7 Comments

A fine piece, sir. Regarding integrated deterrence and definitions, this recently published essay challenged some of my previously held ideas on the topic. Sharing in case you'd not yet seen it?

https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/flexible-response-and-integrated-deterrence-at-sea-in-the-21st-century-implications-for-the-u-s-navy/

Expand full comment
author

Thanks--for both your comments.

Expand full comment

Postscript. In reviewing your thoughtful responses to Travis H here, I believe a similar perspective could be appropriately applied to Professor Russell’s essay as well. Best.

Expand full comment

Bryan, great article as always. Long-term reader, first-time commenter. If you decide to come back to Integrated Deterrence, I'd love your thoughts on Hoffman's take on the possibilities for defining this concept: https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2022/01/08/guest-post-dr-frank-hoffman-on-conceptualizing-integrated-deterrence/

Expand full comment
author

Frank Hoffman does a superb job of laying things out here, and I agree that the Whole of Government approach to integrated deterrence makes sense. That said, my charge that the term remains ill-defined BY ITS CREATORS, and that there is really ANYTHING new and different about it as opposed to how we have deterred in the past--remains. Additionally, Kath Hicks' voluminous writing as a private citizen reinforces my assertion that this is about reining in DoD (the expensive, military functions in conventional deterrence) in order to achieve savings to apply elsewhere.

Expand full comment
author

I guess one other comment is worthwhile. That someone on the staff at NDU felt the need to write such a comprehensive piece attempting to create frameworks for understanding does NOTHING to undercut the perception that at least as projected by its creators, there was very little there, there.

Expand full comment

Great points, appreciate the responses!

Expand full comment