Chapter 4, Part 7: The Department of Defense
Day 17 of reading and sharing my notes on Project 2025 (the long title is Mandate for Leadership 2024: The Conservative Promise, in case you're searching for it).
Here's my approach and why I’m doing this.
We're still in Chapter 4: Department of Defense by Christopher Miller. I covered his bio earlier. I think this will be the last day of this chapter.
SUMMARY
This section is on the U.S. Cyber Command.
Miller says, "Cyber capabilities and threats are evolving rapidly. Accordingly, a conservative Administration should be especially sensitive to and prepared to meet the challenges presented by bureaucratic silos, inappropriately rigid tactical doctrine, and strategic thinking's historic tendency to lag behind technological capability."
MY OPINION
I'm concerned about people who want to bypass "rigid tactical doctrine." Those doctrines are put in place for a reason. And I have no idea what that last clause means.
SUMMARY
His suggested reforms:
"Ensure that USCYBERCOM is properly focused."
"Increase USCYBERCOM's effectiveness."
"Rationalize strategy and doctrine."
He specifically says USCYBERCOM should go on offense.
**-"End USCYBERCOM'S participation in federal efforts to 'fortify' U.S. elections to eliminate the perception that DOD is engaging in partisan politics."
MY OPINION
How is fortifying elections partisan? We should all want our elections to be free and fair. And the fact that they don't want the agency tasked with cyber security involved seems dangerous.
SUMMARY
Most of the policies are about updating, etc. I'm not sure what this means: "Break the paradigm of cyber authorities held at the strategic level."
Next, Miller addresses Special Operations Forces. He says some want to reduce the "scope and scale" of Special Operations, but that would be a mistake because they are "the most capable and experienced warfighters in two generations." He continues, "Irregular warfare should be used proactively to prevent state and non state actors from negatively affecting U.S. policies and objectives ... If we maintain irregular warfare's traditional focus on non state actors, we limit ourselves to addressing only the symptoms (non state actors), not the problems themselves (China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran)."
OUTSIDE RESEARCH
I had to look up "irregular warfare." It's essentially warfare that isn't two nations going up against each other, things like, according to the Congressional Research Service, trying to overthrow governments by "operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, or guerrilla force in a denied area," responding to natural disasters and strengthening local groups to stabilize themselves, counterintelligence, and counterinsurgency. And I just looked ahead (because I'm just writing as I read), and Miller actually offers a definition. We'll get there.
SUMMARY
His suggestions:
"Make irregular warfare a cornerstone of security strategy."
"Counter China's Belt and Road Initiative globally."
"Establish credible deterrence through irregular warfare to protect the homeland."
Under the first point, he starts with defining irregular warfare: "a means by which the United States uses all elements of national power to project influence abroad to counter state adversaries, defeat hostile nonstate actors, deter wider conflict, and maintain peace in great-power competition."
Miller says irregular warfare is currently included in a supporting document and should be included the National Defense Strategy.
He wants a specific training center dedicated to it.
OUTSIDE RESEARCH
I also had to look up the Belt and Road Initiative. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, it's a massive infrastructure push, with projects all over the world. Here's what CFR says: "Some analysts see the project as an unsettling extension of China’s rising power, and as the costs of many of the projects have skyrocketed, opposition has grown in some countries. Meanwhile, the United States shares the concern of some in Asia that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development and military expansion. President Joe Biden has maintained his predecessors’ skeptical stance towards Beijing’s actions, but Washington has struggled to offer participating governments a more appealing economic vision."
SUMMARY
Miller spends about half a page detailing how Special Operations should counter the Belt and Road Initiative.
He wants Special Operations to name those who do (is that the right word? it's mine, not his) cyberattacks against the U.S. government and businesses.
The next section is on Nuclear Deterrence.
Miller says the U.S. is challenged by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran regarding nuclear weapons or advancing capabilities.
His suggested reforms:
"Prioritize nuclear modernization."
"Develop the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear."
"Account for China's nuclear expansion."
"Restore the nuclear infrastructure."
"Correctly orient arms control."
Most of that is self-explanatory. Under the final point, he wants to "reject proposals for nuclear disarmament that are contrary to the goal of bolstering deterrence"; "pursue arms control as a way to secure the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies rather than as an end in itself"; and "prepare to compete in order to secure U.S. interests should arms control efforts continue to fail."
MY OPINION
I think that nuclear arms control should absolutely be an end in itself. I remember hiding under my desk in nuclear weapons drills, and I remember being afraid enough of nuclear war to a project on it in fourth grade. I don't want to return to that. I think we as a nation--the only one who has used nuclear weapons--should do everything we can to promote disarmament around the world.
SUMMARY
The next section is on Missile Defense. He says the need is particularly because of China, and Russia; as well as North Korea acting toward South Korea and Japan; and Iran's ability to attack our allies in the Middle East and Europe.
His suggested reforms:
Champion the benefits of missile defense."
"Strengthen homeland ballistic missile defense."
"Increase the development of regional missile defense."
"Change U.S. missile defense policy." He specifically says the U.S. should be defending the homeland against Russian and Chinese missile threats and invest or "energy or space-based missile defense that could defend against more numerous missile threats."
"Invest in new track-and-intercept capabilities."
MY OPINION
I'm all for missile defense. It saves lives and doesn't hurt anyone.
That's the end of Chapter 4.
Next, I'll skip to Chapter 11 since that's been requested. I'll get to everything eventually.