President-elect Biden's choice of retired Army four-star Lloyd Austin to be his Secretary of Defense surprised most of Washington, as Austin, despite a highly respected leadership reputation, is unpublished and virtually unknown to the defense policy and strategy community in direct contrast to long rumored front-runner, Michelle Flournoy.
Last week Biden clarified somewhat the future direction of the Pentagon by nominating two Flournoy acolytes to key Pentagon positions. Both are very well known among defense intelligentsia with known positions and opinions:
- Dr. Kathleen Hicks will be the first confirmed female Deputy Secretary of Defense. Dr. Hicks was Flournoy's principal deputy in the DoD policy shop in the Obama Administration before becoming senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), one of DC's premier think tanks.
- Dr. Colin Kahl will be Undersecretary for Policy, considered the #3 job. Dr. Kahl worked his way up from action officer to Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Pentagon policy office in the Obama Administration before becoming VP Biden's National Security Advisor.
Given President-elect Biden's promise to focus on rebuilding relationships around the world, we expect Secretary-designate Austin to be the "front man" for the defense side of those relationships, working with Secretary of State-designate Tony Blinken and NSC Advisor Jake Sullivan who both will have larger roles in national security decisions than in the Trump Administration. We expect that Dr. Hicks will become General Austin's "building person", driving the Pentagon bureaucracy and dealing with the specifics and details of policy development and execution.
In January 2020, Dr. Hicks led the publication of a series of four CSIS "briefs" that will likely frame discussions on potential changes in Pentagon global posture and resourcing by the Biden Administration and provide some insight into her analytic strategy-driven approach to defense policy. Entitled "Getting to Less" the series begins by identifying "seven intellectual strains that argue for lessened objectives, more efficient ways and decreased resources for the US defense enterprise."
Using this background, the series develops three specific approaches to "get to less":
- "Innovation Superiority Strategy." This strategy focuses on "achieving enduring American military advantage vis a vis China by betting big on innovation efforts to create a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific." "Operationally, this strategy prioritizes the ability to surge superior forces, prevent conflict escalation and defend the homeland. Conventional deterrence is critical." Programmatically the strategy husbands resources to concentrate on restoring the balance with China in Asia and Russia in Europe. The emphasis is on capability rather than capacity, technology vice sheer numbers, long range forces vice short.
- "Progressive Values Strategy." This strategy holds that "military primacy diverts resources and attention from more constructive statecraft solutions and the US should strive for military sufficiency that deters adventurism by others - as well as the US itself." This strategy has a strong moral component and depends on the effective use of non-military tools in solving international security issues, climate change among them using resources freed up by a reduced defense establishment. The strategy "demonstrates a willingness to accommodate China's rise and Russia's exercise of influence if they demonstrate behavior within norms."
- "Minimal Exposure Strategy." Think isolationism. This strategy holds that there is little physical risk to the homeland and that US adventurism creates risks and costs. Deterrence is achieved through punishment via nuclear second strike or long range non-nuclear strikes. It endeavors to scale down the size and operational capability of the US military, relying on US geographic and technology advantages for national security. Emphasis is on defense of US territory with reductions in short range forces and entangling international commitments.
Below is a table that summarizes some of the force structure implications of each of the strategies as seen by Dr. Hicks and her co-authors.
There are two ways of considering this table:
- Left to Right: these are the logical changes that are implied by a particular strategy and their total cost implications
- Right to Left: if you want to achieve these sorts of budget savings from DoD, these are the kinds of reductions you must consider.
