When the world's at stake,
go beyond the headlines.

In the crucible of global conflict, victory often hinges not on the mightiest weapons, but on the sinews of logistics. Just as the Liberty ships and Red Ball Express fueled the Allied advance in World War II, today’s military power rests on a robust logistics architecture — a mighty deterrent that can prevent wars as effectively as it enables them. The Department of Defense’s ability to endure is as important in deterring war as is the ability to destroy. However, unless the Department of Defense fundamentally changes how logistics is viewed and resourced, the United States stands a genuine chance of being unable to sustain protracted conflict against a pacing threat, much less deter a fight. In the realm of defense strategy, logistics has often taken a backseat to the more glamorous aspects of military investment, especially things that go “boom.” The good news is the department is taking concrete steps to address this critical vulnerability and, in doing so, significantly contributing to deterring conflict in the first place. But much more is required to offset the logistics “debt” that has accrued as a result of systemic underinvestment for the past several decades.

Think of it this way: a potential adversary is constantly assessing Defense Department capabilities. They’re not just looking at tanks, planes, and ships — they’re looking at the ability to sustain those tanks, planes, and ships. They’re asking themselves: “Can they execute their plan, and can they sustain their forces to complete that plan?” The department needs to answer that question with a resounding “yes!”

Is America’s logistics enterprise truly ready for the challenges of a modern battlefield? Adversaries aren’t just watching arsenals — they’re scrutinizing endurance. They want to know whether the United States could not only launch a military campaign but sustain it through its final objective.

To shift perception and reality, the Department of Defense should go beyond modest reform. It should pursue sweeping improvements in logistics investment, supply chain resilience, real-time visibility, and strategic investment. Only by confronting logistics debt and embracing endurance as deterrence can America project true strength — without ever firing a shot.

Visibility and Control: Inventory Awareness and Logistics Prioritization

Currently, the Department of Defense remains challenged in even seeing on-hand inventory of common items across the services and defense agencies. This must change. The good news is that work to build a common data foundation to see all inventory in near real time has been progressing well over the last two years. The challenge now lies in operationalizing this newfound visibility in two ways:

Real-Time Command Visibility

The ability for commanders to view inventory in real time at echelon will enable more dynamic and responsive logistics support. Where in the past, if I needed a widget, frequently my only available option was to order the widget from the source of supply — often a warehouse — or even a factory far removed from the battlefield. Total visibility, on the other hand, will enable commanders to more rapidly balance resources available to them — or at higher or adjacent units — rather than having to solely rely on an extended supply chain.

Prioritized Requisitions

The Department of Defense remains tied to legacy systems and processes that do not allow for actual prioritization of requisitions truly reflecting operational need. The underlying principle when balancing requisitions of nominally equal priority reflects little more than “first-in, first-out.” The Defense Department must develop the ability to globally prioritize by actual operational requirement, incorporating consideration of the theater, service, and weapon system. This will enable a focus on the greatest actual warfighting requirement. For example, a part for a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck in Texas is likely not nearly as important as that same part for a system supporting a Patriot battery somewhere in the Middle East. Yet the department lacks the ability to definitively ensure that the part gets to where it is most needed.

Ultimately, all of this is about supporting the warfighter. It’s about ensuring they have what they need, when they need it, to complete their mission and come home safely. But even with perfect visibility and streamlined processes, reaction times will not be quick enough if resources are too far from the point of need. That’s why forward posturing is a critical next step in enhancing logistics deterrence.

Forward Posturing

An argument can be made that forward positioning inventory and capability is not cost-efficient or that it could escalate tensions. And they have a point. A change in posture could be perceived as escalatory, depending on how it’s implemented. And it is certainly not cost effective, but if U.S. forces utilize forward-postured capabilities daily, as used in conflict, it enhances the deterrent effect. Utilizing repair parts, construction material, and fuel, for example, already distributed throughout a theater demonstrates to adversaries that the United States is serious, ready, and not going to be caught off guard. Forward positioning for “known knowns” provides the ability to flex for unknowns. This concept is foundational to implementing a successful regional sustainment framework, which seeks to leverage critical resources in key areas around the globe — enabling a faster and more effective response to any crisis. A functional regional framework weaves together inventory, organic repair capability, and commercial capacity with partners’ and allies’ capabilities. It isn’t just about stockpiling supplies and equipment or signing one-off agreements. It’s the net effect of capitalizing on what the department already has (i.e., deployable organic maintenance, extending interaction with industry, and building relationships with allies and partners).

Another powerful way to enhance forward posture is by synchronizing with the National Guard’s State Partnership Program. I’ve personally talked to guardsmen who testify to the strengths of these partnerships. What started in 1991 as a way to foster cooperation with the former Soviet Bloc nations has become a 30-year-long continuous program. This program is composed of 115 nations whose relationships with the National Guard provide as much to the United States as it does to those partners. Leveraging these existing relationships can provide valuable insights into regional needs, facilitate access to local resources, and enhance interoperability with partner forces.

Strategically positioning resources is only half the challenge. Inventory and capability will only carry us so far without needed investment in distribution capacity. While on still on active duty in the Marine Corps and serving in Iraq, I was responsible for connecting operational and battlefield distribution networks to maintain the ability to maneuver. Based on that experience, I learned that battlefield success unequivocally depends on successful distribution, which remains foundational to logistics and operations, but the current trajectory does not fully fulfill operational requirements. Particularly in extended theaters, the joint force’s ability to maneuver lies almost entirely on the distribution capacity that can be brought to bear quickly. Although interest in low-cost, easily produced, less “exquisite,” and attritable weapons systems is growing, there must be an equal amount of attention and resourcing put on similar platforms for logistics. Too much capability remains concentrated in a few exceptionally expensive platforms. Diversifying inter- and intra-theater lift requirements across lower-cost, easily produced, autonomous capabilities demonstrate a depth and resilience that exemplifies the deterrent effect of logistics in a definitive way.

Supply Chain Depth and Resilience: Building Redundancy

But forward posturing and distribution alone aren’t enough. Supply chain depth and resilience derived from a robust industrial base foundation is an imperative. The defense industrial base has been the subject of significant well-warranted attention recently. Initiatives to increase domestic manufacturing capacity and to achieve a higher degree of manufacturing and industrial refining independence are necessary and overdue. Sometimes less well understood is the fact that the defense industrial base is comprised of two elements. Commercial industrial capacity plus the department’s organic industrial capacity — commonly referred to as the organic industrial base — equals the totality of the defense industrial base. The organic industrial base is codified in statute to provide the department with surge capacity and to serve as a source of repair for aging weapon systems.

Better balanced investments are required to achieve increases in both commercial and organic capacity and depth. Specific investment is needed to build depth in specialized tooling, testing, and diagnostic equipment for aging platforms. For some systems, testing and repair are reliant on a single machine or test set for the entire inventory. Given long lead times to manufacture machining and testing equipment — often measured in years — investment is required now. Concurrently, increased investment is needed to leverage the organic industrial base for extraction and reclamation of critical materials. As a bridging strategy while enduring commercial capability matures, this could help reduce near to midterm reliance on offshore supply lines.

A new perspective about expanding industrial capacity writ large is needed. Given the imperative, non-traditional options for expansion warrant consideration. Most often, investment in new capacity rightly involves an understanding of the long-term requirement and a consistent demand signal from the government to spur commercial investment. However, the department could take an “informed inefficiency approach.” This means teaming with commercial partners, the organic industrial base, and private equity to facilitate capital investment into capacity not necessarily needed now but will be needed to fight and win in the future. The company could be reimbursed to maintain the equipment and offset their costs in exchange for preserving turnkey capacity for the department. If that equipment forever sits idle, and is never needed, logistics deterrence has succeeded.

Building out the organic industrial base’s production capability and integration across the services is driving the Department of Defense’s investment in a digital marketplace where each of the depots will have access to requirements generated by the services to enhance production of mission critical parts and components. In traveling to organic industrial base organizations around the county, it is clear that the depots have capacity to take this idea and make measurable improvements in parts availability through advanced manufacturing and machining of critical items. In speaking with the expert artisans who perform the day-to-day manufacturing and repair work, there is almost a universal desire to contribute more, to help above and beyond what they already do. The depots artisans have the skill, capability, and drive to function as a new source of supply for critical readiness driver parts where there is a lack of current suppliers.

But even the most robust supply chain is useless without the skilled professionals to manage and maintain it. Ultimately, people — their expertise and dedication — are the foundation of logistics deterrent.

People: The Ultimate Deterrent (and Vulnerability)

The workforce — their skills, experience, talent, and the way adversaries perceive them — is a deterrent in itself. But it can also be a vulnerability if large sections of the most experienced individuals within the workforce are lost or not properly cared for.

Over the past several decades, logisticians have created a sense of complacency. When is the last time that operations failed because of logistics? Conflict with non-peers did not stress the department’s logistics capabilities, and maneuver colleagues did not have to question the ability to sustain the operations. Complacency cannot creep back in. Investment must be made in training, education, and retention to ensure the best and brightest logisticians in the world are empowered to challenge policy, disrupt the status quo, innovate, and drive readiness to new heights.

Policy: Roadblock or Roadmap to Readiness?

Defense policy should be an enabler to mission accomplishment, not an impediment. It’s designed to help get the job done and to provide a framework for responsible action. However, the interpretation of policies has arguably become overly cautious, producing a risk-averse culture stifling innovation. Frequently, the worst part is that often the undefined “policy” that everyone claims is holding them back can’t be specifically referenced. I frequently hear, “policy won’t let me,” and almost as often that claim lacks details about exactly what policy is the obstacle. If you’re genuinely hampered by a real policy — quote the citation, chapter, and verse. Department of Defense leadership can challenge and change it, because policy is not law, and readiness is non-negotiable. Let’s cut the red tape and get back to the mission.

Securing the Future

Ultimately, the logistics deterrent effect provides a unifying rationale for investing in logistics capabilities. Beyond enabling the military to fight and win, robust logistics architecture disincentivizes war itself. When potential adversaries perceive enhanced ability to endure, they are less likely to engage in conflict. Ideally, stockpiles and redundancies will never have to be used, validating the deterrent value of logistics investments. Prioritizing logistics capabilities is not merely a matter of operational necessity. It is a strategic imperative. By investing in logistics deterrence, the United States can achieve a state of readiness that prevents conflict and ensures peace.

Patrick Kelleher serves as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for materiel readiness, overseeing the Defense Department’s $90 billion maintenance program and shaping policies that ensure readiness across major weapons systems and military equipment. He previously served as principal deputy director for strategic logistics on the Joint Staff, executive director for operations and sustainment at the Defense Logistics Agency, and on the Federal COVID-19 Response Team. He is a retired Marine officer.

The author would like to thank Mr. Dennis Rohler for his assistance with this article.

The perspectives presented here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or its components.

Image: Seaman Alex Lutje via DVIDS