Just as there is no substitute for victory in war, there is no substitute for American military power to deter an enemy from attacking. So let's just put away that "integrated deterrence" nonsense.
We're not this deluded, are we?
This summer, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin debuted the term “Integrated Deterrence” to describe the Biden administration’s proposed new concept to avert military aggression. Austin described integrated deterrence as being able to draw on the capabilities of not just the military, but on “federal agencies, partner nations and allies, as well.” He summarized the approach as “using every military and non-military tool in lock-step with allies and partners.”
Obviously all elements of national power, in concert with allies, should be used to protect American interests. Military is one component of national power.
But by highlighting this basic reality I fear that the proposal is intended to rely on non-military levers of power instead of military power:
To some degree, the Biden administration’s concept for integrated deterrence calls falls into the trap of viewing security issues from the U.S. perspective by counting non-military tools such as economic sanctions, international condemnation, or perhaps legal penalties as useful in bolstering traditional military means. While these techniques could contribute to an overall deterrence posture, there is an implicit danger in relying on these means to persuade an adversary of the folly of military aggression—particularly if that dependence is used as justification to restrict the investments necessary for building sufficient U.S. military power.
It's a whole-of-government version of the "porcupine" strategy that seeks an alternative to superior broad military power for defeating and deterring enemies:
Why are so many analysts enamored with "porcupine" strategies that don't try to defeat invaders but increase the cost to invaders of winning? This isn't sports betting where you "win" even if you lose by beating the spread.
Defeating enemies is the best way to increase their cost.
And it reflects how the Germans tried to get out of their pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defense (quoting an AFP story):
Germany's defence minister called Friday for changes to the way NATO members' commitments to budget targets are assessed, in the face of bigger demands from US President Donald Trump. ...
"For me the question is who is really providing added value to the alliance," she said.
Von der Leyen proposed using an "activity index" that would take participation in foreign missions into account when assessing budget earmarks for defence.
And let's go back to the Cold War when I was a student. I was shocked at the bias against actual military power that some could hold:
I read an article in one political science class about how even a Soviet invasion of America should be met with massive and unified passive resistance rather than relying on our military to prevent such an invasion. That author believed defending ourselves even in that situation was a "war of choice." My worry is that our Left and those who travel with them on foreign affairs always believe defending ourselves is a choice.
My worry stands.
Or was Secretary of State Blinken's playlist weaponized? But still, not quite up to Kerry standards of idiocy, eh?
But I digress.
Or did I?
America faces military threats. The proper measure for defeating those threats is American military power.
By all means, use all elements of our power to defeat enemies in peace and war. But don't pretend any of the non-military elements matter when it comes to defeating an enemy military in combat.
UPDATE: Indeed: "While U.S. and European leaders natter about soft power, Russia’s president is making power moves."
