Click here to read JFQ 118 →
Having been a part of joint professional military education (JPME) for nearly 20 years and editor of this journal—dedicated to the joint force and the concept of jointness—for a decade and a half, every day I see the power that our war colleges and this journal give to our students, our graduates, senior leaders of the joint force, the interagency community, our partners and allies, and the interested public around the globe. Whether this power comes in the form of using a tabletop exercise to learn about the application of various instruments of national and inter- national power, or an insightful and tightly written argument about joint warfighting, the value added for the people we teach and readers we inform is seen by our national leaders as key to their decisionmaking.
What isn’t as clearly visible are the thousands of hours and relatively small amounts of taxpayer dollars that go into these efforts to make our current and future senior national and international security leaders the best informed they can be. But we can see the impact in the successes of our nation over time and in the learning processes at work both inside and outside of JPME classrooms. History is often a great companion of any teacher of national security professionals. Americans tend to look forward more than the past, as we value the superlative of “first-ever” accomplishments. But what I think history offers us is a way to examine the true change that any of our “firsts” achieves. Our Space Force teammates are working that part of history but are firmly based in what has been tried and built in the past. Watching the various commercial enterprises work- ing in the space domain today, with their dramatic successes and equally dramatic failures, offers a reminder of how truly difficult the original space race was, in an era that lacked modern computing equipment. Seems the wisdom of the earlier generation is not always completely passed on.
Living through the period of the Napoleonic Wars, the German idealist Georg Hegel offered, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” Hegel’s method of forward and backward questioning of one’s logic serves as the foundation for Carl von Clausewitz’s On War. While portions remained unfinished at Clausewitz’s death, Western military traditions and doctrines have been firmly based in what the Prussian discussed. One of the most important thoughts Clausewitz had was that war is very much a political act that leverages the military instrument to achieve one’s ends. Clausewitz also argued that war is very much a game of chance. Given the long and tortured history of conflict in in our world, what would you say the chances are that any military conflict will end in a way that achieves peace? How would that peace be best achieved? In those conflicts where the U.S. military is used, are we prepared to stay engaged? What does the long-term view hold for learning or at least dealing with an encounter with the hard lessons of conflict? I look forward to what you think on this and many other issues as we look ahead.
Our Forum section reflects a few of the themes the joint force and JPME have been considering for several years, as China remains the “pacing threat” in national security discussions. Examining U.S. readiness for a war with a rising peer like China, Evan Ward looks at how well the national defense industrial base could be mobilized to support our deterrence and later “feed the fight” if war breaks out. From NDU’s Institute for National Strategic Studies and its Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Lauren Edson and Phillip Saunders describe how best to measure the optimal air and space force of China’s People’s Liberation Army. As the new administration deals with wars overseas and homeland defense in real time, the development of the new National Security Strategy might benefit from the ideas Caitlin Irby offers in her article on the geography of Southeast Asia. Tying into the new guidance from the Secretary of Defense on joint warfighting and lethality, Spencer Meredith examines how special operations builds its leaders to shape the battles of today and tomorrow.
Leading off our JPME Today section is a timely look at the foundations of the U.S. civil-military relationship from Mark Mattox of the National War College. As we look to add more war-gaming to our curriculum and harness the potential of artificial intelligence in our PME classrooms, Andrea Brennen, Gwyneth Sutherlin, Lisa Pagano-Wallace, and Hermie Mendoza look at deepfakes—those virtual images that seem real but are not—and dig into the details about what we should expect from the available capabilities and the results we might achieve in this bold new world.
In Features this time, Jacob Bright discusses a space system that has the potential to be a game changer in improving logistics in a range of missions. Shaun Callahan offers a new strategy to improve our operational access to the Western Pacific. Giving JFQ another important article from the medical field, Seth Reini and Jonathan Haase investigate how best to get supplies and expertise out to the force in distributed maritime operations. Looking to focus on the conditions one finds in the cyber environment, Shiraz Khan examines the implications for our cyber forces.
Along with three outstanding book reviews, we have our Recall section. Here, we have a recent-day history as Wilson Blythe, one of the insiders from the Joint Staff, gives us a look into the development of the Joint Warfighting Concept.
What has your experience taught you about joint warfighting? JFQ readers truly want to know what you have to say, and our team is waiting to see your best thoughts. JFQ
—William T. Eliason, Editor in Chief
Click here to read JFQ 118 →