,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The loss of a second Secretary in less than six months is a major blow for the US Dept. of Defense.
It’s likely to hurt implemention of the National Defense Strategy, which calls for prioritising resources for major power competition in the Indo-Pacific. nytimes.com/2019/06/18/us/…
It’s likely to hurt implemention of the National Defense Strategy, which calls for prioritising resources for major power competition in the Indo-Pacific. nytimes.com/2019/06/18/us/…
All of the key policy architects and stewards of the NDS have now left the Pentagon — Jim Mattis, Elbridge Colby, Jim Mitre and Pat Shanahan — meaning others will need to pick up the baton. This may happen, but it will be a disrupting process.
Crucially, it will require strategic discipline within Defense and across the national security establishment to (1) work with Congress/Services on properly resourcing the strategy, and (2) say no to requests by Combatant Commands that don’t serve priorities (ie. buildup in Iran)
New Acting Defense Secretary Mike Esper, currently Secretary of Army, brings deep experience working with Congress through roles in House and Senate Committees, and as an advisor and DASD. Along with his defence industry and think-tank background, he should effective on the Hill.
Less clear is his position on the NDS and need to prioritise the 1+4 (China first; then Russia, North Korea, Iran and terror). His time as Army Sec and speech at @AtlanticCouncil show a positive focus on rebuilding conventional deterrence in Indo-Pacific: google.com.au/amp/s/www.wash…
But it’s what he, as Acting Secretary, decides and advises the executive NOT to prioritise — in terms of military operations, posture, force structure, budget etc. — that will really shape how the NDS gets rolled out (noting that in the end it’s WH and Congress that hold levers).
