To Maintain U.S. Primacy, Standoff Power is not Enough

To Maintain U.S. Primacy, Standoff Power is not Enough

As the United States disengages from Iraq and Afghanistan and enters a period of declining defense spending, the argument that technology is rendering land power obsolete has been resurrected. The appeal of substituting standoff military methods -- such as air- and sea-based missiles and unmanned drones -- for a balanced capability is clear: Everyone favors minimizing U.S. casualties. Recent advances in technology have only strengthened this temptation. This means that as the U.S. military downsizes in coming years, land power may take a disproportionate cut. But before committing to such an approach, Americans must think carefully about its implications.

In the decades after World War II, the United States accepted the role of global power but sought to limit the blood cost of using force. This was done through the constant pursuit of a qualitative advantage in military technology and equipment, the use of operational methods designed to minimize U.S. casualties and cooperation with allies and coalition partners. It also led to an emphasis on standoff military methods in order to put as few Americans as possible in harm's way.

Though the objective itself is admirable, the strategy behind it can prove to be counterproductive and even dangerous if pushed to extremes. Standoff methods are extraordinarily effective in some situations and against some types of opponents. Unfortunately, a global power that seeks to shape the security environment, prevent the emergence of conflict and shape the outcome of conflicts that do occur confronts situations and opponents far from its home territory. In these cases, the capability to project force with little risk to one’s forces is essential. But preferring standoff methods is one thing; having only standoff capabilities is something entirely different. All U.S. presidents have found that the promotion of American national interests requires balanced military capabilities, with more-direct methods, particularly land power, in the mix.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.