The Joint Chiefs of Staff released this military strategy document on February 8, 2011. The 2011 version is the first update in seven years. In a press release, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, stated,
"Today, I released the 2011 National Military Strategy which provides a vision for how our Joint Force will provide the military capability to protect the American People, defend our Nation and allies, and contribute to our broader peace, security and prosperity.
While we continue to refine how we counter violent extremism and deter aggression, this strategy also rightfully emphasizes that our military power is most effective when employed in concert with other elements of power. This whole-of-nation approach to foreign policy, with civilian leadership appropriately at the helm, will be essential as we address the complex security challenges before us.
This strategy also acknowledges that while tough near-term choices must be made during this era of broader economic constraints, we will continue to invest in our people and our families. Working with our government and interagency partners, and our friends and allies, they, most of all, will bring this strategy to life as we meet our 21st century responsibilities in a dynamic, yet uncertain, future."
This is being called by many a Progressive NMS, particularly because of its emphasis on whole-of-nation approach. This opens us up to a lot of risk, and places us on a slippery slope to totalitarian government.
There's also an unprecedented insertion here that many senior military leaders are wondering if there's a veiled threat involved:
We will continue to affirm the foundational values in our oath: civilian control of the military remains a core principle of our Republic and wewill preserve it. We will remain an apolitical institution and sustain this position at all costs.
On the surface that seems like something we'd all affirm, which begs the question, why state it? There is no military junta seeking a coup in our country.
Methinks thou doest protesteth too much. Is this a pre-emptive strike so to speak, to put us all on notice that any dissent with civilian policy will be viewed as a violation of our oath to a constitutional republic? Is this to quell the widespread concern over DADT? Does this mean that if the civilian leadership goes off the rails, our military must follow? This is a slap in the face to artful balance between implementation and policy that has allowed our military the traditional honor of being able to advise the often very ignorant elected leadership on the impact of their decisions. We have never lived in a nation where if the Queen said, off where their head, the military did it instinctively. Are we, in the context of the overall whole-of-nation approach to warfare espoused in this document, moving away from a system of checks and balances to totalitarian regime?
Read the whole thing for yourself and see what you come away with.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-strategy/national-military-strategy-united-states-america-2011/p24045
