The Pentagon’s Bureaucratic Posture Review A 10-month study reflects little strategic urgency about growing global threats.
Military planning in recent decades has increasingly become the purview of risk-averse academics and bureaucrats, and a new Pentagon study shows the result.
The Biden Administration in February set out to conduct a “Global Posture Review” on America’s military positions worldwide. The Pentagon announced its completion Monday. So what changes are in store?
Not many that we can discern. The review “strengthened DoD’s decisionmaking processes by deliberately connecting global posture planning and decisions to strategic priorities, tradeoffs across geographic regions, force readiness, modernization, interagency coordination, and ally and partner consultations,” said Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Mara Karlin in a Pentagon press briefing.
Ms. Karlin said the Pentagon conducted 75 consultations with friendly countries in formulating the document, but its main suggestion appears to be further consultation. “In the Indo-Pacific, the GPR directs additional cooperation with allies and partners,” the executive summary says. In Europe, it suggests “additional consultation with allies in the near future.”
There’s nothing wrong with consulting with allies, and the report has a few substantive recommendations, such as “enhancing infrastructure in Guam and Australia.” The Administration has made diplomatic progress in the Pacific, notably with the Aukus pact and reaching an agreement with the Philippines to continue hosting U.S. forces.
But the information the Pentagon has made public about its review suggests it sees little urgency in China’s regional military dominance and threatening behavior. A Pentagon review like this might have explored ways to reposition naval and air forces to adapt.
President Biden criticized Donald Trump’s often erratic and unilateral announcements of strategy. But governing by rote bureaucratic process and multilateralism would be a damaging overcorrection. The Pentagon needs clear-headed strategists willing to look honestly at growing world disorder and revanchist powers on the march, and what to do about it. The status quo isn’t enough to meet these threats or protect U.S. interests.
Comments are closed.
