “is no longer centered on the annihilation of enemy forces on the battlefield” but on the disruption or paralysis of an enemy’s “operating system,” a schema that can be equally applied to naval flotillas or national infrastructure.
Well, this is legit. But as i said we hardly can counter in same way. We(West and US in particular) need to introduce more stability as counter, like regional alliances. And having more military power on good guys side will not hurt.
These concepts, of course, aren’t entirely new. Nor are they magic bullets capable of inflicting the sort of catastrophic doom on the United States that some commentors imagine. What they are, however, are signs that the country’s principal adversaries have recognized the changing character of geopolitical competition in an environment that bears little resemblance to the one that spawned the mass industrial-style wars of the 20th century.
This also legit, but too broad. You need counter political destabilisation, partisan money injection etc. all topic in itself.
If the United States is to survive and thrive in the 21st century, its leaders must recognize that the currency of great-power competition under contemporary conditions isn’t measured in the numbers of ballistic missiles or aircraft carriers a state possesses but by its administrative capacity, structural resilience, and global legitimacy. The real competition between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, is between competing systems of governance and ways of ordering society.
True and false in a way. If China use money and market access to bribe politicians it's not about
"competing systems of governance and ways of ordering society".
I also don't understand why can't it be both, why it is either "
numbers of ballistic missiles or aircraft carriers a state possesses" or
"its administrative capacity, structural resilience, and global legitimacy".
Can't lose on any front apparently.
The United States needs a modern military that’s better suited to defend its governance systems against the threats its competitors pose. It needs a military that’s both adaptive and resilient, one flexible enough to quickly concentrate resources when crises emerge—and just as quickly able to reallocate them when those crises subside. It needs a military capable of continuous operations in the increasingly crowded and contested global digital commons, one that’s able to effectively respond to the strategic and operational challenges of this century—not the last one.
Does military should be tasked with "
defend its governance systems against the threats its competitors pose..." "in the increasingly crowded and contested global digital commons"?
I'm not entirely convinced. Military first and foremost have traditional role.
Before the digital warfare revolution subsides, the old ways of warfighting will have been left behind. If the United States continues to spend profligately on military platforms whose looming obsolescence is clear to anyone paying attention, it risks competing itself to death by preparing for a conventional war that never comes, while its adversaries win the societal-level conflict that’s already here.
Ok, so how will this win proceed? They will convert EU to little China? I know that if China will possess actual warfighting capabilities in Asia pacific that more powerful then US we will see more states listening to China. Same with rise of financial or technological influence.
Warfare is multidimensional, you can't ignore conventional one.
----
All in all article call to reduce conventional military power.
Is it part of "
employment of strategic psychological operations" as part of
"China’s “Three Warfares”?
Also article treat US allies as vassals. Will other countries surrender to China bcs US military did not countered adversary
"in the increasingly crowded and contested global digital commons"? Or because they can't counter conventional military threat?
Will they try to counter threats outlined in article alone, or turn to allies for help?
China's hardly wins hearts and minds in democratic countries, even with money.
US military force(not necessarily presence) by itself is stabilising factor.
uk.reuters.com
