Skin in the Game: Partnership in Establishing and Maintaining Global Security and Stability (en Inglés)
Reseña del libro "Skin in the Game: Partnership in Establishing and Maintaining Global Security and Stability (en Inglés)"
We operate in a complex and dynamic security environment. Planning assumptions that held for decades are no longer relevant; assumptions that are relevant today may not be next year. Asymmetric threats are exploding, and the level of complexity and the challenges that we face will only continue to grow. The United States simply cannot meet every challenge unilaterally. Resources are only part of the problem. Even if we had unlimited resources, we would still need the perspectives and skills that our partners can bring to bear to address increasingly complex issues. Deep, enduring partnerships based on shared values, mutual benefit, and trust are vital to maintain our security. Our partners bring critical capabilities that we often cannot duplicate. They also bring a multilateral approach to security that is increasingly important for economic, cultural, and political reasons. While the United States will maintain its role as the preeminent global power for the foreseeable future, the growth of China and other regional powers, as well as the appearance of new economic powers such as India, will make it difficult for any country to consistently act unilaterally. More to the point, however, multilateral action is in the Nation's best interests. As a global political, economic, and cultural power, U.S. prosperity is increasingly linked to global prosperity and strong partnerships. While we recognize the need for partnerships and say they are vital to securing our interests, the truth is that our partnership-building methods are locked into Cold War-era systems, processes, and policies. While these systems served us well at the time, they do not support the requirements in today's complex environment. For example, the Army's training facilities in Grafenwoehr and Hohenfels, Germany, are state-of-the-art facilities. They were built when the Army had two corps in Germany in order to provide training similar to that offered to troops at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. With the end of the Cold War, the United States moved many of these troops back to the continental United States (CONUS). However, the facilities remain vital to our efforts in Europe. They now form the Joint Multinational Training Center (JMTC) and are critical to our partnership-building and partner training efforts. Yet the resourcing models we use still reflect only the Army's usage and training requirements. As more forces may move back to CONUS, the Army resourcing models show a need for the facilities, and the Army is considering closing them. Yet as our troop footprint shrinks, JMTC's importance grows. It is an important visible sign of our presence in Europe and of our continued commitment to our allies and partners. Our resourcing models and systems must change to reflect the requirements of the new environment in which we operate. There are similar examples throughout our planning and resourcing systems from the Guidance for the Employment of the Forces through the synchronization of Department of State and Department of Defense programs and resources at the partner country level. We need to take a holistic look at these systems and ensure they meet the requirements of our new environment. The following book takes this approach. It provides a detailed analysis of what we need to do to effectively build and sustain enduring partnerships, examines our current state, and offers a roadmap with specific, actionable recommendations to strengthen our processes and employ a holistic joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational approach to partnerships. Two of the insights that I think we often miss are that our partners have a say in the process and that we need to manage the process as an integrated portfolio and make investment/reinvestment decisions based upon capability objectives that we and our partners agree upon. The U.S. military simply cannot engage alone.
