Click here to read JFQ 115 →
To say we find ourselves at a moment of ongoing tensions and outright war across many parts of the world is beyond the “Captain Obvious” level of awareness. But what are we to make of these events? I think the answer lies, in part, in what we teach students in the staff and war colleges. Most of the strategic elements that a nation like the United States undertakes rest on the perceived interests of the country, particularly by those who hold the reins of political power. By the time you read this, our national elections will be imminent. Our next President, regardless of whom that will be, must confront the world as it is, not as it could be. No one solution will fit all foreign conflicts, and none of these will necessarily fit our domestic needs.
I hope that you are thinking about the world as it is and what you think it might become, how that could be achieved, and how our national interests, strategy, and actions might be aligned to bring that world about. Voting is one way of having input into that system of national decisionmaking. For those who are eligible to participate in the national political process by voting, I encourage you to do so.
A range of policies, both existing and needed, will have to align with the interests of the Nation and gather support from allies, partners, and even foes of the United States to succeed. War in their interest. But as we have all seen, a great deal of death and destruction can result from the actions of both states and substate actors, no matter the rationale or appropriateness of the use of military force. Political leaders make those choices. What matters to military leaders is the need for a thoughtful review of the circumstances, and determining the facts and sources of the conflict and assisting in formulating a strategy for it includes elements of national power. As many observers of human experience have argued, starting a war is easy, but ending it is hard. Several historians have noted that the United States has not ended a war well since 1945—and even that war did not prevent the conflicts that followed. How do we deter war? How do we end conflict? What can we do to prevent the next outbreak of violence?
Even in an election cycle where domestic concerns often turn the tide of voters, war—past, present, and potentially future—is always present as a concern that must be weighed regarding those we choose to lead us.
Our Forum section has three weighty articles. Providing their case for forming a subordinate unified command for the Arctic, authors Joseph Blume, Nathan Golike, Geoffrey Latimer, and Michael Stanski describe how the region’s defense is increasing because of the rise of China’s military capabilities, Russia’s territorial claims, and the opening of transit routes due to climate change. Martin Bricknell and Derek Licina next assess the impacts of the changing security environment on our domestic health systems. Along a similar line of concern, Jeffrey French- Lujan, Taylor Harrington, Ron Fizer, and Domah Diggs recommend changes to how the military reports readiness to deal with the long-standing threats of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons.
Our fall issue, as usual, contains the best of the past year’s joint professional military education (JPME) student papers. For the 18th and 43rd years, respectively, the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) Strategic Essay Competitions were hosted by NDU Press at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, DC. The results, according to the 28 judges from across the JPME enterprise, were impressive in scope and quality this year. A total of 97 essays were submitted to the 3 categories from 17 participating colleges. The Secretary of Defense winner, National War College’s Zachary Hughes, wrote a timely and valuable paper on the likelihood that our logistics lines of communications in the Pacific will be threatened by China. (I say “timely” because as I write this column, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that two Senators have introduced a bill that, if passed, would require the Defense Department to formally report on this issue.) Winning the CJCS Strategic Research Paper category, Thomas Krasinski from the Naval War College (Senior) offers his views on the use of blockade if the United States were to find itself in a conflict with China. Winning the CJCS Strategy Article category, Richard Bell, Elizabeth Goldsmith, Robert Martinez, and Donghyun Lee from the Joint Combined Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College assess the continuing challenges in recruiting for military service and suggest a few interesting ways to improve the efforts of the Defense Department.
This year and next celebrate many anniversaries for the Nation’s PME community. The oldest war college, the Naval War College, is 140 years old this year. The Army War College, which began here at Fort McNair in Roosevelt Hall, is approaching 125 years soon. Another Army descendant, the Eisenhower School, turned 100 this year. In honor of that milestone, JFQ offers a Special Feature to celebrate. Greg Foster leads this effort with an essential military-historical timeline focusing on the Eisenhower School. Expanding on the value of ethics in JPME, Eisenhower School faculty members Elias Ursitti, Eric Weis, and Donald Loren tie past views on this critical topic to what we might hold on to in the future. In addition to his overview of the college and its history, Greg Foster captures core thinking about service, integrity, and ethical conduct with his annotated article of voices from the past.
Two important thought pieces are offered in Commentary. John Hussey lays out a case—forged from his dual military and civilian careers in military law enforcement and the civilian legal system—for how the U.S. military can best field police forces for stability operations. Tim Devine suggests a need to change the boundaries of our geographic combatant commands—long an area of discussion in these pages—by specifically dividing U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in half.
Rounding out this issue, we offer you an excellent Recall article, three book reviews, and a deep look at the theory behind joint doctrine. In Recall, Jonathan Cohen spans the millennium to show the development and staying power of joint power projection in forceable entry operations. Meanwhile, Matthew Tackett brings joint doctrine into focus as he offers one of the better articles in recent years looking to provide a practical explanation of the joint functions.
I want to take this moment to welcome our newest teammate, Latosha Adams, our Digital Media Specialist within NDU’s Institute for National Security Studies. Latosha brings a wealth of knowledge and skills that are essential to the success of our work at NDU Press in support of JFQ and the research publications of the University. She has already done great service in refreshing websites, adding social media punch, and seeking out new audiences. We are looking for great things from her moving forward. We are also looking for your views on the joint force about the world you face, because I am still a believer that the pen is mightier than the sword. JFQ
—William T. Eliason, Editor in Chief
Click here to read JFQ 115 →