2018 National Defense Strategy

2018 National Defense Strategy
Name	2018 National Defense Strategy
Caption	Seal of the United States Department of Defense
Date	2018
Author	James Mattis
Type	Defense strategy
Country	United States

2018 National Defense Strategy The 2018 National Defense Strategy articulated a prioritized framework for United States Department of Defense planning, emphasizing strategic competition with near-peer competitors and directing changes across force posture, procurement, and alliance engagement. Framed during the administration of Donald Trump and authored under James Mattis, the document recalibrated priorities in response to perceived threats from People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, while addressing challenges posed by North Korea and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The strategy informed subsequent decisions affecting the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, and agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Background and Development

The strategy followed a sequence of planning documents including the National Security Strategy (2017) and built on historical precedents like the National Military Strategy cycles after the Cold War and the Post–Cold War era. Development drew on inputs from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and combatant commands such as United States Indo-Pacific Command, United States European Command, and United States Central Command. Influences included lessons from the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), and policy debates tied to the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Senior civilian and uniformed leaders including H. R. McMaster and Jim Mattis debated force-sizing constructs, while congressional actors such as members of the United States Senate Armed Services Committee and the United States House Committee on Armed Services shaped funding and oversight.

Key Strategic Objectives

The document prioritized three lines of effort: defending the homeland, deterring strategic attacks, and sustaining a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific and Europe. It identified the People's Republic of China as a pacing challenge and the Russian Federation as an acute threat to stability in Eurasia, referencing events like the Crimean crisis and interference allegations tied to the 2016 United States elections. The strategy emphasized integrated deterrence across domains referenced in debates over cybersecurity after incidents such as the Sony Pictures hack and sought to counter anti-access/area-denial concepts similar to strategies observed in the South China Sea disputes. It also addressed transregional threats from violent extremist organizations including Al-Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and contingencies on the Korean Peninsula following provocations by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Force Posture and Modernization

To implement its objectives the strategy called for modernization of nuclear forces overseen by United States Strategic Command and investments in advanced capabilities from agencies like DARPA and contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. It prioritized development of long-range precision fires reminiscent of Cold War-era standoff modernization and emphasized capabilities in space coordinated with United States Space Command and the later-established United States Space Force. Naval expansion referenced concepts tied to carrier strike groups and littoral capabilities in zones such as the South China Sea and the Baltic Sea. Airpower modernization included platforms like the F-35 Lightning II and next-generation long-range strike systems. The strategy influenced basing and rotational deployments involving allies such as Japan, Australia, United Kingdom, and NATO members including Poland and Romania.

Implementation and Policy Changes

Implementation led to policy shifts including budget requests emphasizing procurement accounts in the National Defense Authorization Act cycles and changes to acquisition authorities addressing incentives similar to those in the Defense Production Act debates. The Defense Department adjusted force structure proposals affecting brigade combat teams and carrier air wings, and pursued operational concepts such as distributed lethality and integrated air and missile defense tested in exercises like RIMPAC and Defender-Europe. Personnel policies, readiness metrics, and training priorities were realigned with scenarios that included high-end competition and crisis response in theaters like the Indo-Pacific and Europe. The strategy shaped U.S. posture in bilateral arrangements such as the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and multilateral forums like ASEAN Regional Forum and NATO summits.

International and Alliance Implications

Allied reactions varied: some partners including United Kingdom and Australia endorsed renewed emphasis on deterrence and interoperability, while others debated burden-sharing issues highlighted in exchanges with NATO leaders and discussions with the European Union. The prioritization of the Indo-Pacific prompted expanded engagement with partners such as India, Philippines, and South Korea, influencing initiatives like trilateral dialogues that included Japan. Security cooperation, arms sales such as Aegis Combat System deployments, and joint exercises were leveraged to reassure allies and deter potential coercion in maritime disputes involving China and regional claimants.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics from think tanks including the Center for Strategic and International Studies and scholars at institutions like Harvard Kennedy School argued the strategy risked diverting attention from counterterrorism and stability operations exemplified by missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some members of the United States Congress and advocacy groups questioned budgetary assumptions and readiness trade-offs tied to force modernization plans involving contractors such as Raytheon Technologies. Human rights organizations and diplomats raised concerns over escalation risks with North Korea and Russia, and analysts debated whether emphasis on great power competition increased the likelihood of incidents similar to the 2014 Crimean crisis or 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt spillover effects. Debates continued over metrics for success, the balance between deterrence and diplomacy in forums like the United Nations Security Council, and the long-term sustainability of procurement and basing commitments.

Category:United States defense policy