A Congressionally mandated bi-partisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy has provided actionable recommendations pointing to shifts in U.S. strategy: Here is what you need to know. 

Rand recently published a report based on the work of a bi-partisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy. Findings in the report include:

• The United States faces the most challenging global environment with the most severe ramifications since the end of the Cold War. The trends are getting worse, not better.
• DoD cannot, and should not, provide for the national defense by itself. Integrated deterrence is required, but is not being practiced today. An “all elements of national power” approach is required to coordinate and leverage resources across DoD, the rest of the executive branch, the private sector, civil society, and U.S. allies and partners.
• Fundamental shifts in threats and technology require fundamental change in how DoD functions. DoD is operating at the speed of bureaucracy when the threat is approaching wartime urgency. 
• U.S. industrial production is grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions needed today, let alone given the demands of great power conflict.
• The United States must spend more effectively and more efficiently to build the future force, not perpetuate the existing one. Additional resources will be necessary. 
• Congress should pass a supplemental appropriation to begin a multiyear investment in the national security innovation and industrial base. 

The Commission placed a call to action for urgent modernization efforts that are necessary for the United States to effectively meet these challenges. The Commission’s suggestions are composed of implementing technological innovation into the DoD and increasing industrial production to develop the proper infrastructure needed to support the requirements of conflict, which will mitigate concerns of force readiness. 

Expanding the relationships between private and public sectors, as well as improving the relationships between U.S. allies and partners, serves to address the challenges presented by force size and recruitment shortages. Assistance from allies and partners and the private sector will aid in developing a more well-rounded, technologically adept force, capable of engaging in conflict in multiple theaters. Regarding Congress, the Commission asserts that the issue of proper resource allocation is especially prevalent as the Commission contends that funding should be spent with the future force in mind, not propagating a cycle of routine maintenance. 

Ultimately, the conclusion arrived at by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy was based upon a unanimous agreement for fundamental change, within the Department of Defense and the defense industrial base as a whole, for the U.S. to remain competitive in an increasingly contested global threat environment. 

Related Resources:

The Art of Geopolitical Intelligence: Lessons for Informed Decision-Making: Insights for improving organizational use of intelligence. 

Optimizing Corporate Intelligence: This post dives into actionable recommendation on ways to optimize a corporate intelligence effort. It is based on a career serving large scale analytical efforts in the US Intelligence Community and in applying principles of intelligence in corporate America. 

Mental Models For Leadership In The Modern Age: The study of mental models can improve your ability to make decisions and improve business outcomes. This post reviews the mental models we recommend all business and government decision makers master, especially those who must succeed in competitive environments. 

An Executive’s Guide To Cognitive Bias in Decision Making: Cognitive Bias and the errors in judgement they produce are seen in every aspect of human decision-making, including in the business world. Companies that have a better understanding of these cognitive biases can optimize decision making at all levels of the organization, leading to better performance in the market. Companies that ignore the impact these biases have on corporate decision-making put themselves at unnecessary risk.