Veterans need and deserve an electronic health records system built in the 21st century. This system should improve communication and coordination among health care providers to ensure better care. Whether it’s a primary care physician, a specialist or a mental health counselor, all members of the health care team need access to read and update a veteran’s records in real-time.

Despite billions of dollars pledged and already spent to overhaul the system, the majority of veterans’ health records are still stuck in an antiquated system.

In 2017, Congress allocated $16 billion to build and implement a modern electronic health records system across the Department of Veterans Affairs’ vast structure of 170 medical centers. The stated goal remains to replace the VA’s outdated, expensive system with a technologically advanced system that can directly and seamlessly interact with the Defense Department’s worldwide system.

The VA has been working to implement the new system for seven years, but it is only operational in six of the VA’s 170 medical centers. At the same time, the DOD now has its new health records system fully deployed worldwide.

Once this crucial project is complete, veterans’ health records can be securely stored and accessed on one platform from the day they enter a military entrance processing station through the entirety of their military service and transition into veteran status. Every medical record can be stored and accessed in the same way no matter where in the world they find themselves. For babies born in military hospitals, this could include records from cradle to grave.

The VA has spun its wheels for seven expensive years, trying to modernize and catch up to DOD. Until that happens, these two systems cannot “talk” to each other. A communications crater continues to exist.

The overly cautious delays must end. Aggressive, focused deployments are needed by regional systems rather than just by individual medical centers. The VA’s 170 medical centers are organized into 18 regional systems, known as VISNs. Each VISN has its own director and executive staff overseeing about 10 VA medical centers. Deploying to a full VISN would more than double what it has been able to do so far.

The DOD’s worldwide rollout of its electronic health records system was also phased, but it was much more aggressive in scope, putting the system online across Europe in one phase.

Now, election-year political theater could threaten further delay or even the unthinkable: abandoning this necessary project altogether. Lawmakers are understandably frustrated by the lack of progress and apprehensive to continue appropriating tax dollars. AMVETS appreciates that the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees take seriously their duty to provide oversight and ensure tax dollars are put to good use.

AMVETS urges lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle to demand progress and an aggressive rollout in the immediate future and to visit the sites themselves as implementation takes place.

But political speeches and threats of pulling the proverbial plug are counterproductive. Every lawmaker in both congressional chambers must share the nonpartisan position that this system must be successfully brought online systemwide.

Failure cannot be an option.

The vast majority of VA’s 9.1 million patients are still in the dangerously outdated 46-year-old Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture system (VistA). VistA costs about a billion dollars a year to maintain. It isn’t nearly as stable as it needs to be to safely house such important, sensitive records.

The Pentagon is rightfully proud of the DOD’s modern health records system, MHS Genesis, which was deployed over the past seven years with much fewer issues. The VA needs to work even closer with the DOD to make this happen as soon as possible.

Until the new system is running nationwide, we veterans remain stuck with uncertainty and dysfunction.

As the national executive director of AMVETS, one of the nation’s largest and most inclusive congressionally chartered veterans service organizations, I strongly encourage the VA to build upon its recent successes and move urgently to implement an aggressive deployment schedule to bring a modern electronic health records system to all veterans.

Through a resolution passed by AMVETS’ membership at its national convention in August, AMVETS formally urges Congress to ensure the VA is leading and taking swift action to implement a modern electronic health records system for veterans.

History affords few moments to change the dynamics of a situation. Now is that time. We must do better for veterans and their families.

Joe Chenelly is the national executive director of AMVETS, a Marine Corps combat veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a former Military Times staff writer. Find him on X at @jchenelly.

Ukraine had wanted more. It has repeatedly sought permission to use U.S.-built Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles for long-range strikes deep in Russia. They have a range of up to 190 miles and, with their speed, are better able to hit mobile targets. Prior to Zelenskyy’s visit, there were hints the U.S. might provide Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM). Unlike ATACMS missiles, these missiles are abundant in the U.S. arsenal, and their stealth capability make them more effective at hitting defended targets.

White House announces billions in new Ukraine aid, new F-16 training

Sentiment in NATO is growing to give Ukraine more scope for action. This month the European Parliament asked European Union members to “immediately” lift deep strike restrictions, and so have top U.S. House Republicans and several leading congressional Democrats. Nonetheless, the U.S. approach remains hesitant.

There may be risks. On Sept. 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned an attack on Russia by a state backed by a nuclear power could lead to a nuclear response. He often cries nuclear wolf, but this time, his timing suggested worry that Biden might cave to pressures and unleash Ukraine to conduct more deep attacks.

A Russian nuclear response, however, seems unlikely and would probably bring little, if any, military gain. Russian troops are not trained to fight on a nuclear battlefield, as in the Cold War. Ukraine has few, if any, concentrated, high-value military targets. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have warned Putin not to go nuclear, while Biden has warned of “catastrophic consequences” if he does.

There is also a risk that some JASSMs might miss their targets or not be fully destroyed. Russia — and China — could analyze the debris to try to learn more about their stealth capability and sensitive electronics.

Time and again when Ukrainian forces have surprised or shocked Russia — from destroying or damaging one-third of its Black Sea fleet to seizing territory in Russia’s Kursk region — the Kremlin’s response has been weak. Suffering steep manpower losses and needing arms from Iran and North Korea, Russian forces may face limitations.

To its credit, Ukraine is doing a lot on its own to strike deep inside Russia. On Sept. 18, it carried out a stunning attack in Russia’s Tver region, blowing up a huge weapons depot in a blast akin to an earthquake. To overwhelm air defenses, Ukraine used over 100 slow-flying drones. The depot was 300 miles away from Ukraine, well beyond the 190-mile range of ATACMS missiles.

A welcome surprise has been Ukraine’s high-tech drone innovation. Former CIA Director General David Petraeus called it “unprecedented” in scale and pace. Even more is coming. Last month, Zelenskyy said Ukraine had deployed its first high-speed missile-drone, the Palianytsia.

But Ukraine needs more long-range strike power than its own aviation sector can provide. U.S. arms may be a valuable complement, despite their higher cost.

Last spring the U.S. began sending the long-range variant of ground-to-ground ATACMS missiles to Ukraine for use inside its territory. In occupied Crimea, they have ravaged Russia’s navy and air defenses and supporting infrastructure. ATACMS missiles are responsive and can hit mobile targets that elude drones. In June, the U.S. allowed Ukraine some added flexibility — to strike across the border inside Russia with ATACMS missiles wherever enemy forces were engaged in attacks.

On Sept. 26, Biden also promised to send hundreds more Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). Armed with them, Ukraine’s F-16s could shoot down some Russian combat aircraft in flight before they release devastating glide bombs.

The long-range strike mission is important for Ukraine, but so are other factors. It faces challenges in several areas, including a soldier shortage, inadequate defensive fortifications and uncertainties about future Western aid.

Nonetheless, the U.S. could benefit Ukraine by doing more to help it to conduct long-range strikes in Russia. Neither U.S. weapons nor Ukraine’s, by themselves, are enough. Together, they could raise the cost to Russia of its perfidy and help strengthen European security.

William Courtney is an adjunct senior fellow at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND research institution and was U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, Georgia, and a U.S.-Soviet commission to implement the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.

John Hoehn is an associate policy researcher at RAND and a former military analyst with the Congressional Research Service.

While many thrive in service, we must grapple with the reality that too many military families, particularly junior and middle enlisted families, are experiencing food insecurity, defined as the inability to consistently afford or access adequate meals.

Food insecurity among military families unacceptable, advocates say

According to Military Family Advisory Network’s latest research, one in four (27.7%) active duty military families are food insecure compared to 13.5% of U.S. households. MFAN’s findings are consistent with the Defense Department’s own research, which found that 24% of service members experienced food insecurity in 2022.

While the military is a microcosm of the broader population, the unique challenges and lived experiences of service members result in disproportionate rates of food insecurity. The nuances and complexities of military life, including the consequences of financial hardship, lead many to skip meals or choose less nutritious options.

How is it that those who put country before self experience food insecurity at more than twice the rate of civilians? The answer may be traced to the unique demands of military life, most notably frequent moves.

Military families move every two to three years on average. During a permanent change of station, families undergo a complete reset. Many military spouses are forced to leave their jobs and find new employment opportunities. Families must also pay first- and last-month’s rent to secure their next home and stock up on household essentials while also navigating new doctors, schools, child care and community — all without the support of an extended network.

Simply put, this reset is taxing on both pocketbooks and overall well-being.

Policy efforts to address food insecurity in the military are underway, pointing to a significant step in reducing the stigma surrounding this issue.

The Defense Department’s Taking Care of Our People initiative seeks to strengthen economic security for service members and their loved ones. The basic needs allowance, a monthly payment for military families whose household income falls below 150% of federal poverty guidelines, has been rolled out force-wide.

Inflation has some military families ‘grasping at pennies’

In the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress instituted a 5.2% pay raise, the largest in more than 20 years. In 2023, basic allowance for housing rates were increased by an average of 12%. The House Armed Services Committee formed a special panel and introduced a 31-point plan in the fiscal 2025 NDAA to evaluate military policies and strengthen service members’ quality of life.

Lawmakers have also proposed legislation to reduce barriers to federal nutrition programs, like removing service members’ housing allowance from income calculations for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as SNAP or food stamps.

Yet, the issue persists. The reality is that policy changes take time and families struggling to make ends meet do not have the luxury of time.

This is when public-private partnerships and motivated citizens have the opportunity to fill the gap. For example, initiatives are emerging to help active duty military families who have recently moved stock their pantry, offset moving costs, screen for food support and connect with their new community.

As a nation, we owe an immense debt to those who serve. And this is not just a military issue — our national security impacts us all. Solving food insecurity is about more than putting food on the table; it is offering dignified support for those who sacrifice so much for our freedoms. We must give service members and their families every opportunity not just to get by but thrive.

Shannon Razsadin is the spouse of a recently retired service member and CEO of the Military Family Advisory Network. MFAN’s mission is to understand and amplify the needs of military-connected families and inspire data-informed change.

Dave Flitman is CEO of US Foods, a leading food service distributor and corporate sponsor of Military Family Advisory Network programming. With a son serving in the U.S. Army, Flitman is passionate about serving members and veterans of the U.S. military forces.

Congress is poised to adopt language in the annual National Defense Authorization Act that would override governors’ authority over National Guard units. Adoption would seriously damage our national security, imperil military readiness, and infringe upon longstanding gubernatorial authority over National Guard units.

The good news is Congress has an opportunity to change course.

Earlier this year, the Department of the Air Force submitted Legislative Proposal 480, which aims to circumvent federal law requiring governors to consent to any transfer of National Guard units out of their respective states.

The end goal is to take Air National Guard units performing space missions out of their states and forcibly integrate them into the U.S. Space Force. This override of established federal law raised serious concerns within the National Guard community and united the nation’s 55 state and territorial governors in opposition to it.

The governors’ position is noteworthy.

It is rare that leaders of contrasting regional, political, and geographical constituencies find common ground on an issue. Their April statement against LP480 is focused on the potential impact on more than 450,000 Army and Air Guardsmen.

We share the view of the governors that LP480 “disregards gubernatorial authorities regarding the National Guard and undermines over 100 years of precedent as well as national security and military readiness.”

Over the last century, units have moved from one state to another. Or, as happened after World War II, units were dissolved. However, in every case, those actions were taken with the consent of the affected governors as required by law. In all our discussions with proponents of LP480, we’ve yet to receive an explanation as to why the law should no longer apply.

The National Guard Association of the United States, along with our partners, spent the last six months trying to find a solution to the LP480 problem. We have attempted to work directly with the Department of the Air Force to find a mutually beneficial arrangement that would not erode decades of federal law and create a capability gap in our national security infrastructure. We have also informed Congress on the potential detrimental effects that LP480 would have on our national security, including data which shows most affected airmen will not join the Space Force. The loss of these highly trained professionals would be immense.

The concern about precedent is not irrational. Currently, the Air Force is developing its cyber capabilities, in part, relying on a new Air National Guard unit. The Army Guard has the 91st Cyber Brigade with units in more than 30 states.

If LP480 is approved, the path for the federal government to avoid obtaining governors’ consent is open. What could come next? How would we prevent moving a C-130 wing out of a state and putting it into the active component? Or taking a brigade combat team out of the Army Guard and putting that into the active component?

Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall stated this is a “unique situation,” a one-off. Will the next secretary agree? Or another service chief? Readiness and force cohesion undoubtedly would suffer.

Furthermore, if those Airmen are moved into the Space Force, they lose access to State Partnership Program to support USSPACECOM/USSF priority security cooperation requirements.

At times, we have come close to reaching a compromise where there is a give and take on both sides of the disagreement. However, the intransigence and stubbornness of unelected Pentagon policymakers has prevented an amicable agreement from being reached. The good news is Congress has an opportunity to solve the problem with a consensus solution.

U.S., Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., courageously led efforts to amend the House version of the NDAA, addressing the concerns of the governors and Guard community. This language preserves the authority of governors while also providing a potential pathway for a voluntary transfer of the Guard units in question. Most importantly, it will prevent any capability gaps in our national security infrastructure. Should both chambers of Congress adopt the House language in the final version of the bill, the problem will solve itself and take one of many tasks off the Congressional to-do list.

In addition to following the law and ensuring national security, Congress should also take note that the next presidential administration may not be in favor of LP480. Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz is an opponent of LP480 and signed the letter against it earlier this year.

While Vice President Kamala Harris has not weighed in, it would be unwise for Congress to move forward with LP480 in its present form less than two months from election day. Additionally, former President Donald Trump is a supporter of establishing a Space National Guard – something which would be practically impossible should LP480 be adopted as currently written. We can all agree the next commander in chief should not be prevented from pursuing their vision for the armed forces before they are even sworn into office.

Secretary Kendall told The War Horse in a late May interview that the Air Force “can live with any result that comes out” of the debate over LP480. He added that if the Airmen with space missions “stay in the Air Guard, we’ll make that work.” Given an increasing reliance upon the Guard at home and abroad, we need to find a solution that recognizes the National Guard is an asset to our national security, not an impediment. Our soldiers and airmen continue to answer the nation’s call, just as they have done for centuries.

We urge the Senate to adopt the House version of the NDAA which maintains the governors’ authorities in accordance with longstanding law and also allows for the transfer of the units.

Frank McGinn is a retired Massachusetts Army National Guard major general and the president of the National Guard Association of the United States.

This will be challenging for many reasons, including the need for Congress to identify offsetting “pay-fors.” But without a solution, we are in danger of being unable to deliver on our commitment to our nation’s military heroes.

There are a number of reasons for the VA’s deficit. There is $3 billion tied to benefit expansion, but that leaves $12 billion for an increase in medical care. In a health system with a budget of more than $369 billion a year, there are certainly opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce waste, but a significant part of the deficit can be traced to the growth in veteran enrollment. Due to the eligibility changes enacted as part of the PACT Act, the VA has enrolled more than 740,000 veterans in the VA health administration in the past 24 months, a 33% increase from the previous two-year period.

Taking care of more veterans is a good thing, but the VA budget cannot expect unlimited growth without corresponding reductions in other parts of the broader health system. After all, when veterans receive their care from the VA, they are receiving less care from other government-sponsored programs and private health insurance companies. Those savings should be used to make up the VA’s operating losses, at least in large part.

The way to fix this problem is called “insurance subvention.” Subvention would allow for a structural change in reimbursement that aligns funding with the channels through which the care is delivered. The largest of these programs are Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid subvention would allow the VA to receive reimbursement from those programs when they care for a veteran who is also enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid.

Subvention does more than just align financial resources to the way care is delivered. Receiving payment for caring for patients with Medicare and Medicaid coverage will also orient VA leaders to improving access that invites further growth and to increasing performance and the quality of care to be competitive with other options for health care that veterans may have.

Medicare subvention is not a new idea. Decades ago, the Department of Defense completed a demonstration project with military retirees. At the VA, Medicare subvention was proposed in 1999, back when the VA’s budget was only $43 billion, but there was no political will to take this shift on.

As secretary of Veterans Affairs more recently, I sought to implement Medicare subvention to correct the misaligned resource allocation in the system, only to be blocked by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The financial actuaries at OMB worried that the program might reduce the Medicare trust fund’s financial sustainability, a politically sensitive topic.

Yet unless the structural issues of financing are fixed, the system continues to grow increasingly inefficient for taxpayers and leaves the VA without adequate funds to care for new veterans entering the system.

The VA already bills private insurers, as secondary payers, for veterans who seek care in the VA. However, the VA should consider switching from being the primary payer to becoming a secondary payer for veterans with private health insurance options. The key here is to ensure veterans are not penalized and do not incur any greater financial obligations than in the current system.

Insurance subvention is complicated and takes some political will. But not addressing this now, and pasting over the problem with another $15 billion taxpayer funded authorization, is simply kicking the can down the road and ultimately doing our veterans a disservice.

David Shulkin served as the ninth secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in the Trump administration and as the VA’s undersecretary of health in the Obama administration.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this op-ed misstated that Shulkin serves as executive vice president at Sanford Health; he does not. The op-ed was updated Sept. 18 to reflect this correction.

That follows, and at least partially contradicts, previous reporting from Reuters, and Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder could not provide clarity Thursday when asked.

A premature U.S. departure from Iraq that ignores the advice of military leaders and conditions on the ground risks repeating the mistakes of past withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan and catalyzing an ISIS resurgence.

Under the U.S.-Iraqi Higher Military Commission, the United States and Iraq have agreed to discuss a transition to a “new phase of the bilateral security relationship,” though it remains unclear what that relationship would look like and how the U.S. force presence in Iraq would be impacted.

While the details of the future U.S. military posture in Iraq remain murky, the consequences of a premature withdrawal are clear.

General Kurilla, the commander of U.S. Central Command, warned Congress in March that a withdrawal of the U.S.-led coalition “would all but guarantee ISIS’ return if it occurred before Iraqi Security Forces were ready to stand on their own.”

Similar warnings were issued in 2011 before a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq that catalyzed a series of events that led to the establishment of the ISIS caliphate and forced American forces to return in 2014.

Kurilla, in his testimony, also reiterated that the U.S. force presence in Syria would be significantly impacted without a military presence in Iraq. In July, CENTCOM announced that ISIS was attempting to reconstitute and was on track to double its number of attacks in Iraq and Syria.

While the ISIS caliphate is defeated, ISIS the terrorist organization is not. Two recent raids by U.S. forces demonstrate the persistent threat of ISIS and the continued operational role of U.S. forces in the country.

On Aug. 29, U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted a partnered raid in western Iraq to disrupt and degrade ISIS’ ability to plan and conduct attacks “throughout the region and beyond,” according to a Central Command statement.

Fourteen ISIS fighters were killed, including ISIS senior leaders overseeing operations in in the region, and seven U.S. service members were injured.

Just days later, on Sept. 1, U.S. forces partnered with Syrian Democratic Forces to capture an ISIS leader who was helping ISIS fighters escape detention in Syria.

Meanwhile, Iranian proxies have attacked U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria over 170 times since October, placing pressure on the Iraqi government to secure a U.S. withdrawal while putting American troops in further danger and detracting from their intended defeat-ISIS mission. A leading grand strategic goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to evict U.S. military forces from Iraq and Syria.

Some officials within the Iraqi government have pushed for the departure of the U.S.-led coalition, but the Iraqi Foreign Ministry delayed a formal announcement in August.

On Sept. 12, though, the Iraqi Defense Minister said that Iraq and the United States had reached an agreement to withdraw the majority of U.S. and coalition troops in two unspecified stages beginning this year and concluding in 2026 as part of a transition to a “sustainable security partnership.”

But a withdrawal of U.S. forces from non-Kurdish parts of Iraq could make Americans in Baghdad more vulnerable and cause concern among many Sunnis, creating fertile ground for ISIS radicalization, recruitment and resurgence.

A more complete American withdrawal that also included the departure of U.S. forces from Kurdistan would likely be a disaster, exacerbating Sunni concerns and making it much more difficult logistically for the Pentagon to support U.S. troops in Syria.

The warnings of military leaders and recent operations demonstrate the danger of an ISIS resurgence and the continued importance of U.S. forces in preventing such an outcome. But they are also a reminder that American service members continue to put themselves in harm’s way in Iraq and Syria waging a war that some Americans seem to have forgotten.

If the United States intends to keep U.S. troops in harm’s way to protect vital interests, Washington must ensure that our fellow citizens in uniform have the means to defend themselves and the permission to strike back with overwhelming force when they are attacked.

The United States must also ensure that its forces are operating with reliable partners and under a coherent strategy rather than conducting sporadic raids and airstrikes while its forces are subjected to regular attacks by Iranian terror proxies, including some militias that are part of the Iraqi security architecture.

The future U.S. military posture in Iraq remains uncertain. But if past is prologue, we can be confident that a U.S. military withdrawal that ignores conditions on the ground will not end well.

Cameron McMillan is a research analyst at FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power, where Bradley Bowman is the senior director.

While many aspects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resemble World War I — trenches, barbed wires, heavy exchanges of artillery — the innovative use of drones has been game-changing. Unmanned systems are altering the character of warfare, and the ongoing integration of AI and robotics will further accelerate this dramatic shift. It is why these were my top modernization objectives during my tenure as Army secretary and secretary of defense.

The potency of unmanned systems is most pronounced when it comes to small aerial drones — essentially robots — that are used today to conduct the same tasks that soldiers performed in the past: reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting and direct attack. But they do it far more efficiently and accurately. For instance, when I was a platoon leader decades ago, it typically took a couple infantrymen to destroy a tank at a max range of 3,750 meters. Today, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can do the same at far greater distances, with better success, and at much less cost.

To date, Ukraine has destroyed over 10,000 Russian vehicles, nearly one-third of which are tanks. Many of these were killed by UAVs. Ukraine has also had great success using unmanned surface vehicles to sink or damage a number of Russian ships in the Black Sea.

The introduction of drone swarms — think of dozens or hundreds of UAVs being employed simultaneously — will make the battlefield more lethal than ever before. From a production perspective, generating such a number is not an arduous task. At a gathering this summer of the Aspen Strategy Group that focused on AI, I co-led a panel discussion where one former U.S. official reported that Kyiv is acquiring well over 50,000 drones a month. The speed and cost at which the Ukrainians can do this compared to the United States is shocking.

As important, because the software on these drones is easily modified, Ukraine’s military can keep up with the changing threats and tactics of the modern battlefield. This is something many of our existing platforms, which are defined — and usually trapped in time — by their hardware, often cannot do. The good news is that this can be remedied with more investment in American innovation and process changes.

AI is also revolutionizing a wide range of administrative and logistical functions far removed from the front lines. It will do what AI does best: improve the speed, accuracy, cost and quality of decision-making. Artificial Intelligence can be used for preventive maintenance to reduce the likelihood of equipment breaking down during the fight; it can ensure the right supplies get to the right place at the right time; it can improve talent management in the force; transform supply chain risk management in the defense industrial base; and the use of large language models can hyperpower military staffs. This is the future for a broad range of ordinary military tasks, in addition to enhancing our warfighters’ effectiveness and survivability on the battlefield.

All this demands that DOD accelerate its across-the-board adoption of AI and advancement of robotics and autonomy. It is an asymmetric advantage the U.S. must master first and retain preeminence over. This means investing far more in these technologies, adopting commercial standards and processes as much as possible, capturing all the department’s data in a central repository, prototyping and testing far more aggressively and showing a willingness to deploy needed systems even when one’s confidence level is less than 100%. At the same time, the Pentagon must continue to do these things responsibly, beginning with the ethical principles for AI that I established in February 2020.

As the war in Ukraine rages on, we must heed the lessons from it and do everything in our power to ensure our military has the advanced AI, robotics and autonomy tools it needs to fight — and win — the battles of tomorrow. Doing so, and with a far greater sense of urgency, will serve us incredibly well in any future conflict; especially if we must face off against our greatest strategic threat today — a People’s Republic of China — with the world’s largest and most concentrated armed forces.

Dr. Mark T. Esper was the 27th secretary of defense and author of the New York Times bestseller, “A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times.” He is also a partner and board member in the AI venture firm Red Cell Partners.

My grandfather, Jesus Antonio Pena, was a World War II Army veteran and later worked at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. He served 30 years as a civil servant on base as an electrician, which propelled our family into the middle class through his service. When my grandfather passed, life dealt me a tough hand. I have lived on my own since I was 15, working two or three jobs at a time to keep my head above water. When I was a half-credit away from graduating high school, I dropped out.

I always knew I was going to serve. I went to the Army recruiter first, and they turned me away because I didn’t have a high school diploma or a GED. My cousin, who was in the Navy, suggested I meet with a Navy recruiter. The thought never crossed my mind, as I didn’t know how to swim and had no interest in becoming a sailor. With a little convincing, I met with a Navy recruiter in San Antonio — that decision changed the course of my life. A few weeks later, I was pushed into the deep end of the pool and learned how to swim at Naval Station Great Lakes.

As a cryptologist in the Navy, I went on to serve five years in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployed throughout the Middle East and Asia. I received my high school diploma while stationed at NAS Pensacola, Florida, and my master’s degree while in service as I rose through the ranks from E1 to E9 as master chief petty officer.

The men and women I served with had their own life stories, but the common denominator that tied us together was our love of country. For young Americans who embody the spirit of patriotism, want to work hard, and answer a higher calling — the military is an excellent path with endless opportunities.

Unfortunately, our military is currently facing a recruitment and retention crisis. In fiscal 2023, three military service branches — the Army, Navy and Air Force — failed to meet recruitment goals.

As a master chief, I never judged my fellow sailors based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or other personal attributes. Merit rules the day and the drive to propel our mission forward is the most important aspect of the job. After all, I joined the Navy through a program that allowed individuals to enlist without a high school degree.

Earlier this year, the Navy announced that it is bringing back a similar program — opening the door for more young recruits to begin a career in the military. Through the addition of several new recruiting programs, the Navy was able to hit its recruitment goal for this year. I urge all service branches to consider a similar strategy.

That said, recruiting new service members is only half the battle. We must also focus on retaining the talent we already have in our military. Poor quality of life is a deciding factor in leaving any employer. Living conditions, access to healthy food, child care, housing maintenance and a lack of clean workspaces have pushed many talented service members to find other opportunities. The men and women who answered the call to serve deserve better initiatives to improve their quality of life.

As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I have worked extensively to secure funding that will advance this goal for our veterans, service members and their families. One of the initiatives I have championed is an increase in the Family Separation Allowance, or FSA, from $250 to $400 per month. This vital change, enacted as part of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, represented the first increase in two decades for military families separated as a result of duty station assignments. This long-overdue adjustment ensures our military families receive the support they deserve during challenging times of separation.

Throughout our history, multiple generations of service members have joined the ranks to fight for our freedoms. I have not lost sight of the fact that pages of my story would have looked very different had I not been given the opportunity to enlist.

The Navy is the only service to date that has reopened the option to recruit those who lack a high school diploma but are otherwise qualified to join the service. For the sake of military readiness, I encourage all services to follow suit. You never know when the next recruit may become a leader in the service or walk the halls of Congress.

U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales represents Texas’ 23rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Gonzales is the highest-ranked enlisted service member to ever serve in Congress.

To do so would irreparably damage the credibility of these countries, set back decades of progress towards better legal protection of civilians in armed conflict and betray the commitment to a rules-based international order which NATO countries and many others seek to defend, including in the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.

What is particularly unfortunate is that the authors argue for such a dramatic reversal without providing a facts-based analysis of the military effectiveness of cluster munitions, either historically or in the Ukraine conflict.

States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions banned such weapons both because of the unacceptable harm they consistently inflict on civilians and due to the inaccuracy, unreliability, and limited military effectiveness of these antiquated area weapons. They are, in effect, a crude weapon of the Cold War period with most existing stocks approaching or past their intended period of use.

Since their peak production period during the Cold War, a wide array of more accurate and reliable weapons has become available. While a weapon that can spread 600-700 submunitions over thousands of square meters represents impressive destructive capacity, the reality is that most of these submunitions don’t hit anything. The UK Defense Ministry’s June 2000 report “Kosovo: Lessons from the Crisis” concluded that tens of thousands of British cluster submunitions had destroyed only a few dozen military objects and that “it would have been useful to have a capability to strike single vehicles more accurately,”

Similarly, a Dutch military representative in an April 2024 meeting in Oslo on explosive weapons stated that the Netherlands no longer has cluster munitions or other area weapons because it prefers munitions that will hit their targets directly.

A U.S. General Accounting Office report on the 1991 Gulf War concluded that cluster munitions significantly impeded military operations and “in some cases ground movement came to a halt because ground units were afraid of encountering unexploded ordnance.” In addition, they also killed or injured 100 US soldiers and another 100 clearance workers.

Following the 2003 Gulf War a “lessons learned” report by the U.S. Third Infantry Division, cited by Human Rights Watch, included cluster munitions among the “losers” of the war, asking pointedly, “Is the DPICM (cluster munition) a Cold War relic?” and reporting that commanders were “hesitant to use it” but “had to” in the absence of alternative weapons.

What is beyond a doubt is that the historically high failure rates of cluster munitions, from 5% to 40% depending on the model and age of munitions used, results in massive contamination for which civilians and their communities consistently pay the highest price. This lethal contamination is a result of the incredibly complex design of the munitions, deployment in the heat of battle at altitudes and airspeeds inconsistent with the design, and the decades-old age of most cluster munitions in existing stockpiles.

Failure rates are consistently higher than manufacturers claim, often due to the difference between failures under ideal testing conditions and those in the real world. In areas in which civilians and military are co-mingled, civilians inevitably are killed and injured due to the indiscriminate wide-area nature of cluster munitions.

Children, who are attracted by the small colorful canisters of unexploded submunitions, are common victims, along with civilians attempting to remove them to access the rubble of their homes, farmers attempting to remove them from their lands, and clearance personnel toiling for years to remove them from destroyed buildings, forests, hillsides, swamps, and agricultural areas.

According the 2023 Cluster Munition Monitor report, at least 95% of those killed or wounded by cluster munitions in 2022 were civilians, and children accounted for 71% of casualties from cluster munition remnants where the age was known.

The authors of the Defense News article not only welcome Lithuania’s regrettable decision in July 2024 to withdraw from the CCM but also call on NATO countries to resume production of cluster munitions. Such new production would be inconsistent with U.S. Defense Secretary Austin’s assurance in July 2023 that U.S. cluster munition transfers to Ukraine were but a “bridging capability” until production of other (presumably less objectionable) weapons picks up.

Do the authors really want to redirect European arms production away from more modern weapons to production of weapons that have been labelled a “Cold War relic”? In considering the authors’ misguided call for NATO States Party to the CCM to withdraw, European states should reflect long and hard about the grave implications of any such decision for the fabric of international humanitarian law, a body of norms built up over generations out of the rubble of the Second World War to better protect both civilians and combatants.

Despite hundreds of armed conflicts in past decades, no state has withdrawn from any of the key global treaties banning an entire category of weapons, from the landmark 1949 Geneva Conventions or their 1977 Additional Protocols. Respect for these norms has collectively prevented untold suffering in conflicts of past decades. A call to effectively dismantle any one of these conventions is unconscionable.

Heeding this call would also be a victory for Russia, further undermining the rule of law and creating dissent among NATO allies. Now is the time to recommit to the protection of civilians in armed conflict, not undermine it.

We therefore call on NATO States party to the CCM to deplore Lithuania’s decision to withdraw.

They must take the opportunity of the September 10-14 meeting of CCM States Parties in Geneva to call on Lithuania to suspend its withdrawal process and engage in dialogue with other States Parties, the International Committee of the Red Cross and civil society about the historic failure of cluster munitions and their unacceptable humanitarian impacts that led to the Convention in the first place.

Peter Herby is the head of Petersburg Partnerships, a consultancy on arms-related humanitarian issues based in Geneva. Previously he was head of the Arms Unit for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC, 1997-2012). In this capacity Herby played an instrumental role in public advocacy on cluster munitions from 2001 and led the ICRC’s team that negotiated the CCM in Dublin in 2008.

Tamar Gabelnick is Director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC), a global civil society coalition seeking an end the suffering caused by landmines and cluster munitions. Previously she was Policy Director of ICBL-CMC (2005-2015), where she participated in the negotiations of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and led the coalition’ global advocacy work on convention implementation.

But within the Pentagon and the services, AI ambition does not match current budgetary realities.

And while more money is rarely the answer to every Defense Department shortcoming, militaries are what they buy.

As a former Chief of Naval Operations and former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who continues to participate in non-governmental dialogues in Asia, to include with China, I’ve followed China’s impressive military growth.

Chinese ships, aircraft, and technology are not as good as ours, but they are buying more and rapidly getting better. The dialogue agendas and discussions have also evolved, to include transformational technologies with AI top of mind. Unquestionably, as we move deeper into the AI modernization war, Beijing is buying in that space and doubling down.

Years ago, the Air Force and Navy began creating a new sixth-generation, AI-powered fighter jet to outpace the one China is developing.

That project subsequently split into two separate approaches — the F/A-XX for the Navy and the Next Generation Air Dominance System (NGAD) for the Air Force. Although one is launched from the land and one from the sea, they possess the same objective: to remain globally dominant in the air and to help the United States be the first nation to realize true AI-powered air warfare. The only way to do that is to create these two new AI warfighting systems.

But the Fiscal Responsibility Act that Congress passed last year has hamstrung the U.S. military budget. The Navy and the Air Force are now stuck. In March, the Navy delayed a full $1 billion of funding for its F/A-XX system. The Air Force forewarned that it, too, might soon need to make “tough decisions” about NGAD, including potentially ending the entire program.

That must not happen. China is already closing in on the United States’ militarily. Its new fighter system will be ready by 2035. If the U.S. does not advance fully, our air dominance will become jeopardized.

The AI race is on and shaping the future of warfare. The global military AI market is nearly $9 billion today and is expected to approach $25 billion by 2032. China and the malign countries in its circle want China to become the AI dominant player. Delaying or pausing America’s AI warfighting modernization initiatives like the F/A-XX and NGAD make that goal attainable.

Bold statements of commitment ring hollow when we re-phase or delay our transformational programs. Our deferred outcomes and lack of real urgency are pleasing to Beijing, which has set 2035 as the year China will complete its military modernization effort. The Pentagon, particularly the Air Force and Navy, must set their budgets to deliver these critical systems faster. Congress, in providing for the common defense, must enable these critical programs with funding needed to win the military AI race, because in warfare, there is no second place.

In many respects, China is already ahead. Beijing’s civil-military fusion approach is alive and well. The infrastructure, techniques, and processes that have made China the global manufacturing center of gravity also nurtures along rapid military delivery and improvement.

This is seen in the maritime domain. Between 2015 and 2020, China’s navy, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), eclipsed the size of America’s Navy, and the gap continues to widen.

The Office of Naval Intelligence has assessed that China’s shipbuilding capacity far exceeds that of the United States because of its significantly larger military and commercial shipbuilding industry. According to the Pentagon’s China power report, the PLAN grew by 30 ships last year, while the U.S. added just two. That trend will likely continue as we’ve reduced our submarine buys in 2025 and delays plague our other shipbuilding programs.

The U.S. Air Force isn’t faring much better. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in march, Navy Adm. John Aquilino, then the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, assessed that “the world’s largest Navy [is] soon to be the world’s largest Air Force” and “the magnitude, scope, and scale of this security challenge cannot be understated.”

He’s right. China is producing 100 J-20 fighter aircraft annually, while the United States is turning out roughly 135 F-35s, with only 60 to 70 destined for our Air Force. As in shipbuilding, that’s a recipe for second place.

Beyond numbers, this is also about jobs, skills, and the myriad of companies that contribute to these extraordinary machines and the technology behind them. If we do not sustain American industry, we will lose it.

Gary Roughead is a former United States Navy officer who served as the 29th Chief of Naval Operations from 2007 to 2011. He previously served as Commander of the United States Fleet Forces Command from May 17 to September 29, 2007.

Responding to these emerging challenges will require the U.S. military to find ways to bolster its ranks. Fortunately, the country already has a powerful, if underutilized, recruitment tool at its disposal: tuition assistance.

Education benefits have long ranked among the primary reasons people join the military. They are also essential for ensuring our military members can succeed in civilian life, helping them secure strong careers while providing the country’s labor force with a steady pipeline of experienced and disciplined talent.

Fewer troops are using Tuition Assistance benefits

However, these benefits have struggled to keep pace with the evolving needs of service members. In recent years, the buying power of the military’s tuition assistance program has begun to rapidly diminish. Furthermore, a recent report from Rand Corp. found that military transition programs provide minimal support in helping service members and veterans actually translate their skills and experience to the labor market.

Higher education should be a crucial bridge between military service and civilian employment, yet many programs designed for service members and veterans are falling short. The United States has a moral obligation to support military members during and after their service. It also has a clear national security incentive to invest in the training and development of its service members.

Here are three ways the United States can enhance and modernize education benefits for military members.

Raise the cap on tuition assistance

While the Department of Defense’s Tuition Assistance program provides financial aid to active-duty service members, those funds are capped at $250 per credit hour and at $4,500 per year. Based on DOD data, if a service member were to rely solely on this program to pay for college, it would take them seven years to earn an associate’s degree. With many service members going to college with the goal of earning a credential that can quickly help them transition to a well-paying civilian career, that’s a delay very few can afford.

Astoundingly, the cap has remained unchanged for more than two decades. The same can’t be said for tuition and fees, which have dramatically risen over the same time frame, putting increasing financial strain on our service members and their families.

Tuition assistance programs mean very little if they do not provide enough funding for service members to complete their education and earn a credential of value in a timely fashion. It is long past time to revise the tuition assistance cap so that it reflects the true costs of higher education today.

Raise appropriations

Of course, the Defense Department cannot better fund tuition assistance and other education benefits for military members without a commensurate increase in its budget for such programs.

Congress demands answers on Army’s tuition assistance failure

Current levels of funding not only create challenges for military learners but the institutions serving them. With each passing year, participating in the tuition assistance program becomes less and less cost-effective for colleges and universities. A growing number of institutions are already opting out, citing their inability to sustain their support for active-duty service members with the resources currently available to them. Alarmingly, the Army is now reportedly considering potential cuts to its education benefits, following similar cuts made by military branches during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. These measures have only hastened the decline of the program’s impact.

Lawmakers should act to secure additional funding to expand the Defense Department’s education benefits. With Congress currently weighing President Biden’s request for $850 billion in Defense Department spending for 2025, even a significant increase in appropriations for tuition assistance would constitute just a small fraction of the overall DOD budget.

At the same time, policymakers can work to tie those dollars to institutional outcomes, helping ensure that such funds not only open the door to education and training for service members but help create clear pathways to employment.

Raise awareness

There is a great need to build awareness not only about the necessity of improving military education benefits but also about the existence of such benefits in the first place.

A 2017 Rand study found that a surprising number of new recruits are unaware of the education benefits available to them, with less than a quarter being familiar with the tuition assistance program. Just 20% of service members currently use the benefit. As higher education leaders, military leaders and policymakers work to improve and modernize these programs, they should also ensure that more recruits and service members are informed of — and motivated by — the educational opportunities the military can provide.

Amid escalating global tensions and a challenging recruitment landscape, the United States will need to intensify its efforts to maintain a robust and capable military. Enhancing and modernizing education benefits represents an investment in both the individual futures of our service members and the long-term security of the nation.

Meg O’Grady is senior vice president of Military and Government Programs at National University. With 25-plus years of experience, Meg is a nationally recognized expert on creating employment, transition, education and outreach programs that engage the military community.

Under the leadership of Jens Stoltenberg, NATO embraced the Convention on Cluster Munitions, or CMC, in 2008, which barred 124 member nations from stockpiling, using or manufacturing these weapons due to their indiscriminate nature and long-term humanitarian impact.

But the grinding continuation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the largest European conflict since WWII, and the looming threat from a Russian and Chinese “friendship without limits” demands a strategic shift.

As such, NATO’s future effectiveness in deterring Russian aggression hinges on withdrawing from the treaty and resuming the production and deployment of cluster munitions.

The defense of Europe in the face of Russian aggression requires a pragmatic approach that balances moral obligations with strategic necessities. The CMC, while noble in intent, has proven to be a strategic liability.

It is incumbent upon NATO’s new leadership to correct this course, ensuring that the alliance remains capable of defending its member states against present and future threats. Withdrawing from the CMC and reinstating the use of cluster munitions is a difficult but necessary decision to strengthen NATO’s defense posture and secure peace in Europe.

Why the US is willing to send Ukraine cluster munitions now

It also makes little sense to remain part of a convention on arms control when future arms control deals are unlikely.

The CMC limits NATO capabilities while giving Russia time to build and maintain a defense industrial base that is already well ahead of Europe. The European defense industry has already struggled to produce conventional munitions and re-orienting toward cluster munition production too late could prove disastrous.

NATO under Stoltenberg has had two-and-a-half years of war in Ukraine to lead NATO out of the CMC debacle and suggest that all members withdraw.

However, Stoltenberg’s leading role in the inception of the CMC highlights the inherent contradiction between arms control and deterrence. Weakening NATO’s deterrence capabilities through adherence to the CMC potentially emboldens Russia by making Europe more vulnerable, risking greater loss of life in the event of conflict.

Stoltenberg’s tenure as NATO’s secretary general is marked by a significant contradiction. His role in founding the CMC was driven by humanitarian concerns, but as the leader of NATO, he is responsible for deterring Russian aggression.

At the 2008 CMC, Stoltenberg was quoted saying that “the treaty places moral obligations on all states not to use cluster munitions.” and “banning cluster bombs took too long. Too many people lost arms and legs.”

Despite the CMC’s push for other NATO members to join, European states under more direct threat from Russia — like Finland, Poland, Estonia, and Latvia — have refused to join the convention, leading to a bifurcated NATO.

Stoltenberg, despite his opposition to cluster munitions, has repeatedly suggested that Russia will not stop at Ukraine.

“I think there’s no doubt that President Putin is trying to re-establish a sphere of influence to ensure that Russia has control over neighbor countries,” he said at the Wilson Center in June.

The CMC, while morally driven, has inadvertently weakened NATO, and arguing for a limitation of defensive capabilities despite highlighting the Russia threat to neighboring NATO is contradictory.

The moral inconsistency of Stoltenberg’s role in the CMC and as NATO general secretary is palpable. An organization created to avoid war through deterrence has abdicated its responsibility to provide the best possible defense. Stoltenberg’s inability to reconcile these opposing roles has left NATO in a precarious position, with some member states, like Lithuania, taking independent action to withdraw from the CMC and bolster their defenses.

Putin says Russia has ‘sufficient stockpile’ of cluster bombs

Lithuania’s recent decision to withdraw from the CMC with a decisive parliamentary vote highlights the growing divide within NATO. Eastern European countries, acutely aware of the Russian threat, see the need for cluster munitions as a critical component of their defense strategy. In contrast, Western European nations remain bound by the CMC, creating a rift that undermines NATO’s unity and operational effectiveness. Stoltenberg’s departure and the ascension of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte to lead the alliance offers a crucial opportunity for new leadership to address this divide and establish a cohesive policy.

So far, Rutte has offered no statements on cluster munitions, but to solve the scattered NATO policy on their use, he should take seriously the opinion of NATO nations on Russia’s border.

The Tactical Importance of Cluster Munitions

The practical application of cluster munitions in Ukraine has demonstrated their strategic value. Turkey’s provision of Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) to Ukraine proved pivotal in the Battle of Bakhmut, showcasing the lethal effectiveness of these weapons in multiple pivotal areas.

Cluster munitions can effectively cover large areas, making them ideal for targeting dispersed or moving troops and vehicles. Their dual-purpose nature allows them to be effective against a variety of targets, from light armor to personnel.

The United States approving cluster munitions transfers to Ukraine further underscores their necessity in modern warfare. The delay in providing these munitions due to political debates rooted in the CMC has cost lives and weakened Ukraine’s defense.

NATO members withdrawing from the CMC would not only unify the alliance’s stance but also send a clear signal to Russia regarding NATO’s resolve. The recent support for cluster munitions by Eastern European nations and the practical success observed in Ukraine provides a compelling case for this strategic shift.

Additionally, NATO must take a stand on cluster munitions as an organization, rather than Stoltenberg calling for “governments to decide, and not NATO as an alliance.” The mark of a great leader is the willingness to change positions at inflection points. The defense of Europe requires cluster munitions now, and in the future. This is not 2008.

The Role of China in the Geopolitical Landscape

Moreover, the evolving geopolitical landscape demands that NATO consider the broader implications of its defense strategies, particularly concerning China’s increasing relevance.

China’s strategic partnership with Russia, often described as a “friendship without limits,” has significant implications for NATO. This partnership extends beyond diplomatic support to tangible contributions to Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. China has been accused of providing technology and economic aid that indirectly supports Russia’s military operations, thereby complicating the strategic calculations for NATO.

China’s stance on cluster munitions further underscores the need for NATO to reassess its position. China has refused to join the CMC, prioritizing its military capabilities over humanitarian concerns. This refusal allows China to maintain a robust arsenal that includes cluster munitions, which could potentially be used in future conflicts.

NATO must recognize that adhering to the CMC puts it at a strategic disadvantage not only against Russia but also against a rising China.

John Nagl is professor of Warfighting Studies at the U.S. Army War College.

Dan Rice is president of the American University of Kyiv and the co-president of Thayer Leadership at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

John and Dan are both Iraq War combat veterans. This article expresses their views and not those of the United States Army, the Army War College or the Department of Defense. The authors would like to thank Army War College senior intern David Heiner of the University of Denver for his help in the research and editing of this article.

The enduring conflicts in Ukraine, the Levant and Red Sea underscore the tumultuous nature of the global security environment. The United States’ adversaries and challengers are growing increasingly aligned in their efforts to undermine the international order and disrupt global stability. A coercive and aggressive Chinese Communist Party is militarizing at a wartime pace. The U.S. and our European allies face depleted arsenals while tensions in the Middle East continue to boil, increasing concerns that these challenges will require the joint force to make trade-offs between competing defense priorities. Herein lies the central defense challenge of today: ensuring the joint force has the requisite capabilities and capacity — the depth of magazine — to support U.S. allies and partners and sustain a protracted campaign of its own.

Depth matters

The depth of our nation’s magazine extends beyond ammunition storage and weapons. It encompasses our munitions, fuel and food stockpiles, and prepositioned inventories. It also includes the resiliency of our supply chains and the strength and depth of our industrial capacity. Additionally, it requires a deep bench of reserve and rotational forces that can relieve, reinforce and enable rapid reconstitution. Most importantly, it must effectively meet the needs of a short- and long-term time horizon.

While the joint force is postured to meet defense requirements now, the uncertainty of the future operating environment and the unpredictability of our adversaries heighten the risks associated with a shallow magazine. For example, an insufficient supply of aircraft, ammunition or aviators could limit our strike warfare operational tempo in the Indo-Pacific.

In the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian leadership failed to plan for the resources required to sustain their formations beyond the opening stages while limited inventories likely constrained the scope of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. While Ukraine registered an operational demand for 250,000 artillery rounds per month in the lead-up, they were limited to approximately 90,000 artillery rounds per month at the height of the counteroffensive.

Ukraine has recognized it cannot solely rely on allies and partners and is working to expand the capacity of its industrial base. These efforts are proving fruitful, particularly in drone production. The number of domestic drone manufacturers has grown from seven to over 300 within the last eighteen months to keep pace with the Ukrainian armed forces’ consumption of over 10,000 unmanned platforms per month. However, production capacity takes time.

The clear lesson here is that limited capacity could force the U.S. to limit the scope of its military objectives or operational force employment if it is determined that a long-duration, high-tempo campaign is unsustainable. Most importantly, it could undermine the credibility of U.S. deterrence and embolden our adversaries.

The short, sharp illusion

Cathal J. Nolan systematically examines the Second Punic War, the Hundred Years’ War, the War of Spanish Succession, the Napoleonic Wars and the world wars in his 2017 book, “The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost.” He underscores that great power warfare is a society-encompassing affair that uses the full extent of a nation’s industrial capacity and political will. Major wars are most often won by the state with greater long-term capability and capacity.

The myth of the short, sharp conflict does not reflect the historical record, nor does it serve as a prudent planning factor for future conflict. Regardless of theater, joint and coalition forces need a depth of magazine that can last years — not months. China is increasing its weapons inventory five to six times faster than the United States while building multilayered antiaccess, area-denial defenses. Any conflict with China would produce an insatiable appetite for resources.

Not easy work

During the recent NATO summit in Washington, D.C., NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted the alliance has failed to keep up with the demands of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Whether hampered by policy, politics or production capacity, NATO is not matching Russia’s renewed wartime production. Building and maintaining a depth of magazine requires proactive decision-making.

Closer coordination and teaming between government, defense and commercial industry will be required to meaningfully accelerate and scale critical capabilities in areas where industry is clearly in the lead. The U.S. should pursue procurement solutions and block buys of exquisite weapons, platforms and munitions while leveraging allies’ and partners’ ability to manufacture high quantities of defense commodities to focus on the capabilities that will be needed in a future high-end, high-intensity conflict. Ultimately, depth of magazine, along with a strategy to win beyond the opening stages of a conflict, should be carefully planned for and initiated well prior to the onset of conflict. That time is now.

Mars must be fed

History tells us that great power conflict comes with a high likelihood of protraction. If the U.S. is to maintain a credible deterrent and prevent the outbreak of a protracted war, the U.S. and its allies and partners must have deep enough magazines to sustain military operations in a long, high-intensity conflict. An insufficient inventory risks limiting the operational tempo and scope of military objectives or undermining our ability to sustain a protracted conflict. Ultimately, the depth of our magazine will determine the credibility of U.S. deterrence and our ability to protect national security.

Gen. Christopher Mahoney is the assistant commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

In contemporary military operations, UAS are being tightly integrated into infantry tactics, used in new and creative ways for reconnaissance, leveraged for forward operating base defense, relied on to provide critical intelligence and deployed for data collection. Because UAS can autonomously operate in hazardous environments and undertake high-risk missions, they have revolutionized warfare by significantly enhancing operational safety and expanding tactical options for ground forces.

In response to China’s historical technological dominance in the UAS market and amid the technology’s rapid evolution, Congress has taken steps to foster technology development while addressing new potential dangers. Legislative measures have been introduced to support the development of domestic UAS capabilities.

H.R. 2864, the C-CCP Drone Act, would mandate the inclusion of equipment produced by Shenzhen Da-Jiang Innovations Sciences and Technologies Company Limited (DJI Technologies), the world’s largest drone manufacturer, on the Federal Communications Commission’s list of equipment that poses a risk to U.S. national security.

The threat of Chinese advancements

DJI and Autel, both Chinese companies, control more than 90% of the global drone market. In the mid to late 2000s, subsidized pricing allowed DJI to penetrate global markets rapidly, including within the U.S. and NATO countries, to the detriment of domestic manufacturers.

The ubiquity and cost advantages of Chinese drones have disrupted foreign markets while introducing security vulnerabilities in sensitive areas such as critical infrastructure, military bases and urban surveillance. Reports have surfaced of data from Chinese-made drones being transmitted back to servers in China, raising concerns about espionage and data security. China’s collaboration with Russia to enhance Russian FPV drone production capabilities could also pose a further challenge to the U.S. and NATO.

US countermeasures and investment

In this environment, ensuring the West’s UAS superiority on the battlefield will depend on the success of efforts to bolster domestic capabilities, increase investments in R&D and develop advanced technologies that can compete with and surpass those produced by China.

The Department of Defense has initiated multiple programs to bolster U.S.-based UAS manufacturers and support the development of a secure and reliable supply chain for critical components.

Meanwhile, private companies like Anduril, Shield AI and Edge Autonomy are leading the charge with new UAS solutions tailored for defense applications. These innovators are not only developing cutting-edge technology but also ensuring their products are free from foreign influence and data security dangers by manufacturing critical components such as cameras, gimbals, flight controllers, and radios onshore.

Private equity can further these efforts by strategically investing in innovative companies and technologies, driving the growth of domestic UAS innovation. Moreover, by supporting these companies’ efforts to develop onshore manufacturing processes and establish secure supply chains, private equity investment can help reduce dependence on foreign sources and enhance national security.

It is therefore paramount to invest in developing and deploying critical technologies and cyber tools to the warfighter that will be necessary to accelerate domestic UAS development and deployment.

Doctrine, training and safety standards

While much is happening on the production front, we also need to consider the impact of UAS on military operations, which will require significant adjustments. Military doctrine will need to continue to evolve to include new tactics, techniques and procedures for UAS-supported fire and maneuver. Following special operations’ lead in this domain, new protocols will have to be rapidly transitioned to the conventional forces.

Training programs must also change to focus on the operational skills required to manage UAS fleets, interpret real-time data and integrate UAS intelligence into broader operational contexts. This training should include ethical considerations related to privacy violations and rules of engagement in settings where civilian populations are often at risk.

Outlook

Innovations in artificial intelligence, machine learning and autonomous operations are certain to further enhance UAS capabilities, making them more efficient and versatile. AI is poised to play a significant role in the future of UAS by enabling drones to perform complex tasks with minimal human intervention and adapt to dynamic combat environments, improving their ability to detect and respond to threats. Autonomous operations will reduce the burden on human operators, allowing for more efficient and effective mission execution.

Soon, we can also expect to see UAS with extended operational ranges, improved stealth features and advanced payload capabilities. Integrating UAS with other emerging technologies such as augmented reality and cyber warfare tools will also create new tactical opportunities and challenges.

The integration of UAS with AI will also give ground troops enhanced situational awareness, as well as better coordination and decision-making in the field. Likewise, cyber warfare tools will enable UAS to disrupt enemy communications and infrastructure, providing a strategic advantage in modern conflicts.

As UAS technology continues to evolve and domestic drone production expands, it is crucial for military and industry leaders to closely monitor threats while fostering an entrepreneurial environment that prioritizes continuous innovation, rigorous training and doctrinal adaptation. Through collaboration, the potential of UAS can be fully realized, ensuring that military operations are as effective and efficient as possible while minimizing risks to combatants and civilians.

Florent Groberg is a vice president at AE Industrial within the firm’s Portfolio Strategy and Optimization Group. Groberg previously held key positions at Microsoft, Boeing and LinkedIn. Prior to that, Groberg was a captain in the U.S. Army, completing both U.S. Army Airborne and U.S. Army Ranger schools. Groberg received the Medal of Honor for his actions in combat operations in Afghanistan in 2012. He currently serves on the American Battle Monuments Commission, an appointment by the president of the United States.

My husband served in the Navy for 20 years, where he specialized in disarming explosive devices, and his best friend was among those 31.

Most of my husband’s career was spent attached to Navy SEAL Team 2 and Navy SEAL Team 6, where he bravely carried out more than 12 combat deployments.

We were a tight community, and on that day in August, 31 of our friends and teammates lost their lives in an instant.

My husband had the harrowing task of notifying his best friend’s wife and children of his death and bringing his remains back to West Virginia.

We were never the same.

Psychedelic therapy data ‘speaks for itself,’ VA official says

After this mass casualty, we lost many others, either in combat, in training, or to suicide. I became depressed and constantly anxious that the ball was going to drop, and that my family would be the next to receive that dreaded knock on the door. I began having panic attacks and suicidal thoughts.

I was convinced no one gets out unscathed, and if you want the truth, no one really does.

A few years later, my husband retired with a 100% disability rating at just 39 years old, primarily due to invisible wounds—those deep-seated mental scars that no medal could ever begin to mend.

In the quiet desperation that often accompanies military service, both veterans and their families bear a weight that is rarely understood by those outside the fold. As a military spouse, I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that years of service can take on the mind and spirit of those who have served our country. For years, our family navigated the turbulent waters of post-service life, where the aftershocks of trauma reverberated through our daily existence.

Both my husband and I have tried a range of therapies to heal. A decade after the accident, in July 2021, I was introduced to midomafetamine assisted therapy on a life-changing retreat to Mexico.

This treatment involves a drug known as MDMA, or on the street as ecstasy or Molly. I was invited along with six other special operation spouses to explore this treatment solution, since it has yet to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the U.S. It turned out to be a beacon of hope for healing deep-seated emotional wounds.

In a therapeutic setting, MDMA allows those suffering to access buried demons and trauma in a way that is gentle and compassionate—something traditional therapies often struggle to achieve. It’s not about escaping reality but confronting it head-on, under the guidance of trained therapists in a safe and supportive environment.

In 2017, the FDA designated MDMA-assisted therapy, as a “breakthrough therapy” because of clinically demonstrated evidence in treating the root causes of PTSD. In one example, a study found that following just three sessions of MDMA therapy, 71% of participants no longer met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

Our veterans need access to this treatment, but without FDA approval, it often remains out of reach. Veterans like my husband, for example, who work in government jobs after military retirement, are given strict polygraphs that specifically ask if the employee has ever taken a schedule I drug like MDMA. Without FDA approval of MDMA therapy, they cannot seek out this route without risking their security clearance.

One of the most profound challenges my husband has faced, which is common among veterans, is that his nervous system has become locked in a perpetual state of shutdown and detachment. This manifests as extreme fatigue, emotional numbness, and disconnection from both himself and loved ones.

I vividly recall a moment at my son’s hockey game. He scored a goal, the crowd cheered, and my husband dutifully clapped and smiled. Later that night, he said to me: “I go through the motions of happiness and excitement, but I feel nothing.” It was a stark reminder of the invisible battle raging within him, one that no amount of conventional therapy seemed able to reach.

Psychedelics may soon be available — sort of — to treat vets with PTSD

The FDA has not approved a new treatment for PTSD in nearly 25 years, leaving those suffering with antidepressant drugs a as approved treatments, medications that only seem to numb the pain. This keeps some people at a baseline of numbness—while they may not feel all the bad, they often struggle to feel joy.

Our veterans are experiencing a suicide epidemic, in part because they cannot access the care they need. Every day, an estimated 17 or more veterans die by suicide, totaling up to 16,000 veterans each year.

For veterans in particular, MDMA therapy provides clarity and allows them to uncover profound empathy and forgiveness for themselves—directly addressing guilt for leaving their families or painful experiences during war. It saves their lives.

Yet, despite its promising results, an FDA Advisory Committee recently declined to recommend MDMA as a treatment for PTSD, cherry picking small procedural concerns. The FDA will make its final decision on whether to approve MDMA for such therapy on August 11.

I strongly urge them to help veterans who are suffering and approve this lifesaving therapy.

The same veterans who risked everything for our country are being denied access to treatments that could offer them a chance at peace. Our veterans should not need to go abroad, or worse, seek this therapy in an unregulated environment within the U.S. It’s a cruel irony that those who sacrificed so much are often left to navigate their post-service lives with inadequate support for their mental health.

Veterans deserve every opportunity to heal, to reconnect with themselves and their families, and to reclaim the lives they put on hold in service to our nation. Denying them access to breakthrough therapies is not just a disservice; it’s a betrayal of the promises we made as a grateful nation. We deserve the right to try any and all options, treatments, and healing modalities available to recover, repair, and improve our lives after years of sacrifice.

We must give our veterans the chance to rewrite their stories, not as victims of war but as resilient survivors who deserve every chance to live full lives.

Elaine Brewer is a proud military wife. She is the founder of Humble Warrior, a 501c3 nonprofit, which aids in military and first responder mental health and wellness. Elaine lives with her husband and their two sons in St. Louis, Missouri.

Such issues threaten not only their current military readiness, but their ability to age in a healthy way, with a study released last fall revealing that nearly 70 percent of U.S. service members are within the overweight or obese ranges of the body mass index.

A previous research study enrolling active duty service members who were seeking assistance with weight management offers a case in point: A young male participant was at risk for early discharge from the military for exceeding body fat standards. He lacked a professional appearance in uniform and was unable to keep up on unit physical training.

When told that he had strong bones after a research study bone density scan, he had his platoon sergeant accompany him to the research office so we could explain that he had “big bones” which accounted for his large body mass.

Unfortunately, we could not support that justification and he was ultimately discharged after failing to drop any body fat mass over the 12-week counseling period of the study. He had come to terms with his situation, saying his hometown police force had a position waiting for him. It is unlikely he would be able to meet the physical requirements for that position either.

Nearly 70% of active service members are overweight, report finds

This is one of many stories demonstrating the consequences for an overweight or obese service member. In a relatively short period of time, he or she may be discharged without future job prospects, possibly having experienced a recent physical activity-limiting injury, and a health status involving abnormal lipid levels and elevated blood pressure, conditions requiring medical oversight.

A service member being overweight impacts their ability to contribute to their respective unit’s mission. Statistics that reveal a continuing, alarming climb in rates of overweight and obesity in children and adults in America apply to America’s troops as well.

Obesity almost doubled from 22% to 42% in U.S. adults between 1988 and 2020. Active component Army statistics show a current rate of obesity of 20%, with overweight soldiers comprising approximately 40% to 50% of the force.

Therefore, we must be agile, resourceful and innovative in our approach to a service member’s overall health, while encouraging leadership across every unit to engage on this issue. More must be done.

As health care professionals and scientists, we see real-time consequences of neglected health in our clinics and research populations every single day.

Health promotion research conducted by my team and others has incorporated strategies involving everything from DNA-based counseling to activity trackers to raise awareness and educate troops about how bad food choices affect their body composition, blood pressure and vitamin levels.

When troops neglect their fitness, they increase their chance of suffering an injury that will take longer to recover from, as well as potential pain and a loss to their unit. An unhealthy formation is a combat ineffective formation; the lethality of our military is at risk by this pervasive health epidemic.

Pandemic pounds push 10,000 Army soldiers into obesity

In a time of a military-wide recruiting crisis, we cannot afford to lose trained, but physically unfit, troops because they are unable to do their military jobs, becoming candidates for early discharge in the process.

A common myth is that all service members have statures like elite athletes who have 24/7 access to optimal nutrition, physical training resources, and coaching, but this is not true for a large population of our ranks.

But due to diverse garrison environments, training demands, and limited access to high quality nutrition, American troops exhibit a wide range of fitness and health literacy.

The solution must be a multi-pronged approach by leaders to apply evidence-based recommendations and translate research findings to create a culture of health in all military environments.

Dip, Doritos and drinking: Why the Army can’t get in shape

The following are some steps we believe unit commanders can take to counter this crisis:

- Leaders must educate themselves and their subordinates. Engage in conversations about safe and healthy lifestyle behaviors, including diet, sleep, and physical activity.

- Leaders must set the example. They should visit their dining facilities, promote a performance-focused food environment and policies that allow sufficient time for meals, while continually assessing unit dining options and encouraging input from their troops regarding nutritious meals, snacks, and beverages in garrison.

- Leaders must monitor unit data regarding musculoskeletal injuries, sleep, and nutrition and hydration metrics. Holistic Health and Fitness, or H2F, teams have demonstrated impressive results in support of readiness. Seek out and support what H2F teams can do for your command.

- Leaders should support research opportunities available to the unit that advance the science of nutrition, exercise, and sleep in military populations. With the help of the H2F Team of researchers, the Military Nutrition Environment Assessment Tool (m-NEAT) can be used to assess the military food environment, promote a culture of health and boost community alignment to address food architecture in convenience marts, commissaries and exchanges, while strengthening healthy lifestyle practices messaging to the ranks.

- Leaders should re-evaluate health risk assessment intervals. Height, weight, waist and hip circumference and blood pressure are low burden, reliable, and evidence-based measures of cardiovascular risk and can be performed by unit medics.

- Finally, leaders should take care of themselves. A fit CO shows that you value your own health and wellness, which will help you lead from the front and be the best leader you can be.

The military should also continue to explore making anti-obesity medications available to service members, particularly for those who don’t respond to traditional paths.

Since 2023, an Army service-specific policy allows the use of FDA-approved prescription anti-obesity medications for soldiers who are supervised by a provider in a treatment facility under operational control of the Defense Health Agency.

Service members deserve this consideration when such medications are accompanied by comprehensive lifestyle interventions and engaged leadership.

Taken together, these actions may reduce chronic disease risk, promote physical and mental health, and restore the injured service member to a fit and ready state.

Mary McCarthy is a senior nurse scientist with the Defense Health Agency’s Center for Nursing Science & Clinical Inquiry at the Madigan Army Medical Center.

Lt. Col. Tanisha Currie is deputy chief for nursing science and clinical inquiry, and senior advisor to the Joint Forces Leadership Council at Brooke Army Medical Center.

Capt. Kevin M. Kilroy is a physician’s assistant at Okubo Clinic at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

The undeveloped Arctic region, with its wealth of resources, logistical nodes for faster travel and vast military and strategic potential, has long made it an important frontier for nations including Russia and the U.S. seeking geopolitical dominance.

Now, the People’s Republic of China is looking to the Arctic as part of its long-term strategy to replace the U.S. as the leading world power both economically and militarily. It wants the access and positional advantage of potential new shipping routes and resources that the Arctic region provides, and China is investing and engaging in scientific studies to increase influence in the region.

As a “near Arctic state,” China is unable to pursue open military presence in the region, so the country is pushing economically by investing over $90 billion in scientific research. The Chinese first entered the region back in 2003 in Norway by building a research base which began their expanse of influence within the region. It is also establishing other connections with Arctic states and involving itself in the counsels.

This strategy is giving China a growing foothold in the area. The country’s involvement in the free trade agreement policy with Iceland also brings it to the table as it discusses a future influential area with untapped recourses and closer borders to more vulnerable regions of the world.

At first glance, this approach seems simple and straight-forward, however, a deeper look shows that China is conducting strategic moves that will have long-term benefit for the PRC. Multiple attempts of purchasing land has been made in nations in or near the Arctic regions, including potential golf courses, three airfields, and a former military base.

All of these proposals have been rejected by the Arctic state amid growing concern of China choosing strategic infrastructure that would develop ports, active airfields and access to future nodes. Even against opposition, the PRC is able to partner with nations such as Finland and Greenland to increase communication capabilities in new areas. It’s is also working on undersea cables along the Northern Sea Route to lessen their dependency on external nations for information movement flows.

The number one priority for the U.S. in the region is security,as outlined in the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Updates made in 2022 define more focused and achievable goals after observing the lack of effort compared to other Arctic states and near-Arctic nations. The U.S. goal is to protect its interests by deterring potential threats and mitigating future risk.

The best method to deter adversaries is by having a consistent and strong presence. Specialized training in harsh Arctic environments prepares soldiers how to handle situations in extreme cold weather that are harmful to people and leads to slower mission planning and execution by substantial margins. Being able to survive or thrive in temperatures below negative thirty degrees Fahrenheit requires an already present and equipped force that has established processes to win in that environment.

On June 6, 2022, the 11th Airborne Division was activated to achieve success in those harsh environments. By executing expeditionary missions and expanding the unknown impacts of multi-domain operations, they can better predict how to win in an Arctic environment. They increase their competence through the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center in Alaska to make them a stronger presence in the Arctic to deter threats and mitigate risk to previously vulnerable regions.

China has had more than twenty years of strategically moving to become an actual Arctic state player. The investment far exceeds the time and effort the U.S. has put into the new frontier. The PRC still lacks the advantage, but is staged to be more influential and successful in the joint cooperation and infrastructure development required to maintain a growing presence in the Arctic.

The best time to start this endeavor was twenty years ago and the second-best time to start is now. America has started late in this race and needs more foresight on how to win in the Arctic.

Captain Nicholas Tachias is a Military Intelligence Officer in the United States Army. He’s a graduate of the University of Alabama in Huntsville earning a Bachelor of Science Degree in Information Systems with a concentration in Business Analytics in 2019.

Eighty years later, commemorations were held June 15, 2024, on Saipan to remember the battle and to honor those who sacrificed so much.

Operation Forager

The Battle of Saipan was part of the U.S. military’s Operation Forager, which also included taking Tinian and liberating Guam. Capturing Saipan and the neighboring islands meant Tokyo would be within range of the United States’ B-29 Superfortress bombers.

As explained by Don Farrell, author of “Seabees and Superforts at War,” it was “a critical turning point” in the Pacific War.

“The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-British Chiefs of Staff recognized it would be a costly, bloody battle,” Farrell wrote. “But they also realized that if Saipan, Tinian and Guam were captured, then the fleet could turn due north toward Japan. They concluded that the capture of the Marianas would provide a faster route to Japan.”

Japan had designated the islands as part of its “absolute national defense sphere” and knew what losing them would mean. Japan had control over Tinian and Saipan since 1914 and had invaded Guam just after it attacked Pearl Harbor. Imperial Japanese forces had years to fortify the islands. By the time the Americans arrived off the coast of Saipan, there were more than 30,000 Imperial Japanese troops dug in.

The battle itself was a brutal, intense and a compressed microcosm of the war in the Pacific, described by Naval History and Heritage Command as “the most daring — and disturbing — operation in the U.S. war against Japan to date.”

It was disturbing, in part, because of the large civilian population. Around 20,000 Japanese, Okinawans and Koreans, plus 4,000 Chamorros, were on Saipan when the 71,000 U.S. troops landed, most from the 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions and the 27th Infantry Division.

For Japanese forces, this was a desperate last stand. When it was clear Japan was losing, commanding Japanese General Yoshitsugu Saitō committed suicide. In the early morning hours of July 7, an estimated 4,000 Japanese charged American positions in one of the largest “banzai” charges of the war. Hundreds, and possibly more, Japanese civilians threw themselves off “suicide” and “banzai” cliffs.

Meanwhile, American forces — which included Navajo Code Talkers and local Scouts, the latter of whom were eventually made full Marines — were caught between the brutal desperation of Japanese forces, attempts to save civilians and sheer survival.

By the time the battle officially ended on July 9, America had endured more than 16,500 casualties, including close to 3,500 killed. On the Japanese side, 921 were taken prisoner. The rest died in battle or by suicide.

The capture of Saipan led to the capture of Tinian, which allowed for the establishment of the Tinian airfields. These became some of the busiest airfields in the world as waves of B-29s took off to hit Japan. This was also where the Enola Gay and Bockscar took to the sky on their way toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, leading to the end of the war in the Pacific.

After the war, Saipan, Tinian and the rest of what is now the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas voted to enter into a “Covenant” with the United States and formally joined the U.S., granting American citizenship to their residents. Today, the people of the Marianas serve in the U.S. military at high rates.

The commemoration

The 80th anniversary commemoration ceremony began at Green Beach, where some of the 8,000 Marines who came ashore in the first 20 minutes of the massive amphibious operation landed. They were represented by the sons of three 4th Marine Division veterans.

They laid a wreath at the veterans memorial, then moved the commemorations to American Memorial Park, where a parade — including representatives from the 4th Marine Division — and speeches followed. The Japanese consul spoke sincerely about the bond now shared between Japan and the U.S.

Another speaker, Saipan mayor Hon. Ramon “RB” Jose Blas Camacho, was instrumental in ensuring the event happened as scheduled despite Saipan’s present economic difficulties.

In an interview, he explained that he wanted to make sure the younger generation remembered the courage and sacrifice that occurred there 80 years ago.

“Just imagine when they landed … the worry, the fear,” he said.

He also wanted to put a spotlight on Saipan.

“Every year they talk about Normandy, but what happened here was really important.”

It was. It changed the Pacific — and resulted in a new piece of America being created. That transformation was embodied by attendee Cdr. Christine Igisomar. The Marianas native is the highest-ranking Chamorro woman in U.S. Coast Guard history. After the ceremony, she was on her way to her new post as Coast Guard liaison to the Philippines Coast Guard.

The Commonwealth of Northern Marianas is where America touches Asia and, while the theme of the commemoration was “80 Years of Peace in the Pacific,” the region is once again on the front lines.

The airfields at Tinian are being rehabilitated in a $409 million Air Force project. At the same time, this is the only U.S. territory where Chinese nationals can arrive without a visa. Regional tensions are building.

Still, in true commemoration of the warriors who died in Saipan, the message from the Marines is clear. In his speech, 4th Marine Division Commanding General Brig. Gen. John K. Jarrard had a message for any current enemies listening: “Be afraid.”

Cleo Paskal is Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Two events, disparate in geopolitical context, present evidence that land-based maritime forces play a decisive role in naval operations. It does not take an act of imagination to see how the U.S. Marine Corps, the world’s foremost land-based maritime force, operating with a suite of high-end anti-ship weapons and uncrewed systems, would prove instrumental in a sea-denial campaign.

Since the dawn of the gunpowder age, land-based forces along coastal areas have challenged navies in their quest to dominate coastal seas. But in the last two decades, long-range precision weapons have proliferated among state and nonstate actors due to their plummeting costs. This development continues to favor terrestrial forces and has given new life to the sage wisdom of the 18th century naval strategist and tactician Adm. Horatio Nelson, who said: “A ship’s a fool to fight a fort.”

Using small, distributed littoral forces; civilian and military sensors; sea and airborne drones; long-range missiles; and an aircraft on one occasion, Ukraine has severely damaged or destroyed 24 Russian warships, including a submarine. Without any naval ships of its own, and relying exclusively on landward littoral forces, Ukraine has eliminated more than a third of Russia’s naval tonnage in the Black Sea, imposed costs into the billions of dollars, broken Moscow’s naval blockade of Odesa and other coastal cities, and created a badly needed maritime lifeline for merchant shipping.

In the Red Sea, we see a seemingly different picture. Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis, operating under the pretext of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, are disrupting the free flow of global trade by attacking both commercial and naval vessels in the Red Sea. Like Ukrainian forces, they rely on drones and long-range missiles; but unlike Ukraine, they have sunk few ships.

There are lessons here, which may prove critical to future policy and resourcing considerations.

First, and most obviously, relative strength matters. The disparity between coalition and Houthi capabilities in the Red Sea is far wider than between Ukraine and Russian naval power in the Black Sea. Ukraine’s forces are well equipped, supported by NATO intelligence and technology, and confront an opponent of modest naval strength.

Houthi forces, by contrast, lack comparable support and face the world’s premiere naval force — a U.S. carrier strike group with a half dozen U.S. and coalition destroyers and frigates.

Second, counting the number of ships sunk is a shallow measurement of success. Using this metric, Ukraine’s scorecard is clear. But any objective assessment will also reveal that the Houthi’s sea-denial campaign has altered global trade routes, imposed global economic costs, enhanced its international profile, and perhaps most importantly tied up a significant portion of American naval power at a time when demand for our naval ships outstrips supply.

Third, fighting land forces with naval forces is costly. Fortunately for U.S. and coalition forces, the cost has been only monetary.

Since November 2023, the U.S. Navy has conducted more than 450 strikes, intercepting more than 200 drones and missiles. Naval forces are capable of countering enemy weapons with a range of capabilities, yet most far exceed the cost of the munition they are intended to destroy.

One-way Houthi attack drones have been estimated to cost as little as $2,000 to produce. Any defensive weapon that costs a dollar more puts us on the wrong side of the cost curve — and some counter-air missiles cost millions of dollars.

In the Red Sea, the costs have been acceptable to date, but we are in a new age of drone warfare, and production has skyrocketed. Ukraine and Russia, for example, each aim to acquire more than 2 million drones in 2024. A land-based force that employs drones at scale against one at sea will quickly deplete the latter’s defensive magazine — and that nation’s budget.

Finally, these maritime conflicts demonstrate that ground forces, difficult to locate and destroy, have a stubborn way of persisting. In the Black Sea, Russia has not employed its maritime firepower decisively against Ukraine’s anti-ship forces. In fact, it has retrenched almost entirely, choosing to relocate its fleet away from the threat.

By contrast, U.S. and coalition naval forces in the Red Sea have taken the fight to the Houthis, conducting dozens of strikes, destroying their missiles, drones and delivery systems. And yet, even in this lopsided contest, Houthi forces continue their disruption.

As we continue to observe Ukraine’s success in the Black Sea and the ongoing fight in the Red Sea, it will be important to temper our enthusiasm with a dose of humility. Winning and losing are fluid characterizations in combat, yet learning should be a constant.

Gen. Christopher Mahoney is the assistant commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

PTSD is not just a medical diagnosis but a poignant symbol of a collective, enduring struggle. While we’ve seen resources and treatments provided for PTSD increase as well as a broader acceptance for those impacted by this injury, we’ve also seen these men and women viewed as though they’re broken.

Veterans who embody the ethos of post-traumatic growth — the positive psychological change experienced as a result of overcoming highly challenging and stressful life situations — push back against that “broken” narrative. I urge you to join Josh Goldberg, CEO of Boulder Crest, in marking June 13 on your calendar as National Post-Traumatic Growth Day.

We have seen examples of post-traumatic growth throughout history, where significant adversity can spark substantial progress and change. Since our nation’s founding, waves of American veterans have demonstrated how they’ve become incredible civic assets after their military service. From George Washington to Dwight D. Eisenhower, John McCain and Colin Powell, these veterans became icons of American statesmanship.

Post-traumatic growth doesn’t just apply to politics and public service. We also see growth in the entrepreneurial spirit in veterans who started small businesses and went on to become titans of industry. Today, there are 2.5 million veteran-owned companies, exemplified by decorated Iraq War veterans like Blake Hall and Dawn Halfaker.

After Hall’s 2004 Vanderbilt Army ROTC commissioning, he became a rifle platoon leader and served in Iraq, twice earning the Bronze Star. After his Army service, he graduated from Harvard Business School and started ID.me in 2010, which simplifies how individuals securely prove and share their identity online. Dawn Halfaker, a 2001 West Point graduate, earned the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for her service in Iraq in 2004. She came home as an amputee and founded Halfaker and Associates two years later. She now runs HAFCO Holdings LLC as well as Continuing to Serve, a non-profit supporting veteran entrepreneurs.

John F. Kennedy was once asked what actions led him to become a war hero, which launched his career in public service. “It was involuntary — they sank my boat,” he said. My post-traumatic growth occurred in the same vein. I returned from an Iraq deployment with the 82nd Airborne Division’s Falcon Brigade in 2004 with the burden of 19 paratroopers killed in action. Spurred to live a life worth their sacrifice, I aimed to become the man I thought they would want me to be, and to live a life of meaning. I became the first Iraq War veteran elected to Congress, leading the effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and serving as the co-sponsor of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which has sent more than 1.1 million people to college. As the 32nd Undersecretary of the Army, I pushed for policies to reduce the stigma of seeking help, resulting in the addition of embedded behavioral health teams at the battalion level.

One key way to experience growth after service is by stoking the fires of the post-9/11 generation’s entrepreneurial spirit. This is why I’ve leaned on a generation of veterans who preceded me, like Alex Gorsky, the former CEO of Johnson & Johnson and Bob McDonald, the former CEO of Proctor & Gamble and the 8th Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. These former soldiers and business leaders helped me achieve post-traumatic growth in the way I hope to see from others. Our generation has collectively survived the crucible of combat — running a business is a purpose-driven mission that veterans can collectively appreciate.

World War II veterans came home and took part in that same mission, and in the process, built the world’s most iconic brands, including the largest sports apparel company (Nike), the largest retailer (Walmart), and the world’s biggest media company (Comcast).

In contrast, fewer than 5% of post-9/11 veterans start their own business today. But it’s more than just access to capital. As post-9/11 veterans, we must define who we are and, more importantly, who we can become. It took more than five decades for the WWII generation to be defined as “the greatest generation” by Tom Brokaw — after two decades of war, we cannot afford to wait five more decades to define our generation’s continued service.

This generation’s veterans are more likely to be employed, more likely to vote in elections, and yes, more likely to start a successful small business. The Halls and Halfakers will become the next Phil Knight or Ralph Lauren if given the chance. This begins today, on National Post-Traumatic Growth Day, as we recognize, celebrate, and properly frame post-traumatic growth — the opportunity our generation has to overcome the toughest of circumstances to turn our struggle into success.

Patrick J. Murphy is a decorated Iraq War veteran, venture capitalist, Wharton Business School lecturer. He was the first Iraq War veteran elected to Congress and served as the 32nd Undersecretary of the Army.

As a partner in Stony Lonesome Group, Murphy’s venture capital group is an ID.me investor. He serves with Dawn Halfaker on the board of Drexel Hamilton.

The latest Warrior Survey from Wounded Warrior Project found that sleep was the top reported health issue among veterans registered with the organization, with 80% reporting sleep problems. Many post-9/11 veterans are having trouble sleeping and staying asleep, and this significantly impacts their quality of life.

Evidence suggests that veterans’ duration of sleep and sleep quality are directly correlated with post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and other mental and physical health challenges.

The prevalence of these conditions within this generation of veterans highlights the critical role sleep plays in overall wellness. Improving sleep quality is pivotal for enhancing quality of life, given the complex connection between sleep, physical health, and mental wellbeing.

A veteran’s journey through sleep problems

Air Force veteran and nurse Melissa McMahon is no stranger to sleepless nights.

Her sleep problems started when she lifted a fellow service member from a chair and heard a loud pop in her lower back and hips. She worked through the pain and her condition worsened over time.

Melissa experienced partial mobility loss on her left side, persistent backaches, and shifts between fatigue and a longing for sleep. She reached a breaking point when she started experiencing tremors that impacted her ability to provide medicine to patients.

Melissa then received a diagnosis of fibromyalgia — a disorder she learned is trauma-based and characterized by chronic muscle pain, tenderness, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. Her condition forced her to transition to administrative work within the Air Force, which made her feel increasingly isolated.

Coping with her new diagnosis, new role in the military, and physical limitations contributed to feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety.

These challenges, combined with poor diet and lack of physical activity and energy, led to extremes in Melissa’s sleep patterns. She either slept too long due to intense fatigue, averaging about 10 to 12 hours per day, or she would not sleep enough, with only a couple hours each night, hampered further by nightmares.

Melissa’s journey mirrors the story of many veterans grappling with the lasting effects of military service. The impact of poor sleep on quality of life has been well documented — affecting mental health and cognitive function and leading to an increase in unhealthy decisions around risky behaviors, diet, and exercise.

Research shows that common comorbid conditions among veterans diagnosed with sleep disorders include obesity, diabetes, congestive heart failure, depression, PTSD, and TBI.

How to support veterans’ sleep challenges

When Melissa realized she was having more bad days than good, she sought help. Through a personalized, multi-week coaching program with WWP’s Physical Health and Wellness team, Melissa identified the factors that hindered quality sleep and the factors that contributed to good sleep.

She recognized the impact of isolation on her mental health, and she addressed her severe depression and anxiety. Melissa adjusted her lifestyle by transforming her nutrition, adopting a well-balanced diet, and significantly increasing her exercise routine from one to two times per week to four to five times per week.

Over the years, her dedication paid off. Melissa gained mental strength, reconnected with peers, and reignited old hobbies, such as swimming and car racing. Most notably, she rediscovered the gift of restful sleep.

Sleep disorders and chronic pain are prevalent in veterans and have historically been viewed as secondary issues. Melissa’s story shows that sleep is complex and often should be viewed as the primary issue.

Sleep is not a singular challenge, nor is there one quick fix. The root causes for poor sleep are often a combination of physical and mental health. Understanding this connection and recognizing the profound impact of sleep on veterans is key to supporting their recovery.

Individualized programs extend a helping hand, guiding veterans like Melissa toward greater overall wellness. By considering the big picture — mental, physical, and social — we can empower warriors to reclaim their well-being, enhance their sleep, and improve their quality of life.

James Herrera is the vice president of Physical Health and Wellness for Wounded Warrior Project. He is an exercise physiologist and former Olympic coach who helps lead the organization’s Soldier Ride, adaptive sports, and health and wellness programs.

In 2009, the F-22 program was abruptly cancelled after the production of only 187 aircraft — a quarter of the originally planned 750 fighters. This short-sighted decision left the U.S. Air Force with a diminished capacity to maintain air superiority in the face of evolving threats from the major military adversaries, China and Russia.

Created as America’s premier air superiority fighter, the F-22′s stealth capabilities, speed, and agility were designed to dominate any adversary. However, ongoing fiscal concerns and a miscalculation of the evolving capabilities of our adversaries led to its early termination.

Today, we are at a crossroads with the F-35. Some in Congress are threatening further cuts to the F-35 program due to budgetary pressures and delays in software upgrades known as Block 4/Technical Refresh 3.

We cannot let history repeat itself.

It is simply imperative that Congress learns from past mistakes and ensures that F-35 production is maximized to bolster national defense and maintain our strategic advantage over our adversaries.

During my time as NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, I witnessed firsthand the evolution of aerial warfare and the indispensable role that fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 play in modern conflict.

In the years since the F-22′s cancellation, the F-35 has emerged as the cornerstone of U.S. and allied airpower. The F-35′s ability to remain undetected, provide pilots with unprecedented situational awareness, and to close the sensor-shooter kill chain quickly make the aircraft a peerless adversary.

The F-35′s role the last few years in maintaining deterrence has been indispensable. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, allied F-35s have been instrumental in identifying Russian air defense systems and securing NATO airspace from incursions from Russian aircraft. Joint exercises with U.S. and NATO F-35s have also demonstrated the alliance’s ability to respond to aerial threats quickly and effectively.

In peacetime, tactical aircraft — fighters — are generally in much higher demand than other weapons platforms to show resolve, police airspace, etc. And if war comes, fighter aircraft will be the tip of the spear for America and her allies, as our doctrines rely on the establishment of air superiority.

From the P-51 Mustang, which played a pivotal role in securing air superiority over Europe at the end of World War II, to the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, which were deployed to counter the Soviet Union’s numerical advantage during the Cold War, history is replete with examples of the critical importance of a robust fighter force.

Today, we have significant demand for tactical aircraft in the Indo-Pacific, in the European theater, and in the Middle East — not to mention homeland defense.

While the demand for tactical aircraft is almost bottomless, the supply is not. The Air Force’s current fighter inventory is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. The advanced age of our tactical aircraft fleet has a deleterious impact on cost and readiness, not to mention survivability.

The F-35 is simply the only allied stealth fighter in production that meets the demands of modern warfare. Its advanced capabilities make it the preferred choice for over 20 nations around the world, from the United Kingdom to Japan.

Yes, there are frustrating delays in TR-3 technology upgrades to the F-35, as the GAO recently highlighted. Those upgrades will maintain and extend the F-35′s advantage over any adversary, but even now the F-35 remains the dominant fighter in the sky.

Pulling back on F-35 orders might feel good, but it’s not the responsible solution. Do not repeat the mistakes made with the F-22 program. The premature cancellation of the F-22 program left a void in our Air Force, whose repercussions we are still feeling today.

In the late 1930s, America saw the gathering storm and began to re-arm. In the early 1980s, America answered the growing threat of the Soviet Union and its satellites with a buildup that ultimately helped peacefully bring down the Warsaw Pact.

Today, we face a global threat environment on par with those moments.

That global threat environment demands we build as many F-35s as we can, as fast as we can. To do otherwise is to invite aggressors to take their best shot. That would, indeed, be history repeating itself.

Philip Breedlove is a retired Air Force general and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

In addition to many safe, beneficial dietary supplements on store shelves, innocent purchasers can end up with some products that contain illegal substances, some of which may be identified right on the label and some that are fraudulently marketed as “dietary supplements.”

Illegal ingredients have no place in health and wellness regimens, and we are united in our goal to clean up the market.

In a 2019 survey among military service members, 74% reported using at least one dietary supplement per week. Among those, multivitamins/multiminerals were the most commonly used (45%), followed by combination products (44%). It is likely the use of dietary supplements by service members and civilians is even greater today.

Regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, dietary supplements are recognized as a class of goods intended to supplement the diet; they cannot be represented as conventional food or the sole item of a diet or meal; and they can come in a variety of forms, such as pills, powders, capsules, softgels, gummies or liquids.

Conscientious manufacturers rigorously follow the law. However, there’s a “dark side” to the ever-growing industry, with some companies wanting to pass off illegal products as “dietary supplements.”

These include anabolic steroids targeting bodybuilders; analogues of prescription drugs, like Viagra, that are sold as “all natural” sexual enhancements; and substances that have never been approved for any medicinal use in the U.S., such as those bearing names like andarine (and other Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators, or SARMs), galantamine, tianeptine and DMAA (1,3 dimethylamylamine).

Tianeptine, which even goes by the nickname “gas station heroin,” can lead to serious side effects, including death. Yet it has been found on dietary supplement labels.

Military personnel and athletes can be misled by claims that these products, some of which are even marketed specifically to troops, are supplements. Meanwhile, these demographics may discover firsthand why these ingredients are considered unsafe.

To safeguard against nefarious practices, here are some steps to identify and avoid illegal products:

• The FDA publishes an online directory of ingredients against which the agency has already taken action. Be sure to read why an ingredient is listed there. If it’s subject to a warning letter for safety reasons, or it has been determined not to be a legal ingredient, it’s best to avoid any products that contain it.
• For the military community, Operation Supplement Safety is an evidence-based program available to educate troops on this topic. There is also Department of Defense Instruction 6130.06: Use of Dietary Supplements in the DOD. These tools can help service members identify and avoid suspect ingredients.
• Look for supplements that have been certified by well-established third-party programs and carry approval seals by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), Informed Choice/Sport, Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG) or the United States Pharmacopeia (USP).
• Other useful ingredient information can be found via Dietary Supplement Fact Sheets published by The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS). This resource will help determine, when purchasing a dietary supplement, what the intended effects are and whether there are any side effects.
• Talk to a trusted healthcare practitioner about products. A doctor, dietitian or pharmacist can help identify dietary supplements to meet specific health goals. That person from the gym touting a “magic pill” without any medical or nutrition credentials is probably not keeping your health in mind.

The best advice, meanwhile, is to buy supplements only from reputable vendors — whether actual stores or online websites. Would you buy a watch from a guy in an alley or a designer purse from a sidewalk display? Would you have dental surgery or a broken bone reset by someone operating out of a garage?

We can’t stress this enough. Stop buying health products at gas stations, truck stops and “head shops.” If you wouldn’t buy other health care products from that vendor, why would you trust them with your dietary supplements?

Purchasing from stores or websites advertising products as “barely legal,” “not available anywhere else,” “better than prescription drugs” or “research chemicals” is playing with fire.

Remember, you are responsible for what you put in your body. And if the animal at the end of the leash has stripes and growls like a tiger, it’s probably not a dog.

Andrea T. Lindsey is the director of Operation Supplement Safety and a senior nutrition scientist with the Consortium for Health and Military Performance (CHAMP), Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University; and contractor at Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc.

Steve Mister is the president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the leading trade association representing dietary supplement manufacturers.

Disclaimer: Opinions and assertions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University or DOD. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions or policies of the HJF. The authors have no relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and/or affiliations to disclose. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply DOD or government endorsement.

Having said that, the members of our military must live in the society they serve, and be enticed to serve in the all-volunteer force. Thus, financial considerations, whether they be free college, free medical care, pay, bonuses, or retirement plans, all come into the mix when deciding to both join the military and remain in it.

Opinion: Fast food or the military? Recruiting solutions overlook the obvious

One of the most important, albeit at the time controversial, changes to military compensation has been the use of the Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, as part of the Blended Retirement System. Allowing service members to hold TSP accounts ushered in change for how they saved for retirement. Rather than serve 20 years to receive a pension, service members could start saving for retirement well before, joining many other Americans who save through defined contribution accounts. Recent reports show a surprisingly high enrollment rate in TSPs, with nearly 85% of active-duty service members in the Blended Retirement System enrolled.

Despite the high enrollment numbers, the actual amounts invested remain low, at about $14,500 per account. Raising this amount should be in the express interest of Congress and military leadership, not only to increase our service members’ financial security but also to help ease our recruiting crisis.

There are three reasons why service members have stashed so little in their TSP accounts: First, their paychecks are generally small, especially among junior enlisted ranks; second, they are not eligible for the full government match until they reach two years of service; and three, the 5% government match contribution is simply not enough to create a retirement nest egg.

Over a four-year period, a junior enlisted soldier will go from making $2,261 per month as an E-2 with less than two years of service to $2,918 per month as an E-4 approaching four years of service. The table below shows how much wealth they can create in the current plan, assuming they make the 5% contribution into the Roth TSP and invest it in the C Fund at a 7.2% rate of return over 40 years.

While the IRS has a $23,000 limit for employee-only contributions and a $69,000 limit in combined employee/employer contributions, this service member falls far short of what is legally permissible. Additionally, not all service members take advantage of the TSP. We still have roughtly 15% of the force in the blended system not contributing.

While our junior enlisted may be low on savings at this point in their careers, they are rich in time and in a very low tax bracket, allowing their contributions to grow exponentially, potentially tax-free, over the decades.

So, why talk about this now? Because Congress is setting its sights on today’s recruiting crisis and is targeting a significant pay raise for junior enlisted service members. Better than being provided as a straight percentage increase, this raise could be structured in such a way to build wealth, and in doing so, become a shining example of how the private sector could perhaps reform these defined contribution plans.

This proposal could proceed in four parts: auto-enrolling at 8%, increasing the government match to 8% immediately upon completion of basic training, removing the opt-out provision, and putting both the military members and the government’s contribution into the Roth TSP.

If these steps were taken, the service member would have about $317,000 in retirement savings over the same four decades of growth, as the table below demonstrates.

Of course, mandatory enrollment in the TSP would come with a trade-off. Service members would have less disposable income each month, as a portion of their pay would be automatically diverted to their retirement account. This could reduce their spending power and affect quality of life in the short-term. However, this trade-off could be mitigated with the current pay raise goal.

Under the guidelines of, say, a 15% raise, the additional funds could be split, with 7% being allocated to the new immediate and higher government match (7% plus existing 1%) and the remaining 8% to mitigate the effect of the higher auto-enrollment and dismantling of the opt-out provision. Finally, making the entire contribution to the Roth TSP will potentially save service members tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, when they retire.

Taking these steps would have a tremendous effect on wealth creation. The table below shows that if this junior enlisted soldier contributes an additional $3,700 over their first four years, which is the difference between the current 5% and proposed 8% auto-enrollment amount, they would wind up with an additional $154,000 at retirement, all potentially tax-free.

The trade-off between the TSP and the pay raise is not a zero-sum game. Both are important components of the compensation package for service members, and both have positive effects on their financial well-being and morale. However, given that it is possible to have a much larger pay raise than proposed, coupled with the desire to build wealth amongst our junior enlisted, it is time to reconsider the balance between the two.

Increasing the auto-enrollment to 8%, raising the match to 8% and enabling it to start upon graduation from basic training, eliminating the opt-out provision, and depositing the contributions into the Roth TSP are fair steps to ensure every service member has a secure and comfortable path to wealth.

And, as an added bonus, it would make the military more competitive with the private sector, helping to ease recruiting challenges.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John G. Ferrari is a senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank. Ferrari previously served as a director of program analysis and evaluation for the service.

And yet, I came to realize that one type of power often stood alone and, in many ways, was more important than all the rest. Ironically, it was also the least tangible or physical. Its dimensions cannot by measured by a micrometer, or its existence weighed on any scale. Indeed, its strength lies in the fact that it is deeply emotional, psychological, and highly personal.

This vital form of intangible power originates from the thoughtful, deliberate, and persistent creation of relationships that lead to partnerships, and this intentional effort is irreplaceable for advancing and protecting U.S. national security interests. The history of special operations in the U.S. is replete with examples that demonstrate how vital this can be, and I offer two specific examples that are illuminating and instructive.

As a very young Army Special Forces officer in the 1980′s oriented on the Pacific region, my colleagues and I frequently deployed to train with the Philippine Scout Rangers, the Philippine Marines, and other formations of their armed forces. This cultivated a broad network of strong friendships that flourished on both sides for decades. When relations between the U.S. and the Philippines significantly dwindled after 1991 because of the closure of Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base as U.S. installations, the American-Philippines relationship deteriorated even more sharply during the six years President Duterte was in office. And yet, the personal bonds of friendship and shared experiences between U.S. special operations forces and the Armed Forces of the Philippines endured, however informally. Subsequently, in 2014 when the Islamic State dramatically emerged to threaten the Philippines, this enduring informal network of American special operators and Philippine military personnel became indispensable in combating this threat by enabling a very rapid renewal of a strong and effective operational partnership. This was most vividly demonstrated during the battle for Marawi City in Mindanao, and ultimately enabled the Philippines to defeat ISIS. Strong relationships continue to pay dividends today to enable an ever-stronger strategic partnership between the U.S. and the Philippines in their combined efforts to contest China, which blasted water cannons at Philippine vessels and rammed one carrying Philippine Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Romeo Brawner in December 2023.

Another powerful example flows from the counter-ISIS fight in Iraq and Syria. After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, special operations personnel spent years in combat alongside both the Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi special operators combating insurgents and Al-Qaeda networks. This led to deep personal bonds of trust and affection across these forces that endured for years and remained intact long after the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. Then, in 2014 when ISIS suddenly emerged to seize the city of Mosul and begin marching toward Baghdad, the hasty redeployment of American special operations forces into Iraq quickly became operationally and strategically effective because of the enduring relationships between these forces, despite years of physical separation. Both the Peshmerga and Iraqi operators welcomed their American counterparts with open arms, and neither side had to waste time in developing trust or having to learn about what each side had to contribute to the fight. Instead, all were able to join forces rapidly and effectively in a committed partnership that endures to this day.

These examples illustrate how strategically irreplaceable these deeply committed relationships can be, and how they can blossom into strategic partnerships. The special operations community always appreciates that such relationships in another land require long-term investments of time, demonstrated reliability, and persistent presence whenever possible. Doing so, simply put, is part of SOF’s “DNA.”

Just as importantly, these SOF practices can provide invaluable advantages, opportunities, and outcomes for more than just U.S. military goals. For decades, U.S. SOF has deliberately invested in consistent integration and collaboration with many other U.S. agencies and departments, ranging from intelligence agencies to the State Department and its foreign service, and beyond. Today, a vast network of personal relationships persists between U.S. SOF and dozens of U.S. interagency partner organizations. In many cases, these relationships were initiated during deployments in combat environments over the past two decades. Most importantly, just as this practice enabled U.S. SOF to develop strategic partnerships with global actors, so has this practice with other agencies fostered genuine operational and strategic partnerships that directly enable both U.S. SOF, and these civilian agencies, to become far more effective.

Today, the entire U.S. military is a well-resourced and highly skilled enterprise. Amidst a world marked by escalating mistrust, instability and the proliferation of violence sponsored by both nation-states and extremists, all military branches are now urgently seeking new ways to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic advantages. Accordingly, the old saying that protecting America and her interests requires harnessing “all instruments of national power” is even more true than ever before.

U.S. special operations forces contribute to all these efforts in numerous ways. However, its enduring strength lies in its time-proven ability, skill, and enthusiasm for deliberately cultivating long-term and deep relationships. By intentionally nourishing these relationships, the special operations community aims to evolve them toward someday becoming genuine operational and strategic partnerships. In so doing, U.S. SOF enhances and enriches its contribution to all of America’s efforts to deter aggression, or should those efforts fail, to swiftly and decisively respond to threats, protect national interests and promote stability worldwide.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael K. Nagata, enlisted in 1982, attended Army Officer Candidate School and later volunteered for U.S. Army Special Forces. Throughout his 38-year career, he served in many special operations and interagency roles, participating in dozens of contingency and combat operations abroad. His final assignment was Director of Strategic Operational Planning at the National Counterterrorism Center. Today, he works as the strategic advisor and senior vice president for CACI International, a defense and technology company that provides significant capabilities and assistance for U.S. SOF and other national security needs.