Small Wars Journal

Work Calls for Third Offset Strategy to Bolster Future of Warfighting

Fri, 09/11/2015 - 4:35am

Work Calls for Third Offset Strategy to Bolster Future of Warfighting

Terri Moon, DoD News

In a changing global security environment, the United States is pursuing a third offset strategy to bolster a weakened conventional deterrence, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said today in London.

Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute -- the U.K.’s professional forum for national and international defense and security -- the deputy said in prepared remarks that the first and second offset strategies supported DoD well for 25 years, but the “margin of technological superiority,” particularly for guided munitions, is eroding.

“This erosion results primarily from two factors,” the deputy said. “First, potential competitors are pursuing levels of advanced weapons development that we haven’t seen since the mid-1980s. Second, our attention has been rightly focused on the Middle East for the past 14 years, and post-war budget cuts have limited our own technical investments.”

Citing worldwide threats, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Russia’s recent coercion and aggression, Work noted the United States and its allies face historically different challenges than before.

Deputy Praises U.S.-U.K. partnership

The deputy said the nation counts on its longstanding relationship with the United Kingdom, and he praised that nation’s leaders.

“We are greatly heartened by the U.K.’s recent decision to continue meeting the NATO defense investment pledge to dedicate 2 percent of [gross domestic product] to defense spending -- making them one of only four NATO countries that now do so,” he said. That commitment sends a clear signal that the U.K. is determined to continue its contribution to collective defense and maintain a global leadership role, he added.

Work said even with the actions of both nations against global threats, more work is needed, particularly given Russia’s declaration that it regards the U.S. and NATO as a direct threat. That is why, as Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, DoD is working with its allies to develop a “new playbook” for NATO to strengthen U.S. conventional deterrence, he noted.

Preparing to Fight on Modern Battlefield

“We … haven’t focused on a highly-capable adversary for a long time and I worry that our proficiency in highly integrated joint fire and maneuver has eroded,” he said. “We must prepare to fight on an incredibly lethal modern battlefield.”

Once the U.S. military shifts to maneuver, it will fight on highly lethal battlefields swept by short-range guided munitions, cyberattacks and electronic warfare weapons, the deputy said.

“What we need is another doctrinal revival like that of the early 1980s. My message to U.S. Army and Air Force audiences is that we need an AirLand Battle 2.0. My message to every NATO country is we need modern concepts as game-changing as Follow-on Forces Attack,” he said.

AirLand Battle was the overall conceptual framework that formed the basis of the US Army's European warfighting doctrine from 1982 into the late 1990s. The Follow on Forces Attack sub-concept aimed to compensate for the short distance between Frankfurt, Germany, and Soviet territory by relying on conventional weapons to attack troops behind the main line of contact -- by attacking follow-on troops, in other words.

Private Sector Integral to Third Strategy

Unlike the first two offset strategies, which depended on military development, the third would rely on commercially driven technology such as robotics, autonomously operating vehicles, guidance and control systems, visualization, biotechnology, miniaturization, advanced computing, big data analytics and additive manufacturing.

A lesson learned from the second offset strategy was the importance of NATO participation, Work said.

He added that innovation must be pursued with interoperability in mind. “We must coordinate and collaborate, avoid duplication, leverage unique capabilities, and push our establishments to innovate in technology, concepts, experimentation and war games,” he said.

“War games are a powerful tool to test new ideas, capabilities and new ways of fighting. [The U.S. and U.K.] militaries are operating together, researching together, and gaming together to ensure our alliance retains unparalleled military capabilities,” Work said.

The U.K.’s Strategic Defense and Security Review is developing at a time that gives both nations an opportunity to think together about where they are both going and how to best cooperate, the deputy secretary noted.

Vowing to continue working closely with the U.K. in such efforts, Work noted that both nation’s militaries have long histories of adapting to changing threats and identifying new approaches that “pit our enduring strengths against the vulnerabilities of our adversaries,” by their ability to operate as partners.

Comments

Bill M.

Sun, 09/13/2015 - 3:08pm

In reply to by slapout9

It means downsizing to save money, so an off set strategy is mitigating the risk created by downsizing with advanced technology and new operating concepts.The retrenchment we're talking about here is defense spending, it may also include a reduction or retreat from our overseas commitments. In general it is based on a realist world view. A favorable balance of power is maintained by avoiding over extending ourselves. A liberalism world view follower would prefer increased engagement globally (not necessarily with the military). That is overly simplistic, but in broad terms it frames the concept.

slapout9

Sun, 09/13/2015 - 1:17pm

What is retrenchment?

davidbfpo

Sun, 09/13/2015 - 9:06am

Offset to me means a bilateral and mutually beneficial trade in supplying equipment plus.

The latest declared UK-US 'deal' appears to be a "one-way street". Yes I do concede it may in time develop a UK partner and perhaps a 100% US purchase is more economic. Bad news for Westland Helicopters here.

QUOTE: The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Kingdom for AH-64E APACHE GUARDIAN Attack Helicopters and associated equipment, parts and logistical support for an estimated cost of $3.00 billion. ENDS

Link to a UK defence blog has details and comments:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/08/uk-ah-64e-apache-guardian/

Bill M.

Sat, 09/12/2015 - 3:14pm

In reply to by Bill C.

Ultimately good strategy is about efficacy, not efficiency. At the same time good strategy must be feasible, and part of feasible includes afforable and sustainable. The off set strategies have served us well in the past, and will likely do so in the future.

Off set strategies are not comprehensive strategies, they are capability strategies. How we employ those capabilities will be situation specific. Russia and China employ sub conventional strategies under a conventional and nuclear shadow, much like we have. Now that shadow is increasingly contested. Bottom line is that we a need a new off set strategy, but it won't be the answer to all of our security challenges.

Should we note that:

a. The first offset strategy occurs with Eisenhower and his "retrenchment" objective.

b. The second offset strategy follows soon after Nixon and his "retrenchment" thinking. And that

c. Our current offset strategy is being developed at a time when "retrenchment" is said to be the strategy of our current president.

Thus:

a. "Offset strategies" to be understood,

b. Not so much from the perspective of increased capabilities of our enemies but, rather,

c. From the "cost-cutting" perspective/requirements of "retrenchment?"

thedrosophil

Fri, 09/11/2015 - 8:43am

I'm beyond fatigued at hearing this term, "offset", which describes little more than seeking the next gaggle of whizbang gadgets to preclude American policy-makers from having to actually develop a coherent strategy. The phenomenon of American troops "winning" on the battlefield while illiterate shepherds and derelict fanatics prevent any sort of strategic consolidation is maddening. It's long past time for the United States to stop seeking "offsets" and start developing a coherent strategy - e.g., objectives, rather than capability sets - to safeguard America's long-term interests.