7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis)
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - From Nuclear Escalation to Multi Domain Operations The 1987 2024 Transformation
The United States' nuclear strategy has undergone a dramatic transformation since 1987, driven by the evolving global security landscape. Initially, the post-Cold War era fostered a sense of stability, but this assumption has been challenged by new threats, particularly the rise of China. The shift in US strategic thinking is evident in the increasing emphasis on multi-domain operations. This acknowledges that deterrence in the 21st century necessitates integrating capabilities across various domains, such as nuclear, cyber, and conventional warfare. The national security strategy has evolved to rely less on a purely nuclear deterrent and instead fosters collaborative partnerships with allies to face complex threats. Modern conflict environments require a nimble, adaptable approach, and this shift recognizes the need to move beyond traditional deterrence paradigms and confront the hybrid warfare challenges of today. The US military is being molded to confront the complexity of future conflicts, a change that necessitates a broader understanding of deterrence and a recognition of the interconnected nature of different warfare domains.
The post-Cold War era, initially envisioned as a stable environment, has presented a series of unexpected challenges that have fundamentally reshaped US nuclear strategy since 1987. The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) underscores the growing urgency of bolstering our deterrent posture, particularly against the evolving threat landscape posed by China. Despite the changes, the core mission of US nuclear weapons – deterring nuclear attacks on the US and its allies – remains central, as articulated in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
However, deterrence in the 21st century is no longer solely about nuclear weapons. Our strategic focus has pivoted towards multi-domain operations, acknowledging the need to integrate capabilities across domains such as cyber, conventional, and space. The Defense Strategy Review of 2021, in this context, highlighted the importance of tackling “gray zone” tactics through a mix of deterrence by denial and punishment, a whole-of-government approach, and flexible escalation management.
This has resulted in a more dynamic and collaborative approach to national security. We are now forging closer relationships with an expanding network of allies to confront these complex, multi-domain threats. This interconnectedness is a key aspect of modern deterrence, forcing us to consider how cyberspace and space impact the broader strategic framework.
Several administrations have underscored the necessity of adapting our nuclear arsenal to address these modern challenges. Past nuclear posture reviews show a recurring theme of adjusting military strategy to confront multipolar threats, especially those posed by countries expanding their nuclear capabilities. The challenge for our military leadership is to adapt our deterrent strategies to the complex reality of today’s strategic landscape, which often involves hybrid warfare and other multi-domain operations that extend beyond traditional notions of nuclear deterrence. This is a significant departure from past assumptions, necessitating a complex reassessment of operational procedures and strategic frameworks. It remains an ongoing challenge that will require a sustained commitment to research, innovation, and adaptation to guarantee long-term national security.
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - The Rise of Non State Actors Forces Strategic Reset After 9/11 Attacks
The September 11th attacks dramatically altered the US national security landscape, forcing a fundamental strategic reassessment. The attacks highlighted the growing threat posed by non-state actors, a challenge that had not been central to US strategic thinking during the Cold War era. The US response, particularly the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disbanding of the Iraqi military, inadvertently created conditions conducive to the rise of groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq and, later, ISIS. This period revealed the complexities and limitations of relying on foreign partners in counterterrorism efforts, especially when those partnerships were built on shaky foundations.
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have played an increasingly prominent role in global affairs. They have become involved in governance, conflict, and wielding influence in ways that were previously unimaginable. This shift necessitated a recalibration of US military and diplomatic approaches to confront these hybrid warfare challenges where the lines between conventional and unconventional warfare become blurred. The US approach to combating these new threats has been complicated by the conflation of terrorism and insurgency, creating dilemmas for policymakers regarding appropriate responses. The "war on terror" also significantly impacted domestic security policies, leading to a renewed emphasis on preventative measures against future attacks.
The evolution of the threat landscape since 9/11 underscores the need for a dynamic and adaptable national security strategy. The challenges posed by these non-state actors differ significantly from the traditional threats of the Cold War, requiring a more nuanced approach that considers the complex interplay of political, social, and military factors that fuel these conflicts.
The events of 9/11 forced a major reassessment of US national security, particularly in how we view and respond to conflict. The rise of non-state actors, like terrorist groups, fundamentally altered the strategic landscape. These groups, using unconventional warfare methods, challenged traditional military approaches and required a shift in how the US military allocates resources and plans operations. It became clear that confronting these new threats demanded a wider perspective that went beyond solely state-based actors.
The ease of communication through global networks empowered these non-state actors in unprecedented ways. They could recruit, coordinate, and execute actions that previously were limited to state-sponsored militaries. This evolution complicates existing national security frameworks as smaller, dispersed groups can now wield influence on a global scale.
Following 9/11, the US military needed to expand its strategic focus beyond just state actors. This meant incorporating counterinsurgency and irregular warfare tactics into the arsenal of responses. We’ve also had to acknowledge and confront cyber and information warfare techniques used by non-state groups within this broader definition of threats.
This change has also encouraged a move towards more collaborative approaches to security. Instead of unilateral actions, we’ve seen an increase in the use of coalition forces, intelligence-sharing initiatives, and partnerships with local security forces in an effort to effectively address terrorism and insurgency. This collaborative aspect is notable, especially when you consider the pre-9/11 emphasis on independent military actions.
The US also needed to think differently about its strategic investments in regions where non-state actors thrive, often within failed or unstable states. Military actions had to be complemented with humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, acknowledging that stability and governance are essential to addressing the root causes of insecurity. This integrated approach recognizes that some challenges are inherently more complex than a pure military solution.
The attack also emphasized the necessity of improved intelligence gathering. This has led to the creation of international frameworks for sharing intelligence, and a recognition that insights need to come from beyond traditional military intelligence sources. This includes leveraging data and technology from the private sector, a strategy that can raise significant privacy and security concerns in our increasingly digital society.
Post-9/11, we've seen a major shift in defense spending. Counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations have absorbed a significant portion of resources, leading to investments in technologies like surveillance, drone capabilities, and cyber defense systems. These changes reflect the evolving nature of warfare as posed by non-state actors.
Furthermore, understanding the ideological underpinnings of non-state groups has compelled the US to integrate “soft power” approaches into its national security strategy. This includes strategies to combat extremism through cultural, educational, and economic programs alongside military responses. While the effectiveness of such strategies remains a topic of ongoing research and debate, the concept highlights a broader acknowledgment of the complexity of threats beyond pure military engagement.
The use of social media for propaganda and recruitment by these groups prompted the US military and intelligence agencies to significantly enhance their cyber capabilities. This includes developing strategies and counter-narratives to combat misinformation and extremist messaging in the digital space. It's a relatively new frontier in national security, with continuous adjustments being made to confront the rapidly changing nature of information dissemination and its potential to influence individuals and destabilize communities.
Finally, the rise of hybrid warfare tactics, which blends conventional and unconventional methods employed by non-state actors, has posed a challenge to traditional deterrence frameworks. The US military is attempting to adapt its strategic thinking to account for this broader spectrum of conflicts, which is an ongoing challenge. This highlights the complex task of navigating an evolving strategic landscape, where established military doctrines must be continually updated to stay relevant and effective in an era of complex conflicts.
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - Economic Warfare Takes Center Stage Through Targeted Financial Sanctions 2014 2024
From 2014 to 2024, the US has increasingly employed economic warfare, specifically through targeted financial sanctions, as a key element of its national security strategy. By 2024, the US reportedly imposes a significantly higher number of sanctions than any other country or international organization, underscoring a shift towards leveraging economic tools to achieve its foreign policy goals. This emphasis is evident in the Biden administration's expanded authorities and streamlined processes for imposing sanctions. The application of sanctions against countries like Iran and Russia has demonstrated their effectiveness in deterring adversarial behavior. Yet, the expansive use of sanctions against Russia during the Ukraine invasion also showcases the potential drawbacks of this approach, with the US encountering economic repercussions and risks in a complex geopolitical environment. This period reveals how economic warfare has become central to the US approach to navigating hybrid warfare and the evolving nature of global security threats.
Over the past decade, the US has significantly escalated its reliance on economic warfare, particularly through targeted financial sanctions. By 2024, the US imposed sanctions at a rate three times higher than any other nation or international body, impacting roughly a third of the world's countries. This increase reflects a broadening of the Treasury Department's powers, allowing for more comprehensive blocking sanctions against financial institutions.
The effectiveness of targeted sanctions has been demonstrated in cases like Iran's nuclear program and Russia's actions in Ukraine. These examples highlight how economic measures have become integral to the US national security strategy, offering a tool for deterring and pressuring adversarial actors. The sanctions imposed during the Ukraine conflict encompassed a wide range of measures, striving to cripple Russian military operations and penalize those supporting the conflict.
Current US national security strategy documents explicitly recognize economic and financial sanctions as crucial tools for constraining adversaries. This emphasizes a shift from the Cold War focus on nuclear deterrence to the modern challenges of hybrid warfare, where economic pressure plays a pivotal role. It's worth noting that a Treasury report from 2021 highlighted the growing reliance on sanctions as a primary tool for national security since the 9/11 attacks, showcasing a long-term trend in this strategy.
While successful in causing economic damage in certain cases, the use of sanctions against Russia, for example, also underscores the inherent risks of economic warfare. The potential for reciprocal consequences highlights the complex and potentially damaging nature of this approach.
Overall, targeted financial sanctions have emerged as a primary tool for projecting US power and achieving national security goals in various global contexts, from counterterrorism to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. However, this increasingly prominent role of sanctions raises questions about their long-term impact, unintended consequences, and evolving legal and ethical implications in a world where economic interdependence is a defining characteristic. The increasing use of AI and the development of cryptocurrency-based shadow economies, due to sanctions, suggests that the battlefield of economic warfare is continually evolving, requiring constant adaptation and strategic review to ensure intended outcomes are realized while minimizing risks and unwanted repercussions.
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - Digital Battlespace Emerges as Fifth Domain of Warfare Post Stuxnet 2010
The emergence of the digital realm as a primary battleground, especially after the Stuxnet incident in 2010, represents a significant change in the way we view warfare and national security. Stuxnet's ability to cripple physical infrastructure through cyber means forced a rethinking of how we approach cybersecurity in national defense. While the US military has categorized cyberspace alongside land, sea, air, and space as a domain of warfare, some question if this simplifies the nature of operations. The rise of hybrid warfare, a blend of conventional and unconventional tactics, including cyberattacks, necessitates a more sophisticated understanding of digital operations. Cyber actions can be used for strategic gain, but they also carry legal and operational complexities. As a result, traditional ideas of deterrence and operational preparedness must be re-evaluated in light of ever-present cyber threats, drawing lessons from historical conflict. This new reality is a constant reminder of the need to adapt and refine strategies to the challenges posed in the modern security environment.
The 2010 Stuxnet attack on Iranian nuclear facilities served as a stark reminder that the digital realm had become a new battlefield. This event, arguably the first significant demonstration of cyber warfare, showcased how digital attacks could achieve strategic military objectives without traditional physical engagement, effectively altering the dynamics of international conflict. By 2024, the US military has formally recognized cyberspace as the fifth domain of warfare, alongside the more established domains of land, sea, air, and space. This acknowledgement necessitates a complete rethinking of strategies and training protocols for military personnel, as they must be equipped to navigate a domain where cyber vulnerabilities can have far-reaching physical consequences.
The rapid proliferation of interconnected devices through the Internet of Things (IoT) has dramatically expanded the potential attack surface in the digital battlespace. Projections suggest that over 75 billion connected devices will be in use globally by 2025, which presents an unprecedented challenge for cybersecurity. This expansion of the digital landscape has implications for national security as vulnerabilities can be exploited across critical infrastructure and supply chains, potentially impacting areas like energy grids and transportation systems.
One of the most concerning aspects of the digital battlespace is that it doesn't adhere to conventional geopolitical borders. The inherent lack of clear boundaries in cyberspace allows non-state actors and rogue nations to engage in disruptive activities, obfuscating origins and hindering attribution. This ambiguous nature complicates issues of international law and warfare, raising complex questions regarding the legal consequences and appropriate responses to digital aggression.
The concept of "cyber deterrence" has gained prominence in recent years. It posits that, just as nuclear deterrence relies on the threat of retaliation, effective cybersecurity strategies must create a deterrent environment for would-be attackers. Ideally, this environment would ensure potential aggressors carefully assess the risks of a cyberattack against the likelihood of facing substantial repercussions, thus preventing incidents from occurring in the first place.
Interestingly, research indicates that over 90% of successful cyber attacks leverage known vulnerabilities. This alarming statistic highlights a considerable gap in patch management and overall security hygiene across systems. This gap suggests that investing in improved cybersecurity education and promoting innovation in security practices could be significant steps in mitigating this risk.
Furthermore, the sophistication of malicious software (malware) has evolved considerably. Attackers have shifted tactics from simple disruptions to more intricate, multi-stage attacks designed to maintain a persistent presence within target systems. This evolution allows for prolonged intelligence gathering and other covert activities, posing significant long-term threats to national security.
Social engineering tactics are now integral to the modern cyber threat landscape. Research suggests that over 70% of successful data breaches involve some form of human error as a starting point. This emphasizes the critical need for comprehensive training and awareness programs to combat cyber threats effectively. These programs must be designed to instill a strong security consciousness among users and personnel who handle sensitive information.
While international collaboration on cybersecurity is essential, complex geopolitical realities often create obstacles to collective efforts. A lack of global consensus on acceptable norms for state behavior in cyberspace fosters an inherently precarious environment, where unintended escalation can easily occur.
Finally, the growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in cyber warfare presents both opportunities and challenges. While these technologies can enhance threat detection and response capabilities for defenders, they also raise profound ethical concerns regarding the level of autonomy and accountability in military operations. The potential for AI-driven cyberattacks and the difficulties associated with tracing their origins add another layer of complexity to the digital battlespace, necessitating further research and discussion about the implications of deploying such tools in conflict.
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - Grey Zone Operations Replace Traditional Military Confrontation Post Crimea 2014
Following Russia's actions in Crimea in 2014, the landscape of international conflict shifted. Traditional military confrontations started to give way to a new type of warfare: grey zone operations. This approach favors ambiguity and blurs the lines between peace and war, making it harder to pinpoint responsibility and respond effectively. Instead of large-scale, overt military actions, nations began using methods like disinformation and cyberattacks. These tactics are appealing because they can achieve strategic goals without the immediate risks and costs of traditional warfare. The US national security strategy had to adjust to this new reality, recognizing that deterring threats in this grey zone requires different strategies than those employed during the Cold War era. The reliance on these ambiguous tactics by aggressor nations has forced the US to adapt and develop new ways of defending against them, as traditional deterrence frameworks often prove insufficient. The ongoing use of grey zone tactics presents a continuing challenge for national security, demanding a more intricate and nuanced understanding of modern threats.
Since Russia's actions in Crimea in 2014, "grey zone" operations have become increasingly prominent, representing a shift away from traditional military confrontations. These operations blur the lines between peace and war by employing a mix of military and non-military tactics, such as psychological operations, disinformation, and cyberattacks. This ambiguity makes it difficult to pinpoint the origin of such actions and formulate appropriate responses.
The concept of hybrid warfare, which thrives in this grey area, shows that states and non-state actors can achieve military objectives through subversion and coercion, challenging traditional notions of military engagement and sovereignty. We've seen this in how Russia utilized unmarked troops and local proxies to achieve strategic goals, illustrating a new approach to conflict. Research from the National Defense University suggests that grey zone tactics are attractive because they minimize the risk of escalation compared to conventional military actions.
Cyber operations have become a key element in these grey zone strategies. The interference in the 2016 US election highlights how digital manipulation can have significant political consequences without triggering a direct military response. The wide reach of social media has amplified the effectiveness of these grey zone operations, making it easier to spread propaganda and narratives that erode trust and sow discord within targeted societies.
Interestingly, we are also seeing non-state actors adopt these grey zone tactics, posing a new challenge for national security frameworks. These frameworks, largely developed to deal with state-sponsored threats, struggle to effectively address the complex threat landscape presented by non-state actors using this hybrid approach.
Furthermore, combining economic sanctions with grey zone operations demonstrates a sophisticated integration of policy tools. States can exert economic pressure while simultaneously employing covert influence operations, creating a layered approach to achieving national objectives.
Despite this evolving threat, there seems to be a gap between the speed at which grey zone tactics are evolving and the pace of investment in countermeasures. This raises concerns about the readiness of US and allied defense capabilities to address these evolving challenges.
The need to adapt military doctrine to confront these grey zone operations underscores the continuous need for critical evaluation of national security priorities and operational approaches. It is clear that the strategic landscape is constantly shifting, and our understanding of how to plan for and react to these new forms of conflict needs continuous refinement.
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - China Challenge Drives Indo Pacific Pivot Away From Middle East Focus 2018
The United States' national security strategy has seen a notable shift in focus, moving away from the Middle East and towards the Indo-Pacific region. This change, driven largely by the growing influence and assertiveness of China, reflects a fundamental reassessment of the global security landscape. The Indo-Pacific region has become a central concern, leading to the development of initiatives like the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. This initiative highlights a strategic prioritization of enhancing military capabilities, bolstering regional infrastructure, and improving command and control systems within the region to counter China's growing presence and ambitions.
The Biden administration has clearly identified China as a primary threat to national security, emphasizing the importance of maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific. This shift towards a more focused Indo-Pacific strategy echoes historical shifts in American foreign policy, especially after the Cold War, as the US adjusts to the new realities of geopolitical competition. The growing strategic rivalry between the US and China bears some similarities to the dynamics of the Cold War, suggesting a complex and multi-faceted relationship that is likely to shape American security interests and policy for years to come. This pivot emphasizes not just military preparedness but also the importance of integrating economic considerations into the overall strategy, further highlighting the nuanced challenges the US confronts in this new strategic landscape.
The United States' strategic focus has demonstrably shifted towards the Indo-Pacific region, a significant departure from the previous emphasis on the Middle East. This "Indo-Pacific pivot" signifies a substantial reallocation of resources, with over 60% of US military assets now dedicated to this area. This change highlights a growing recognition of the challenges posed by China's expanding influence and assertive actions.
The increased emphasis on the Indo-Pacific is reflected in the US defense budget, which has experienced a roughly 20% increase in funding for this region since 2018. This suggests a heightened urgency in developing capabilities to counter China's growing military might and ambitious geopolitical goals. This shift is not just about military buildup, but also encompasses a significant expansion of joint military exercises with allies in the region. Data indicates a doubling of these exercises over the past five years, indicating a focus on enhancing interoperability and preparedness for a potential conflict with China.
Furthermore, the nature of warfare itself has influenced the pivot. The Indo-Pacific strategy emphasizes technological advancements, with investments in hypersonic weapons and AI-driven technologies exceeding those seen in previous military buildups against more traditional threats. This change suggests that the US recognizes the need to adapt to the new challenges posed by China’s technological advancements.
Beyond military considerations, the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific is rooted in its economic significance. The region contains critical global shipping lanes, with over half of global trade passing through the South China Sea. Maintaining freedom of navigation and security in this vital area is crucial for the US and its allies, impacting economic interests alongside security concerns.
The strategic shift also involves a profound rethinking of alliances. The US has strengthened partnerships with regional states, such as India, Australia, and Japan, moving towards a collective security framework in the Indo-Pacific. This approach suggests that the US recognizes that a more collaborative effort is required to counteract China’s growing military and economic strength. It’s also important to consider that China's military expenditure has grown dramatically, increasing by roughly 76% from 2010 to 2020. This has naturally forced the US to adjust its defense strategies to maintain a competitive advantage in the region, underscoring the need for enhanced deterrence.
The cyber domain has emerged as a critical battleground within the Indo-Pacific pivot. The US now views cyber capabilities as essential as traditional military capabilities, leading to a surge in investment in both offensive and defensive cyber operations. These advancements are primarily aimed at deterring and responding to China’s increasing cyber capabilities, which are recognized as a significant threat.
Finally, the Indo-Pacific strategy incorporates a strong economic dimension. The US is actively working to counter China's Belt and Road Initiative by promoting alternative infrastructure projects in the region. This effort reflects a desire to achieve a broader balance of power in the Indo-Pacific that extends beyond just military presence. It highlights that US strategy aims to limit China’s economic and geopolitical influence through a blend of military and economic levers. The effectiveness and potential consequences of this strategic shift remain subject to continuous assessment and refinement, highlighting the dynamic and complex nature of the security environment.
7 Critical Shifts in US National Security Strategy From Cold War Deterrence to Modern Hybrid Warfare (2024 Analysis) - Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems Rewrite Combat Doctrine 2020 2024
The period from 2020 to 2024 has witnessed a fundamental shift in combat doctrine, driven by the accelerated adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems within US military operations. The Department of Defense, recognizing the potential of AI as a transformative technology across multiple domains, has made it a priority to secure decision superiority for US forces. This emphasis reflects a broader trend of viewing AI as a general-purpose technology with significant implications for national security and societal advancement.
This push towards AI-integrated military operations also aligns with NATO's evolving approach to AI in defense, which emphasizes the critical need for responsible and ethical development and deployment. Principles like accountability, transparency, and the mitigation of potential algorithmic bias are central to these efforts.
While fully autonomous weapon systems remain a distant prospect, the integration of narrow AI and autonomous systems into specific combat roles signals a crucial transformation in how military operations are conceived and executed. This shift, however, is not without its concerns. Potential for bias within algorithms and the inherent risk of unintended consequences in complex battlefield situations raise significant questions regarding the responsible deployment of these technologies. Additionally, the introduction of lethal autonomous weapons systems poses both ethical and legal challenges that must be addressed through careful consideration of existing international norms.
In essence, the integration of AI and autonomous systems into military strategy represents a pivotal development in the face of evolving threats and operational demands. The future battlefield will likely feature a complex interplay between human decision-making and AI-driven automation, demanding rigorous analysis and debate to ensure the ethical and responsible application of these powerful technologies while safeguarding national security interests and global stability.
The period between 2020 and 2024 has seen a significant acceleration in the US military's adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems, fundamentally altering combat doctrines. The Department of Defense (DOD) has made it a priority to integrate AI across various military operations, aiming to maintain a decisive edge for US forces. This push builds upon prior strategies and reflects a broader understanding of AI as a general-purpose technology with vast potential across sectors, including national security.
NATO has also embraced AI in its revised defense strategy, promoting responsible AI development and use within its member states. They've adopted guiding principles like lawfulness and accountability, aiming to mitigate the potential risks associated with AI's deployment in military operations. The US has taken a leading role in establishing global norms for the ethical and responsible application of AI in a military context, particularly concerning autonomous systems.
Autonomous intelligence, the most sophisticated form of AI, has caught the attention of military strategists due to its potential to automate complex processes. This technology enables systems to operate independently of human intervention, leading to questions about the nature of human control in military contexts. While fully autonomous weapon systems are not yet a reality, the US military is increasingly experimenting with narrow autonomous machines, incorporating them into operations under varying degrees of human control.
However, this advancement isn't without controversy. Concerns about the potential for algorithmic bias in decision-making processes and the possibility of unintended consequences, or accidents, are very real. There are fears that the military application of AI might escalate international tensions if not carefully managed. The prospect of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) on the battlefield is particularly concerning. Their potential impact on future military operations and strategies remains a key focal point for researchers and policymakers. This development presents several thorny ethical and legal dilemmas, including the challenge of ensuring compliance with international law. It remains a challenge to figure out how to achieve the potential benefits of AI without exacerbating instability.
The development of LAWS raises critical questions about adherence to international laws and the consequences of losing human control of combat decisions. The rapidly advancing nature of this field will necessitate continuous reassessment of policies and doctrines to navigate the complexities of this new reality in military strategy.
More Posts from :