This monograph describes the evolution of the U.S. global defense posture from 1783 to the present as the nation grew from a relatively weak and insular regional power into the preeminent global power. As new and unpredictable threats emerge, alliance relationships are revised, and resources decline, past efforts at dealing with similar problems yield important lessons for future decisions.
Download
Download eBook for Free
Full Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 1.7 MB | Best for desktop computers. Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
| ePub file | 4.5 MB | Best for mobile devices. On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view ePub files. Calibre is an example of a free and open source e-book library management application. |
| mobi file | 4.5 MB | Best for Kindle 1-3. On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view mobi files. Amazon Kindle is the most popular reader for mobi files. |
Summary Only
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback144 pages | $32.50 | $26.00 20% Web Discount |
Research Questions
- How has the U.S. defense posture evolved over the nation's 200-plus years?
- What lessons can be drawn from this history as the United States plans for a future with new, yet somehow familiar, challenges?
Debates over the U.S. global defense posture are not new. As policymakers today evaluate the U.S. forward military presence, it is important that they understand how and why the U.S. global posture has changed in the past. Today's posture is under increasing pressure from a number of sources, including budgetary constraints, precision-guided weapons that reduce the survivability of forward bases, and host-nation opposition to a U.S. military presence. This monograph aims to describe the evolution of the U.S. global defense posture from 1783 to the present and to explain how the United States has grown from a relatively weak and insular regional power that was primarily concerned with territorial defense into the preeminent global power, with an expansive system of overseas bases and forward-deployed forces that enable it to conduct expeditionary operations around the globe. This historical overview has important implications for current policy and future efforts to develop an American military strategy, in particular the scope, size, and type of military presence overseas. As new and unpredictable threats emerge, alliance relationships are revised, and resources decline, past efforts at dealing with similar problems yield important lessons for future decisions. The author draws recommendations out of these lessons that touch on the importance of strategic planning; the need to think globally; the desirability of a lighter, more agile footprint overseas; and more.
Key Findings
Since independence, senior officials have developed and at least partially implemented seven distinct and identifiable U.S. global postures.
- These were continental defense (1783-1815), continental defense and commercialism (1815-1898), oceanic posture and surge deployments (1906-1938), hemispheric defense (1938-1941), perimeter defense in depth (1943-1949), concentrated defense in depth (1950-1989), and expeditionary defense in depth (1990-present).
Three critical breakpoints stand out because of their enduring influence.
- To protect U.S. overseas trade from predators, the U.S. Navy began to station squadrons of ships in key international waters.
- The acquisition of territories in the Far East and Caribbean as a consequence of the U.S. victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 both improved the ability of the nation to operate overseas and added a new justification.
- World War II and its aftermath led to an enduring shift toward defense in depth, ensuring the security of the nation through a robust forward presence.
Host nations may agree to a U.S. military presence because they perceive a shared threat or in consideration of a transaction, such as payments.
- If the perception of shared threat declines, the host nation may be less willing to tolerate the U.S. presence.
- The U.S. military may have to leave or offer some sort of transaction to maintain the relationship.
Recommendations
- Strategic planning continues to be critical.
- A truly global perspective, driven from the top down rather than regional concerns alone, remains important.
- Basing efforts inside and outside the continental United States should be connected.
- The United States should adopt a posture that is more versatile and less costly, vulnerable, and conspicuous.
- Moments when shared perception of threat is rising offer opportunities to expand presence in key regions.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter Two
Framework for the U.S. Posture
Chapter Three
Continental Defense, 1783-1815
Chapter Four
Continental Defense and Commercialism, 1815-1898
Chapter Five
Transition Period, 1898-1905
Chapter Six
Oceanic Posture, 1906-1938
Chapter Seven
Hemispheric Defense, 1938-1941
Chapter Eight
Perimeter Defense in Depth, 1943-1949
Chapter Nine
Consolidated Defense in Depth, 1950-1989
Chapter Ten
Expeditionary Defense in Depth, 1990-2011
Chapter Eleven
Findings and Recommendations
Research conducted by
The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force and conducted by RAND Project AIR FORCE.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.