Today, Defense Secretary James Mattis unveiled the first U.S. Defense Strategy document in ten years. While there have been plenty of interim reports, this is the first comprehensive review in a decade and the first major defense policy document of the Trump administration.

Mattis says in the document that his intent is “to pursue urgent change on a significant scale.” That may be true, but when you peel back the surface of the 2018 U.S. Defense Strategy, you find that the major changes embrace trends that are already under way.

Nation Against Nation

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

This is our nation’s first #NationalDefenseStrategy in 10 years.

Today, America’s military reclaims an era of strategic purpose. Great power competition - not terrorism - is now the primary focus of U.S. National security. pic.twitter.com/PU2XcRVplu — Department of Defense 🇺🇸 (@DeptofDefense) January 19, 2018

The Pentagon’s central message: The U.S. military is refocusing on fighting other nations rather than terrorist groups. That means buying new equipment and embracing innovations so they reach the battlefield faster. “The erosion of U.S. military advantage vis-a-vis China and Russia, if unaddressed, could ultimately undermine our ability to deter aggression,” says Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Elbridge Colby.

Yet even this major takeaway from the document feels dated, more of a reflection of reality rather than a policy shift. Yes, the military had to rethink its strategy, gear, and tactics to fight insurgent groups instead of nation-states, but the pendulum has been swinging back the other way for a while now.

In 2013, for example, we covered live-fire exercises in the U.S. Marines Corps that pit them against foes with modern weapons. The bedrock tenets of what the Corps calls expeditionary maneuver warfare are rapid mobility, attacks from unexpected locations, and flexible battle planning. This ethos was ill-suited to the counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan but a return to this way of thinking is reflected in the newer hardware the Marines are using: The MV-22 Osprey, lightweight artillery, and warplanes that don’t need long runways to operate.

The Pentagon is keenly aware of the threat posed by China and Russia and the weapons that they sell around the world. The Air Force, Navy, and Army have all fielded equipment recently that is meant for modern, “near-peer” enemies. The Navy didn’t put new submarine-hunting airplanes into the air to fight terrorists, after all.

The document makes is clear that keeping a bootheel on terrorist groups will remain an ongoing effort within the DoD. Counter-terror operations in the Obama era were defined by using air power to back proxy armies in the Middle East and drone strikes to thwart terrorists elsewhere. Expect these standoff operations to continue.

What the Pentagon Can Learn From Silicon Valley

One question that sticks out is about the best way to modernize the military and speed up the slow, bloated process of getting new technology, gear, and weapons into service.

“We cannot expect success fighting tomorrow’s conflicts with yesterday’s weapons or equipment,” Mattis told reporters. This is a plea upgrade a military that fields 50-year-old airplanes, ships that are sailing through retirement, and nuclear missiles that rely on technology built in the 1970s.

This echoes the attitude of those in the Pentagon who are advocating for a more modern approach to development. They want to use commercially available products whenever possible, making the software easy to upgrade while keeping the same hardware in place. Another cause: rolling out new improvements when they are ready, the same way apps are downloaded to phones when they are available.

“Prototyping and experimentation should be used prior to defining requirements,” the document reads. “Platform electronics and software must be designed for routine replacement instead of static configurations that last more than a decade.”

This ethos also creates more opportunities for smaller, cutting edge firms. Opening up competition from smaller shops — like app developers do — could bring more innovative, entrepreneurial solutions to bear on defense industry problems.

Are We Really Stuck in Neutral?

The document says the nation is “emerging from a period of strategic atrophy.” This is tricky, since the U.S. military has been involved in what is sort of a renaissance in tactical warfare. Steady fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq has taught the Pentagon a lot of lessons over the last two decades: How to use ground robots, attack, and recon drones; how to track and hit individual targets by the air; the value of upgraded tanks for urban warfare; and special forces vehicles and guided paradrops for resupply. These are useful tools for any coming conflict, no matter the sophistication of the enemy.

It’s true that the strategic weapons in America's arsenal appear stagnant in comparison. But the vital research work on these platforms has continued; just look at hypersonic weapons, military space planes, and plans for a new stealth bomber. Upgrades to the nuclear missiles has been studied, proposed, and funded.

“New technologies include advanced computing, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed energy, hypersonics, and biotechnology,” the document says. “The very technologies that ensure we will be able to fight and win the wars of the future.” It doesn’t mention that more money will only lead to more innovation in these big programs if the innovation spurred by urgent battlefield needs can be imported to these bigger projects.

One thing that sticks out in the public release describing the document: “The Pentagon Library is full of documents that were announced with great fanfare, but ultimately were ignored or discarded. Officials say the National Defense Strategy will not be one of those.”

We'll see. The fact it references some priorities that are already under way improves the chances that this strategy will work—or at least appear to have worked.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io