{"title":"U.S. Arctic security strategies: balancing strategic and operational dimensions","authors":"T. Bouffard, Lindsay L. Rodman","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To date, the American Arctic approach is mostly geostrategically focused, to the exclusion of operational and tactical considerations. Moreover, the strategic components often work towards identifying and defining the problem while offering little in the way of solutions. As a result, Department of Defense (DOD) Arctic policies represent strategic thinking that is reflective of the national discourse, but lacking in doctrinal, Service-level or COCOM direction needed to establish operational and tactical guidance. Aside from the U.S. Coast Guard, DOD joint and service components – especially those with published Arctic policies – have had no national direction to do otherwise than to focus on geopolitical framing. In this article, we suggest that the United States should seek more balance between strategic imperatives and operational requirements and activities. This article begins with a discussion of the theory and doctrine addressing the relationship between the operational and strategic levels. We then survey relevant strategic documents from the U.S. government, seeking to find guidance that would inform both the American strategic approach to arctic security and any operational requirements that result from the strategic approach. Ultimately, we conclude that prioritisation of the Arctic will become apparent when and if the United States sends a demand signal vis-à-vis the National Security Strategy and subsequently establishes clear defence and fiscal mandates in support of stable, programmatic requirements towards operationally defined missions and capabilities.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"160 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polar Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
ABSTRACT To date, the American Arctic approach is mostly geostrategically focused, to the exclusion of operational and tactical considerations. Moreover, the strategic components often work towards identifying and defining the problem while offering little in the way of solutions. As a result, Department of Defense (DOD) Arctic policies represent strategic thinking that is reflective of the national discourse, but lacking in doctrinal, Service-level or COCOM direction needed to establish operational and tactical guidance. Aside from the U.S. Coast Guard, DOD joint and service components – especially those with published Arctic policies – have had no national direction to do otherwise than to focus on geopolitical framing. In this article, we suggest that the United States should seek more balance between strategic imperatives and operational requirements and activities. This article begins with a discussion of the theory and doctrine addressing the relationship between the operational and strategic levels. We then survey relevant strategic documents from the U.S. government, seeking to find guidance that would inform both the American strategic approach to arctic security and any operational requirements that result from the strategic approach. Ultimately, we conclude that prioritisation of the Arctic will become apparent when and if the United States sends a demand signal vis-à-vis the National Security Strategy and subsequently establishes clear defence and fiscal mandates in support of stable, programmatic requirements towards operationally defined missions and capabilities.
Polar JournalArts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍:
Antarctica and the Arctic are of crucial importance to global security. Their governance and the patterns of human interactions there are increasingly contentious; mining, tourism, bioprospecting, and fishing are but a few of the many issues of contention, while environmental concerns such as melting ice sheets have a global impact. The Polar Journal is a forum for the scholarly discussion of polar issues from a social science and humanities perspective and brings together the considerable number of specialists and policy makers working on these crucial regions across multiple disciplines. The journal welcomes papers on polar affairs from all fields of the social sciences and the humanities and is especially interested in publishing policy-relevant research. Each issue of the journal either features articles from different disciplines on polar affairs or is a topical theme from a range of scholarly approaches. Topics include: • Polar governance and policy • Polar history, heritage, and culture • Polar economics • Polar politics • Music, art, and literature of the polar regions • Polar tourism • Polar geography and geopolitics • Polar psychology • Polar archaeology Manuscript types accepted: • Regular articles • Research reports • Opinion pieces • Book Reviews • Conference Reports.