During his Senate confirmation hearing to replace Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford was asked his opinion of the most serious threat facing the United States today. Given the continuing chaos across Syria and Iraq, one could easily assume his response would be “the Islamic State.” Another easy answer might have been China, especially considering its aggressive moves in the South China Sea and its proven ability to conduct costly cyberattacks on U.S. commercial and government computer networks. Conversely, the nominee for the nation’s top military position might have gone with something a little more unconventional, such as climate change.
But General Dunford didn’t choose any of these — instead, his answer was Russia. This may have come as a surprise to some. But when pressed by West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin to expand upon that response, Dunford cited a rather obvious reason for why Russia is at the top of his list. Specifically, he noted Russia’s nuclear arsenal makes it the only country in the world that poses an existential threat to the United States, and that its behavior lately has been “alarming.”
Notably, Secretary of State John Kerry publically disagreed with this assessment. This difference of opinion likely has less to do with a considered critique of Dunford’s analysis and more to do with the fact that Kerry is teamed with not just Russia, but China as well, in trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran at the moment.
Despite what may have been poor timing, the nominee was quite right that Russia’s nuclear arsenal could pose an existential threat, and Moscow’s recent behavior is problematic to say the least. However, these are not the reasons why Russia should be at the top of the threat list. The primary reason that Russia poses the greatest threat to U.S. national security today is because of its proven ability to hold at risk vital U.S. interests in the three most strategically important regions of the world — Europe, East Asia, and the petroleum producing areas of the Middle East.
Of the top 15 U.S. trading partners today — a group that accounts for nearly 75 percent of all U.S. imports and exports — 11 are located in Europe or East Asia. With the exception of China, these countries also share most U.S. values and norms. It should come as no surprise, then, that the United States has established treaty-based defensive alliances with nearly all of these countries. U.S. collective defense arrangements with allies in Europe and East Asia are not based on altruism, history, or institutional inertia — instead, they are vital to the U.S. economy and hence the American way of life.
Meanwhile, the unfolding fracking revolution is reducing American exposure to the vagaries of foreign petroleum suppliers, as well as revitalizing American manufacturing and contributing significantly to the ongoing economic upswing. However, the most important American trading partners in Europe and East Asia are still heavily reliant on petroleum products from the Middle East, so even as the United States becomes less so, these countries remain tied to the region. Moreover, oil is a global commodity. A supply disruption in say, Kuwait, affects the price of oil everywhere.
Foreign fighter attacks in Tunisia and France, as well as Islamic State ties to Boko Haram in Nigeria, may prompt some to conclude that the Islamic State has the ability to threaten American and allied interests around the globe. In reality, this seems open to debate and perhaps the most that can be proven conclusively at this point is that the Islamic State has the ability to inspire globally. In any case, the terrorism challenge it poses is not as potentially strategically decisive as Russia’s behavior. China’s actions in both the East and South China Seas clearly threaten stability in East and Southeast Asia. However, China poses virtually no threat to U.S. interests in Europe or the Middle East.
Russia, unlike the Islamic State or China, is the only entity on the planet that has the proven ability to decisively threaten American vital interests in all three of the regions most important to the United States, in part because Russia is physically connected to them. Certainly, Russia’s military stockpile of roughly 4,500 nuclear weapons appears threatening, but ultimately these weapons are only one tool in the service of Russian national security policy.
From Washington’s perspective, the most compelling aspect of Russia’s security policy is its zero-sum nature, a stark alternative to the West’s positive-sum approach, pursued to great success in most of Europe over the last several decades. To a large extent, Moscow’s zero-sum approach to national security is a function of Russia’s historical geopolitical position, with potential adversaries on three sides — Germanic peoples to the west, Muslims to the south, and Chinese and Japanese to the east. Under these circumstances, domestic political incentives appear to favor zero-sum approaches in national security. And the sooner the United States learns how to compete with Russia in a zero-sum context, the more effective it will be in responding to Gen. Dunford’s concerns.
Dr. John R. Deni is a Research Professor of Security Studies at the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. He is the founding editor of and a frequent contributor to the SSI Live podcast series, and you can follow him at @JohnRDeni.
Photo credit: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
CBCalif 
strategicservice 
Mark T 
Fortunately, General Dunford is wise enough not to characterize ISIS or Al Qaeda in the Middle East or China in the South China Sea as posing the most serious threat facing the U.S. today – or perhaps to America’s “actual” (versus perceived) strategic or national security interests around the world. I have added the qualifier “strategic or national security interest around the world” because that is the domain in which the military operates.
America’s only strategic national interest in the Middle East is to insure the flow of oil in the needed volumes, to the needed times, at realistic prices into the “Western” Economies, and insuring its minimal shipping costs via the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal. That limits the scope of our serious strategic concern in that area to insuring the stability of the countries (regimes) from which we acquire that oil – which can be accomplished by preventing ISIS military forces (such as they are) from traveling the roads and desert terrain into those oil areas.
Any threat members of those groups or their offspring / followers might pose to the security of this land / to our lifestyle is best handled, and can be handled, by our policing agencies and intelligence services. They are capable of containing that threat within manageable limits and removing it when it arises, recognizing that this country will suffer some losses from the criminal level activity associated with acts of terror carried out in this country by the followers of radical Islamic groups. Just as with crime from other organizations or individuals that threaten our people’s safety or security, some will succeed in avoiding detection. It simply, and unfortunately, is the cost of doing business or living in a modern (or any) society.
China and their neighboring countries, from a somewhat expansive geographic viewpoint, are competing for control of the South China Sea. Any realist grasps China is going to prevail in that contest. The “Three Warfares” strategy and “Salami Slicing” tactics China is employing to obtain that result is rather clever, and will succeed. Some Westerners view China or its actions as reflecting instability or as an emotional reaction to some other problem. They are neither, but in fact are purposeful, slow, and controlled moves guided by a leadership whose strategic thought process is guided by the Eastern wisdom of Sun Tzu and his successors. They do not adhere to the Clauswitzean logic that the aim of conflict is to destroy an enemy’s capabiliity to compete on the battlefield — recognizing the costs of that strategic approach is often self-defeating. The West could learn a lot from the philosophical underpinnings of China’s strategy but that would requiring substantial changes in our thought process.
In her past capacity, Secretary of State Clinton asserted the South China Sea to be part of the Sea Commons, but that utterance by her was as meaningful as that of the Russian “Reset” Button. It holds no water for the Chinese – who told her so. In fact, most of the sea borne commercial shipping transiting the South China Sea comes out of and goes into China. It is the equivalent of their Caribbean Sea from a geo-political perspective. Verbal discourses from a 7,500 miles distant (de facto decaying) Western Power is not going to change that fact. Unless this country wishes to continue carrying the costs of being the self-appointed policeman protecting (selected of) other countries around the world, it has precisely zero strategic national interests from an economic perspective in the South China Sea. Accordingly Chinese advances into the South Chin Sea cannot pose the most serious (if any) threat to the U.S.
That leaves the question, why declare “Russia” to pose the most serious threat to the U.S. As Professor Denni notes, General Dunford stated as his reasoning that: “noted Russia’s nuclear arsenal makes it the only country in the world that poses an existential threat to the United States, and that its behavior lately has been “alarming.” The first half of that statement makes (by its nature0 the rather illogical proposition that Russia would somehow allow itself to be drug into a nuclear war with the United States that would devastate both nations and bring their societies to an end. We have ivied with that stand off for approximately seven decades, and to assert that the situation now poses a higher level of threat than in past decades is simply unrealistic. There is nothing illogical or radically incoherent about Putin’s moves. We might not like his style, but he is proceeding in quite a rational and slow manner to restore Russia’s power position in the world, despite Western observers being unable to envision those realities.
The Professor’s concluding that: “The primary reason that Russia poses the greatest threat to U.S. national security today is because of its proven ability to hold at risk vital U.S. interests in the three most strategically important regions of the world — Europe, East Asia, and the petroleum producing areas of the Middle East,” is logical, but substantively incorrect.
Russia and the U.S. / the West have been competing for influence and some degree of control in the Middle East for many decades. At no time has Russia posed any meaningful threat to the petroleum producing areas from which the West obtains its oil. Instead, it is America’ Foreign Policy action that has threatened our interests in those areas. For instance, when the Obama Administration cutoff weapons purchases by the Egyptian government that action deeply concerned Saudi Arabia and other nations in that area, so they are now acquiring weapons from Russia and elsewhere. That may enable Russia to extend its influence into that area, especially when coupled with the current Administration’s actions being perceived as anti-Sunni and pro-Iranian and pro Shiite. That threat, if any, is emanating from the lack of strategic wisdom on the part of the Obama Administration, not due to Russian maneuvering.
As for East Asia, neither Russia nor the U.S. will be the deciding factor as to the course of events in that area of the world. Instead, it will be a contest between China and the other nations in that area; and in the end China will prevail and the other nation’s will simply do their best to coexist with them, absent each developing their own nuclear weapons capabilities.
Further, any belief that America’s economy relies on its trade (exports to and imports from) with the orient is simply misplaced. Those level of imports into the U.S. from Aisa have vastly exceeded the miniscule amounts of goods exported by the U.S. to East Asia – and that disparity is what has gutted America’s manufacturing and given this country a net loss of over 5.0 million higher paying manufacturing jobs (and another 2.5 million associated jobs), depleted our treasury of the tax revenues associated with those jobs, and allowed our corporations to shield their taxes by moving their production and income to Asia. The latter results are what caused much of our operating deficits, not overspending.
This country’s trade deficit with Asia is approximately $500 Billion per year – that is how much American money permanently leaves this country for Asia every year. Eventually, that will bankrupt this country. For this nation to strategically invest in efforts to sustain the economic destructions we are suffering due to our trade relations with Asia would be nothing short of strategic delusion and a fool’s game on our part. Securing trading relationships only matters when one has a net benefit from that relationship and America’s trade relationship with Asia produces, for the U.S., a substantial net loss – in dollars and jobs.
As for its actions in Europe, Russia is simply moving to restore the power position it had during the Cold war. If the European nations were / are truly concerned about that issue, then let them increase their defense spending and provide the necessary physical barrier to Russian advancement where they deem appropriate. The European members of NATO are not so doing, which indicates that America’s concern for their future is misplaced. Every large nation has a strategic sphere of influence. Russia’s sphere of influence most certainly includes the Ukraine, and eventually that country (The Ukraine) will have to accept that fact, or they will be slowly destroyed by a tactically salami slicing Russian advance. NATO is a meaningless organization absent a strong American participation. Pushing its membership right up to the borders of Russia, despite assurances to the contrary given to the Soviet Union’s last Premier, produced the current problems (if any) in Europe. The contest between Western Europe and Russia resulting from that move is between those parties, and the Western Europeans clearly are not investing in that contest. Therefore, neither should the U.S. It is occurring thousands of miles from our shores. We have greater concerns at home.
The most serious threat to the future of this country comes from our declining industrial base. A country cannot lose its manufacturing base, lose its associated employment, lose its resulting tax revenues, replace those losses with a large trade deficit, and remain a vibrant, economically growing nation with a vibrant middle class. A nation cannot produce a service based economy out of thin air. A service based economy requires an underlying source of income – which can only come from either manufacturing based business activities and employment and / or from the business based exploitation of one’s natural resources. The latter source of income will eventually decline due to the limitations of nature.
Yes, General Dunford is in the military and not the business world. But, when faced with a similar problem at the beginning of the 20th century, the Admirals of the Royal Navy understood the scope and then current and future impact on Britain (and on the future of the Royal Navy) from their nation then losing its industrial base, losing their shipyards to foreign countries and accordingly losing the industrial skills and tax revenues on which the Royal Navy relied. Clearly, England failed to positively solve that problem by resurrecting its industrial base. Now that nation and its Navy are shells of their once great self. That is what awaits this nation, thus it is without a doubt the most serious threat to this nation. Read “Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution,” which details how the RN’s Admirals attempted to deal with that problem facing Britain at the turn of the last century, if one is interested. It is very well written, by Nicholas Lambert (?), and should be required reading for all American Flag level Officers, if not all out Nation’s military officers.
“This country’s trade deficit with Asia is approximately $500 Billion per year – that is how much American money permanently leaves this country for Asia every year. Eventually, that will bankrupt this country.”
This is so laughably wrong that I wonder if you even think you have any idea what you’re talking about when you write it. I will attempt to explain why you are so far off the mark in as little space as I can.
The United States is often called the world’s reserve currency. A reserve currency is a currency in which the world’s nations “store” their wealth because the currency’s value is considered exceptionally stable. This essentially creates foreign “demand” (in the traditional market sense) for US dollars, which increases their market value out of proportion to their actual value. In practical terms, this means that the US is able to borrow money orders of magnitude more cheaply than it should be able to in purely macroeconomic terms. In fact, global economic growth virtually requires the United States to borrow in order to ensure an adequate flow of US currency. This was actually acknowledged at Bretton Woods as being a problem for the US economy, with the “solution” being that the United States would have to become a service economy in order to create a trade deficit with the rest of the world and thus allow a continuing supply of reserve currency by ensuring the United States would need to create debt for itself somehow. So in essence, the continued indebtedness of the United States is required in order for global economic growth to continue.
HOWEVER.
The dollar is the world’s reserve currency only because everyone believes the United States will always be able to service its debts. So the answer is that we NEED to be in debt, and to run a trade deficit, and it needs to be sustainable, BUT the size of the debt and its sustainability depends on how much other countries value the US dollar… which is dependent on its perceived stability.
If you are thinking this entire system is a ponzi scheme, congratulations! You are now an economist.
The Russian federation is a failed state. As the eminent scholar of the former Soviet space Paul Goble recently reminded his readers: “Few concepts are more often misunderstood than that of “a failed state.” Such a state is not one on which there are no powerful institutions, but rather it is one in which there is no central authority which exercises control over actions on all of its territory and which at least tries to enforce its own laws on the population.”
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/07/russia-failed-state-because-it-doesnt.html
also see: see “Russia’s Aggression Now Reflects RSFSR’s Past Failure to Become a State, Pornitkov Say,” http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/03/russias-aggression-now-reflects-rsfsrs.html
In which light, what we may be beginning to see is the final disintegration of the Soviet Union; a process which was halted when the RSFSR shortened it’s name to Russian Federation as Moscow reasserted it’s authority over what was left and temporarily devolved some powers to new administrative structures in the regions that had never existed within the RSFSR until the Gorbachev years.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/crimea-is-the-final-nail-in-the-soviet-unions-coffin/517715.html
“They are neither, but in fact are purposeful, slow, and controlled moves guided by a leadership whose strategic thought process is guided by the Eastern wisdom of Sun Tzu and his successors.”
This is true. If you want to understand China, read Sun Tzu’s book The Art of War. You can read more at sonshi.com