(Instruments of Power: 3 of 4)
Post 23 of 72! We’re already nearing completion of the first third of this project…
Today’s post is on the third national instrument of power, the M of DIME: Military.
This post is intended to explore the following:
What is the purpose of the military as a national instrument of power?
How does America utilize its military?
Why should any of us care?
While I am a military member, my intent is to write this so anyone can take something valuable away from reading this.
Introduction
If you somehow arrived here without reading any prior posts, I decided to write this third of a four-post series on the Instruments of Power for a few reasons.
For one, I needed topics to write about for my monthly writing exercise project, 72 Airman’s Writings – this blog.
Second, I attended Squadron Officer School Class 22A. Among the many topics we discussed over the course of those five weeks was the National Instruments of Power.
Third, I figured that this would be a valuable opportunity to slightly increase my knowledge as a military officer. Even as a military member myself, I do not absorb knowledge of every facet of the military’s purpose, resources, methods or processes from mere membership, so it benefits me to remain curious, ask questions, and seek greater understanding.
Finally, I’m sharing the M of the DIME acronym with you in this post because we sometimes do things in order, and we’ve already written on the D for Diplomacy and the I for Information.
What is a military?
The question “What is a military?” probably sounds a little ridiculous, but I say that as a member of the American military. Maybe it’s not so obvious to just anyone?
Regardless, it’s a question worth answering.
If I ask myself what a military is without doing any further research, I reply:
“It’s a trained group of people intended to threaten or execute (perform) violent force upon entities to influence their behavior.” I’ve also been working on this “instruments of power” series for a while, though, so maybe my answer is already more researched than I would like it to be at this point for this specific post.
I asked my wife what her opinion was on what a military is, and she replied that it was a special group intended to protect things or to take things.
A close friend, asked the same question, answered “An armed force that is owned by a group that’s built for realizing that group’s ideals however necessary.”
Let’s see what my reading and interpretations dig up, shall we?
Among various results from a Google search, Wikipedia suggests that a military, AKA armed forces, is “a heavily armed, heavily organized force primarily intended for warfare.” Wikipedia also suggests that warfare “is characterized by extreme violence, destruction, and mortality…”
Seems like my friend hit the ‘armed force built for realizing something for a group’ bit, and I hit the ‘threaten or execute violent force’ bit… my wife hit an important piece we’ll catch further along in this post.
Having looked at Diplomacy, we see actions taken to influence other nations via discussions: negotiations, trade deals, and other non-violent ways.
Information sees the manipulation of knowledge – access, validity, applicability thereof – for advantages with/ against other nations.
Military influences upon other nations involve direct or threat of violence: breaking people, places, and things or suggesting the high and impending likelihood of breaking people, places, and things.
Militaries vary in their expression, but their fundamental essence is the capacity and ability to meaningfully apply force to other nations to influence their behavior.
How does America use its military?
This question can be answered in different ways, two of which are explored here:
“America uses its military by doing XYZ.”
“America enables its military by doing ABC.”
According to Joint Doctrine Note (JDN) 2-19[1], the strategic actions that the military performs in service to the nation includes: Assurance, Coercion, and Forcible Action.
Assurance presents our military in dynamic cooperation with other nations. Consider international exercises, humanitarian aid missions, and our military bases overseas. We utilize our military to demonstrate informational sharing, direct support for human lives, and the burden of defense abroad.
Part of my wife’s idea of the military fits in here: the military’s assurance actions are primarily protective.
Coercion is the poster child for that ‘threat of violence’ piece mentioned before. Its essence involves the persuasion of another nation or organization to behave differently or get slapped for it.
Coercion takes two forms: Deterrence and Compellence.
Deterrence is intended to discourage potential behavior. Establishing a military presence near an adversarial nation might limit that nation’s aspirations in that region as they are forced to acknowledge that a line exists which has severe consequences for being crossed.
Compellence, on the other hand, is intended to stop active behavior. It’s also a new word for me, which is exciting… Compellence includes both the ideas of ‘stop doing what you are currently doing’ and ‘start doing something that you currently are not doing.’ Rather than deterrence’s “if you do x, we will retaliate!” compellence pushes more “if you do x, then we won’t retaliate!” or “if you do not do x, we will retaliate!”
Forcible Action is beyond the discussion stage of coercion. When forcible action has been chosen, there is no longer any non-violent interaction between the acting and acted-upon states/ organizations.
Generally speaking, JDN 1-19[2] speaks to the functions of forcible action:
Defeat – Force fully desired circumstances upon the enemy.
Deny – Force prevention of the enemy’s desired circumstances.
Degrade – Force the capability of an enemy into a reduced state, facilitating Denial.
Disrupt – Force a segment of an enemy’s capabilities or effectiveness into a reduced state, facilitating Degradation.
Coercion and Forcible Action both fall under my wife’s idea of the military also being intended for taking things.
As for how America enables its military, JDN 2-19 points to three time-horizons being planned against. Simply put, the military plans at the short-, medium-, and long-term time-horizons, described as force employment, force development, and force design respectively.
Force Employment examines approximately “0 to 3 years ahead.” It primarily considers how the resources we have today can address the problems expected in the nearest term and in what priority. I posit that good words to pair with the idea of force employment are as follows:
Now. Pivot. Today. Tomorrow. Routine.
Force Development examines “roughly two to seven years ahead.” It considers what capabilities might be needed to address projected competition ‘soon’ rather than immediately. This and force design are the realms where myself and most of my fellow acquisition officers reside. Good pairings include:
Soon. Adapt. Shift. Improvisation.
Speaking of, Force Design examines “approximately 5 to 15 years ahead.” It considers what capabilities might be needed to stay ahead of projected competition in the future. Design asks what might be beyond current application of the latest technologies. This is a difficult realm of planning to live in, but it remains important for ensuring that we can viably assure, coerce, or force national will.
Basically, the military is enabled through planning, but the planning windows America explicitly uses are force employment, development, and design – planning for today, planning for this generation, and planning for next generation, if you so like.
Takeaways
In a “blink and you’ll miss it” way, there is a key phrase I utilized that I think everyone – service member and civilian – should keep in mind. The military acts in service to the nation. The military is only one part of the instruments of national power and is, by policy, generally subordinate to/ utilizes/ facilitates the other instruments of power.
If you wanted to convert the concepts of the military as a national instrument of power into a personal instrument of power, perhaps the primary takeaway is to plan ahead and be ready.
The instruments of power are there to facilitate national goals. If you have personal goals, you need to utilize social skills (reflection of diplomacy), research and verifying skills (reflection of diplomacy), planning, projecting, and preparing skills (reflection of the military), and…
…I suppose we’ll have to see what the Economic instrument of power has to add in the series-finale post around the end of May!
References
[1] Joint Doctrine Note 2-19: Strategy, 10 December 2019 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/jdn_jg/jdn2_19.pdf
[2] Joint Doctrine Note 1-19: Competition Continuum, 3 June 2019
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/jdn_jg/jdn1_19.pdf
72 Airman's Writings 
One thought on “April 2023: Military”