top of page

Navigating Offensive and Defensive Approaches in Great Power Competition

The Challenge of Strategic Balance: Maintain or improve the status quo without assuming a complacent defensive stance.


STRATEGY CENTRAL

By and For Practitioners

By Monte Erfourth – December 22, 2024

As the enforcer of the current global order, the U.S. is typically in a defensive role.

Introduction

For the United States, maintaining its position as the preeminent global superpower—one that enforces an international order rooted in liberal democratic norms—is both a daunting and vital national security objective. The challenge lies not merely in the preparation for war but in the daily task of operating within an evolving geopolitical environment. This requires military strategists to think beyond traditional notions of offense and defense, balancing competing imperatives to sustain and strengthen the global status quo while attempting to get beyond the reactionary mode of countering rivals exploiting methods below the armed conflict threshold. The challenge of our geopolitical times is maintaining or improving the status quo while not assuming a complacent defensive stance.

 

The Static Burden of Dominance

The United States’ dominant position at the top of the international hierarchy necessitates a unique approach to strategy. Unlike rising powers such as China and Russia, which seek to challenge and reshape the order, the U.S. must focus on preserving its gains and deterring disruptions to the existing system. This creates a somewhat static posture, requiring a mix of vigilance and adaptability. A purely defensive strategy risks ceding initiative to adversaries, while an overly aggressive approach could provoke unnecessary conflicts or overextend U.S. resources.

 

China and Russia represent the primary threats to U.S. dominance. Both nations have learned to exploit the U.S.-enforced order to their advantage. China’s economic ascent, bolstered by participation in global trade networks, has allowed Beijing to fund its military modernization and expand its influence. Simultaneously, it undermines U.S. interests through gray-zone operations, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, lawfare, economic coercion and information warfare. Russia, though less economically potent, excels in asymmetric tactics, employing cyberattacks, election interference, and paramilitary actions to erode U.S. influence and sow discord within allied and non-allied nations.

 

These actions highlight a central dilemma for U.S. military strategists: how to counter subversive efforts that challenge the liberal order without escalating into direct conflict or becoming complacent about deterrence. The answer lies in a nuanced combination of offensive and defensive strategies tailored to the complexities of great power competition.

 

Deterrence: Beyond the Traditional Model

Deterrence has long served as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy. Traditionally understood as the ability to dissuade adversaries through the credible threat of retaliation, deterrence remains relevant but increasingly inadequate in its classical form. Technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and cyber capabilities, have transformed the strategic landscape, rendering traditional models of deterrence—rooted in nuclear and conventional military superiority—insufficient.

 

Adversaries now operate below the threshold of armed conflict, engaging in activities that fall within the so-called gray zone. These actions exploit legal ambiguities, challenge norms without overt violations, and avoid triggering conventional military responses. For instance, China’s construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea exemplifies a calculated strategy that asserts dominance while staying below the level of open warfare.

 

To address these challenges, the U.S. military must adapt its deterrence framework. This involves integrating new technologies, enhancing readiness for non-traditional threats, and demonstrating the ability to counter gray-zone activities effectively. Cyber deterrence, for example, requires robust defensive measures and the capability to impose costs on adversaries through offensive cyber operations. Similarly, maintaining credible deterrence in space demands the development of resilient systems capable of withstanding and responding to attacks on critical satellites.

 

The Need for an Offensive Edge

While deterrence emphasizes defense, it must be complemented by offensive strategies that impose costs on adversaries and shape the strategic environment. The U.S. military’s ability to project power remains a key asset. Forward-deployed forces, freedom of navigation operations, exercises, and strategic partnerships are tangible demonstrations of U.S. commitment and capability… and a commitment to predictability.

 

To be effective, offensive actions must be calibrated to avoid unnecessary escalation while simultaneously degrading and deterring rivals from creating influence and leverage that creates an advantage against the US. This requires precision and proportionality. In the cyber domain, for example, offensive operations might target adversary infrastructure involved in gray-zone activities, sending a clear message without crossing into open conflict. Similarly, countering adversary propaganda with well-crafted narratives in the information domain can undermine their influence while reinforcing the credibility of U.S. commitments. However, it's important to remember that sabotage, deception, psychological operation, and Information warfare can also play a significant role in creating a US advantage.

 

Offensive strategies should focus on undermining the foundations of adversary power by targeting their strategies while simultaneously seizing opportunities to advance U.S. interests. For China, this could involve disrupting its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through targeted economic measures or supporting regional allies in countering Chinese influence. Strengthening U.S. participation in international trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), would provide a robust alternative to the BRI while fostering economic partnerships that advance U.S. prosperity. Investing in cutting-edge technologies like AI and quantum computing can ensure a technological edge while limiting China's access to critical resources and innovations. Additionally, promoting economic development initiatives in Africa and Southeast Asia positions the U.S. as a preferred partner, diluting China's narrative of indispensability in these regions.

 

For Russia, countering its asymmetric tactics might involve exposing and neutralizing its covert operations, diminishing its ability to project power on the cheap. Expanding energy independence for Europe through investments in renewable energy and alternative natural gas supplies can reduce Russia's leverage over European states. Building coalitions with former Soviet states to foster regional economic and security cooperation could counter Russian influence in its "near abroad," while amplifying efforts to expose corruption within Russia undermines domestic and oligarchic support for the Kremlin.

 

More broadly, offensive strategies should leverage global organizations to establish norms that limit adversarial tactics while highlighting U.S. leadership in rule-based governance. By simultaneously advancing innovation ecosystems, strengthening cultural exchanges, and amplifying the appeal of liberal democratic values, the U.S. can outcompete authoritarian systems ideologically and strategically. In this way, offensive strategies become a dual-edged approach: attacking rival strategies while cementing U.S. strengths and global leadership.

 

To those of you with a historical bent, this may look familiar. George F. Kennan’s "Long Telegram" and subsequent writings outlined a strategy to counter Soviet expansion by simultaneously attacking its weaknesses and advancing U.S. interests. He advocated for containment, a policy preventing Soviet expansion by exploiting the inefficiencies, instability, and overreach inherent in the Soviet system. At the same time, Kennan emphasized strengthening the U.S. and its allies through economic initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which fostered post-war recovery and countered Soviet influence, and by promoting the ideological and moral superiority of democracy and free markets. This dual approach—undermining adversaries while consolidating U.S. strengths—became the cornerstone of Cold War strategy and remains a model for addressing rival powers today.

 

The Golden Mean: Integrating Offense and Defense

Achieving the right balance between offensive and defensive strategies requires a coherent and integrated approach. This begins with a clear understanding of the strategic objectives: preserving the liberal international order, deterring adversaries, and shaping the environment to sustain U.S. leadership.

 

One key element is the integration of military and non-military tools. Economic sanctions, diplomatic initiatives, and information campaigns must complement military actions, creating a unified strategy that leverages all elements of national power. For instance, countering Chinese economic coercion requires a combination of military presence, trade agreements, and investment in allied economies to provide alternatives to Chinese influence.

 

Another critical factor is adaptability. The strategic environment constantly evolves, driven by technological innovation, shifting alliances, and changing adversary tactics. The U.S. military must remain agile, capable of adjusting its approach to new challenges. This requires a culture of innovation, supported by investments in research and development, wargaming, and scenario planning.

 

Joint operations and interoperability also play a crucial role. The ability to integrate across domains—land, sea, air, space, and cyber—provides a decisive advantage. For example, integrating cyber capabilities with traditional military operations can enhance both offensive and defensive effectiveness. Similarly, interoperability with allies ensures a coordinated response to shared threats, amplifying the impact of U.S. actions.

 

At the grand strategic level, it is important to maintain the balance between diplomacy, military power, and economic vitality, as their interdependence forms a virtuous cycle when effectively managed. A great economy sustains and supports effective diplomacy, which, in turn, amplifies economic influence and fosters international partnerships. Information strengthens both diplomacy and the military, preparing strategies while enabling precision and agility. The economy underpins the military by providing resources to develop and maintain capabilities that protect economic vitality from physical threats. Mismanaging this balance—whether by overreliance on military power at the expense of diplomacy or neglecting military readiness in favor of economic or diplomatic efforts—can lead to disaster. The golden mean of wielding great power lies in being strong and effective in all areas of national power, integrating them into synergistic capabilities that adapt to evolving challenges while sustaining long-term U.S. leadership.

 

Learning from History

Historical examples provide valuable lessons for navigating the complexities of great power competition, illustrating the opportunities for effective strategy and the dangers of imbalance. The Cold War, for instance, demonstrates the importance of strategic patience and resilience. The U.S. containment strategy combined military deterrence with economic and ideological competition, ultimately outlasting the Soviet Union without direct conflict. However, the Cold War also underscores the risks of miscalculation and overreach, as seen in conflicts like Vietnam, where an overemphasis on military solutions without clear strategic integration led to costly and divisive outcomes.

 

The failures of World War I-era monarchies offer a stark example of the dangers of diplomatic breakdown and overreliance on military power. The great European powers of the time—Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia—neglected diplomacy in favor of escalating militarization and rigid alliances, creating a tinderbox of mutual suspicion. When diplomacy failed in 1914, the reliance on military mobilization plans dictated the trajectory of war, leading to unprecedented devastation. The collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires highlights how the inability to balance internal governance, diplomacy, and military readiness can hasten the downfall of great powers.

 

Conversely, Rome offers an example of getting the balance right during its expansion but also a cautionary tale about overextension and failure to adapt. In its early centuries, Rome combined military prowess with effective diplomacy, using alliances, trade, and infrastructure to integrate conquered territories. This synergy allowed Rome to expand its influence across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. However, over time, Rome's overreliance on military conquest strained its economy, while its inability to adapt to external pressures, such as barbarian invasions and internal political instability, led to its eventual decline. The failure to balance military, economic, and political needs ultimately weakened Rome's capacity to sustain its empire.

 

Today, the U.S. risks a trajectory of imbalance similar to past great powers. The overemphasis on military solutions to global challenges and underinvestment in diplomacy and economic resilience reflects a drift from the principles of integration and balance that underpin sustained leadership. For example, disproportionate military spending relative to diplomatic and development efforts risks neglecting the soft power necessary for influence and alliance-building. Furthermore, rising domestic polarization and economic inequality mirror the internal divisions that weakened great powers like Rome and the WWI-era monarchies. Learning from these historical examples, the U.S. must strive to align its military, economic, and diplomatic tools into a coherent strategy that adapts to evolving global dynamics while safeguarding its internal stability.

 

Conclusion: Sustaining Dominance in a Complex World

For the U.S., maintaining its position as the dominant global power requires more than military superiority; it demands a nuanced and integrated approach that balances offensive and defensive strategies while effectively leveraging all elements of national power. Success hinges on adapting to the evolving strategic landscape, combining credible deterrence with calibrated offensive actions, and integrating military efforts with diplomatic, economic, and informational tools. By doing so, the U.S. can preserve its security, sustain its leadership, and uphold the liberal international order that underpins global stability.

 

However, achieving a "whole-of-government" approach has proven persistently elusive. The failure does not stem from a lack of understanding of the need for integration—this necessity is well recognized. Instead, the obstacles lie in leadership deficits, stove-piped organizations, turf wars, cultural differences and problem-solving approaches among agencies, and deeply ingrained tribalism. The adage "you stand where you sit" aptly describes the entrenched perspectives that hinder cooperation and coordination. Without an impartial arbiter to reconcile these competing interests and weave these complex elements of power into a coherent strategy, efforts to achieve integration often falter.

 

It is time to embrace innovative solutions to overcome these human foibles, such as developing strategic AI capabilities. AI-generated strategies can analyze the permutations of military, economic, diplomatic, and informational tools, offering unbiased, realistic plans that integrate all elements of power. Such tools could provide the impartiality and coherence needed to craft unified national, regional, and local strategies, aligning ways and means to achieve critical objectives. While the technology exists, what remains lacking is the imagination and willingness to embrace its potential fully.

 

If the U.S. continues relying on aspirational "whole-of-government" strategies—often drafted by the military due to its organizational capacity but lacking true interagency integration—it risks falling short of the balance and realism required to sustain great power. It is imperative to do better, to move beyond rhetoric toward actionable, synergistic strategies that balance offense, defense, and the interconnected elements of national power. The stakes are too high to continue with neither working nor sustainable approaches. The U.S. must adapt, innovate, and lead with a renewed commitment to balance and integration. Only then can it secure its place in an increasingly competitive and complex world.


Given the scope and scale of being the global system enforcer is likely beyond the capacity of human management. We likely must turn to computing power to do what the human mind cannot: calculate everything, everywhere, all the time.

 


 

Bibliography

 

1. Freedman, Lawrence. Strategy: A History. Oxford University Press, 2013.

2. Gray, Colin S. Modern Strategy. Oxford University Press, 1999.

3. Nye, Joseph S. The Future of Power. PublicAffairs, 2011.

4. Posen, Barry R. Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Cornell University Press, 2014.

5. Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley, 1979.

6. Mazarr, Michael J. “Understanding Deterrence.” RAND Corporation, 2018. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE295.html

7. Brands, Hal, and Zack Cooper. "After the Responsible Stakeholder, What? Debating America’s China Strategy." Texas National Security Review, 2018.

8. Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Books, 2005.

9. Kissinger, Henry. World Order. Penguin Books, 2014.

10. Gerasimov, Valery. “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight.” Military-Industrial Courier, 2013.











Comentários


bottom of page