Military Soft Power: A Legacy for the Future to Counter Great Power Competition
By Captain Michael Bruneau, U.S. Navy Reserve
What is Great Power Competition
Great Power Competition (GPC) is the current strategic focus for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), with its origins dating to the second term of the Obama presidency. Codified as the primary focus in the 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy, the DoD is now evaluating and employing a broad range of military and non-military options to deter both China and Russia. The use of a grand or comprehensive strategy using a whole-of-government approach to GPC is the primary focus for the DoD, amongst other U.S. Government agencies. Different from the approach taken for the Global War on Terror, the military has to rethink how it can return to a nation-against-nation(s) approach in waging war and building alliances. This matters a great deal for the U.S. military in terms of harnessing new technologies to prepare for global operations (possibly kinetic but at a minimum blocking with defensive actions) against the militaries of two increasingly competitive countries. As it relates to military effectiveness in wartime, namely lethality, the actions of allies and coalition partners are increasingly important for a global power struggle that will presumably play out across several different but related spheres of influence. Military soft power applies at the personal and individual level in this new environment, with leaders and up-and-coming leaders of our allies, coalition partners and future partners of strategic importance. The U.S. military has been wielding soft power for generations across the globe, but now needs to better understand and assess the effects as a central component of the broader U.S. strategy.
What is Military Soft Power?
The idea of soft power and its influence in the political space have been the focus of numerous books and articles over the past 30 years, starting with Joseph Nye and his seminal book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. The principal idea behind soft power is that it “co-opts people rather than coercing them,” typically through the values or culture of a country or organization that are an attractive force for others who will seek to emulate the example. Examples of soft power from the United States include the actions of the Peace Corps, the influence of American culture through Hollywood films and professional sports leagues, and the broad appeal of freedoms exercised by American citizens. While the U.S. DoD has primary responsibility for wielding the instruments of military hard power, it also provides support, directly or indirectly, to a number of engagements and missions that complement American soft power.
The growth in the DoD’s reach with soft power can partly be explained by an active military engagement through two contemporary wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan) in which traditional military roles expanded significantly, coupled with an increase in the type and nature of alliances and coalitions that the U.S. military now supports. Furthermore, the soft power that best represents the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been consistent with rebuilding efforts following World War II, namely using military experts to train, advise and assist during a wartime environment and following the cessation of overt hostilities. However, in addition to the military experts who conduct activities in the context of these wars, the military services have pursued an ongoing effort across the globe to offer training and advisory support to current allies, in addition to other nations who will be critical to advance U.S. strategy. Of note, military trainers may conduct their work from within the United States, offering training programs for foreign military selected for these courses. Their actions are of equal importance, where they represent the U.S. military and by extension American culture to foreign military partners. The military’s actions outside of hostile territories, characterized by both region and type of activity, will be the focus of this article, which argues that military-led soft power is a key enabler to complement the 2018 National Defense Strategy in a whole-of-government approach.
Why Does Military Soft Power Matter in Great Power Competition?
For the purpose of this article, military soft power will be considered in two separate ways. First, as a sustained deterrent to separate our adversaries from our allies through direct engagement in exercises, training and partnering activities. Second, as a long-term strategy, where the relationships built between junior military personnel today may not have an impact until many years in the future as they assume leadership positions in their countries. Insofar as these methods are both difficult to measure and may only be perceived in the long-term, they have not been treated with a similar level of scrutiny and oversight from policymakers that exists for foreign military sales, or other equipment-related technical assistance.
Foreign military sales, and the technical training and support that comes with the sale of military equipment, is managed through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, with oversight from the Departments of State (DoS), DoD and the U.S. Congress. The direct interactions that come from advising and training foreign militaries, through exercises or dedicated courses of instruction, are significant over the long term in a changing global environment where every partner and ally counts. Furthermore, developing the capacity of a partner in dealing with shared threats is a cost-effective model to pursue, which also strengthens a global alliance of countries with common or overlapping interests. Military soft power should be considered the relationship glue that helps cement those alliances, thereby providing a foundation for future development, strengthening joint operations. Several characteristics of this approach are as follows:
1 – As Americans, members of the U.S. military consist of diverse demographics, including different cultures, religions and languages. The U.S. military counts many foreign-born or second-generation immigrants in the ranks of officer and enlisted personnel, totaling 13 percent of all veterans in 2018. Furthermore, through an active citizenship program, non-citizen members of the military can request U.S. citizenship after one year of service. The U.S. military at an individual level can relate to the military of many foreign countries as they share a great deal in common, beyond the fact that they both serve in uniform. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guard personnel, and marines who interact with their peers from allied nations represent the United States and are critical in how the U.S. is perceived abroad. Through direct and personal relationship-building at the mid- and lower-levels of the military, the United States can build on an existing structure of key leader engagement that already exists for senior officers, focused at the flag and general officer level.
2 – The approach taken by the U.S. government is a transparent strategy, where the actions of the U.S. military are complementary to and representative of the broader U.S. culture. An individual service member is acting in a genuine manner while representing his country, but he/she still remains an individual. If a training advisor says he/she is a fan of the NBA, rap music, Disneyland… then he/she is likely telling the truth as there is no benefit in deceiving a foreign military officer or enlisted peer. The assumption of honesty cannot be assumed when dealing with the militaries of some foreign adversaries, where they are required to represent the state in all matters and are directed to do so.
3 – Through training, advising and other less formal levels of engagement, the U.S. military is helping to build compatibility and interoperability with foreign militaries at the individual level. Furthermore, U.S. advisors and trainers provide skills that are highly valued to help improve the quality of life at the individual level, especially for individuals from developing countries, whether they are military or civilian. In many cases the training is offered free of charge from the U.S. military, while in other situations it is purchased by the partner nation. Some examples of individual benefits offered are as follows: improved English language skills, technical skills, leadership skills, and quite possibly foreign travel to the United States for training in a wide variety of technical and leadership topics. This training is applicable beyond military applications and can help the trainee to improve their earning potential in their home country.
How can the U.S. Military Improve the Use of Soft Power?
In recent conflicts, primarily Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has exercised military soft power through a variety of military programs and organizations, where soft power is typically a benefit derived from the principal mission. These elements of soft power are focused on efforts in a specific country that support rebuilding efforts, training and direct engagement, most often through embedded advisor roles. During the Global War on Terror (GWOT) the implementation of reconstruction efforts to help develop and sustain government ministries was critical to develop a stable foundation in countries undergoing hostilities. These efforts were regional in nature and focused on eliminating the areas, both geographic and economic, that had resulted in the growth of terrorism. Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) hands, Advisor Support Teams (AST), Military Transition Teams (MiTT), Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFAB), and Ministry of Defense Advisors (MoDA) programs are some examples of programs where military and DoD civilians have been embedded in advisory roles to support warfighting or reconstruction efforts.
While some of these roles have traditionally been civilian-led efforts, typically through the Department of State, the risks involved in operating in hostile environments forced the U.S. military to develop similar skills within its ranks. However, outside of active reconstruction and military operations in war zones, a sustained presence of U.S. military advisors operate as Liaison Officers, Trainers, Foreign Area Officers (FAOs), the civil affairs community, and other uniformed military who represent the United States directly with allies and possible allies on a daily basis. Different from the role of advisors in hostile environments, these roles are focused primarily on maintaining a forward presence for direct and sustained engagement with foreign military leadership, hosted in many cases through the organization of the embassy or regional Combatant Area Commander’s staff. Through their forward presence, personal experiences and cultural understanding, these officers are in many cases the eyes and ears of what is happening on the ground around the globe. Their position gives them the ability to engage our allies and deter our adversaries, especially when their country or region is not the military’s current operational focus. The access, understanding and relationships they maintain can be considered a type of safety valve that is ready when called upon for in-country support, but one that requires ongoing maintenance and engagement.
The concept of multi-year relationship-building at the individual level for key allies must be accepted and embraced by the U.S. military in order to truly be successful. Although some of the military personnel in these roles may operate from the United States, namely trainers at U.S.-based centers, by virtue of their direct contact with foreign military they will be treated in the same capacity as overseas U.S. military. Of particular mention, the enduring relationships from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) State Partnership Program (SPP) illustrate how the U.S. military can exert soft power at a country level with an enduring program. The SPP, established in 1993, holds the mission to match state-level National Guard forces to a specific country, with an emphasis on building enduring relationships of trust and interoperability. Through the NGB state partnership program results are delivered that will continue into the distant future as the state-level National Guard forces typically remain with their units for a much longer duration than active- duty soldiers. With recurring engagements, the same National Guard officers and enlisted personnel will continue to interact with their assigned country, thereby maintaining connectivity as the foreign military officers rise to positions of authority.
With the conclusion of World War II, the United States has maintained a forward-deployed military presence across the globe, primarily to act as deterrent forces to support military operations worldwide. Forward-deployed military forces have also served as a foundation to deliver in-region training and support to a wide variety of allies and partner nations. During these various engagements, the individual service member presents an impression of American culture as shown from a diverse cross-section of American society. When engaging with foreign allies, the allies are exposed to people with their backgrounds, speaking their languages and following their religions albeit with a U.S. flag on their shoulder. The impression that this presents to the up-and-coming leadership/decision-makers of our allies and possible allies both large and small cannot be overstated. This area should be cultivated and complemented with similar programs offered by the DoS and other agencies.
Between the DoS and the DoD, multiple training programs are offered to foreign militaries under the aegis of security cooperation. Building partner capacity is the end goal of these programs; however, the ability to measure the impact of these programs, amongst others, has been a long-standing issue. Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper identified a new initiative to enable such a practice through the Department of Defense Guidance for Development of Alliances and Partnerships (GDAP). “The GDAP will enable us to: prioritize, align and synchronize our security cooperation activities across Title 10 authorities to build partner capacity; better articulate the Department’s needs for priority ally and partner warfighting roles through future force planning; focus our efforts to help them shape their militaries into more capable forces; and measure and track our progress across a wide range of tools available to the Defense Department.”
The U.S. military continues to offer excellent military training programs that are already in high demand from foreign militaries. Professional Military Education (PME) opportunities are prized by our allies, both as a mark of professionalism in a specific field and as an opportunity to train in the United States. Through these education opportunities, an added level of integration and understanding is offered to our allies through common tactics, equipment, and a shared understanding of goals. The delivery of this level of training provides the foundation for increasing an ally’s military effectiveness during combat operations, which extends to the training received by the individual soldier, not all of which is limited to military skills due to skills that are relevant in responding to natural disasters, providing medical and civil readiness. However, the shared understanding and interaction with Americans outside of training may provide longer-term benefits as key criteria in establishing personal relationships.
In addition to PME, the U.S. also offers world-class civilian education institutions, technology, popular culture, transparency in government and a respect for the rights of the individual. In some situations, when foreign military receive training on U.S. soil, the added benefit of living with an American host family or relocating with their own family can provide added benefits through a deeper immersion. Although not all elements of western culture will resonate with foreign military students in the United States, the result is a greater awareness and understanding of foreign cultures and people for those fortunate enough to participate. A corollary benefit exists for the American trainers, with the opportunity to gain a better appreciation of foreign cultures and the development of personal relationships may prove a personal and/or strategic benefit in the future.
Limitations
Through the presidency of Donald Trump, many U.S. government departments saw significant retirements and departures, none more so than within the DoS. The short-term result for the U.S. military is a greater emphasis on contact by Combatant Area Commanders, where regional or deployed military forces develop additional operations and exercises with allied and partner military forces. Moreover, a result at the country level is illustrated by the fact that U.S. military forces will often engage with participants beyond the host-nation military, to include border patrol, coast guard, police forces, and intelligence agencies, depending on the structure and needs of the allied nation. This trend was already in play during the Global War on Terror, where the military proved themselves capable to take on additional missions, some of which were traditionally under the mantel of the Department of State. The impetus was partially due to the aforementioned risks with civilians operating in hostile environments, combined with the abilities shown by the military to manage multiple areas of foreign engagement. The longer-term implication is that the reduction in capability forward for the Department of State minimizes a key enabler and critical ally for U.S. military soft power objectives especially where DoS's traditional roles erode and/or shift to the military. The Department of State is better equipped to manage enduring relationships at the country level, where the military is but one component amongst many.
American embassies and consulates overseas have historically acted as the central point of contact with foreign leaders, in addition to providing necessary support for U.S. citizens living abroad. The presence of American embassies and consulates in a foreign country is a powerful symbol of U.S. presence, to include supporting diplomatic, commercial, cultural, and military efforts. To put this into perspective, the United States currently fields 273 diplomatic missions worldwide, where a mission can be an embassy or consulate. That number may seem impressive when you consider that the United Nations only counts 195 registered countries. However, the United States is now in second place, with China hosting 276 missions globally.
When dealing with the host nation, an American embassy serves as the focal point for multiple areas of engagement, to include military-to-military contact. In the embassy structure, the Senior Defense Official/Defense Attache (SDO/DATT) has direct responsibility for all levels of military assistance and engagement in the host country, in addition to serving as a key member of the U.S. Embassy’s country team. As such, the continuity for military engagement relies upon close alignment between the Ambassador, who represents the President, and the SDO/DATT. Furthermore, in those embassies where the entire country team is aligned around U.S. foreign policy objectives and working across military, economic, diplomatic and other channels, the results will exceed those of other embassies that lack a cohesive strategy and partnership among embassy section leaders.
A Combatant Area Commander holds military responsibility for a broader region that includes exercises and operational matters involving coalition or allied militaries in that region. In these cases, a close working relationship between the Combatant Area Commander and an SDO/DATT who will coordinate with the ambassador on host-nation engagement fosters a consistent and cohesive approach. Where the embassies and consulates are not fully effective in outreach and the representation of American ideals, the overall coalition message is challenged, no matter how actively the military may want to engage with a particular country.
Free and open press in democracies can both help and hurt a country’s efforts in projecting soft power, no matter how effective the military’s efforts in this space may be. When the press displays scenes of rioting, police violence, and inability to care for its citizens it delivers a negative perception of the host country to foreign politicians and individuals alike. To build upon this impression, both China and Russia are increasingly presenting themselves as stabilizing influences across the globe, focusing on trade negotiations, pandemic response, treaty brokerage, and providers of global security. Both countries have proven adept at communicating these narratives through their local news outlets, often with a consistent message delivered via state-controlled outlets and broadcast in the regional language. Furthermore, external propaganda can use existing images to drive a narrative that is already built on instability and violence in the United States.
Although the United States has faced a challenging past two years, with the coronavirus epidemic and a tumultuous election process, the opportunities available in the United States are unmatched globally. The challenge for the U.S. government is effectively portraying that message through a number of channels, where the international press is free to broadcast and amplify the messages that they see fit for a specific occasion. This can result in a confusing and contradictory message on what the United States stands for as relates to a specific country or region, making the role of diplomats and forward-deployed military all the more important to help provide context and clarity in the messaging to the host nation.
Recommendations
For the first element in a successful strategy to support sustaining engagements with foreign militaries, the DoD has taken steps to professionalize their forces and establish training and career progression standards. In the joint environment, the development of the FAO community is a proactive step by the U.S. military to establish a community of professionals with a strategic focus, regional expertise, and professional military experience to act on the front lines engaging foreign militaries. The FAO community specializes in three principal area: Security Cooperation, Defense Attaché Service, and staff support in a variety of functional areas and geographical regions. Through these roles, individual FAOs work directly with foreign military leaders and advise the U.S. DoD, in addition to the DoS and other government executive departments.
With its establishment in 1972, the FAO community has continued to evolve and improve over time, where those lessons learned can now be applied to other forces who interact with foreign militaries. Applying this learning to develop and build continuity with U.S. military forces that can execute engagement missions for the near future, three criteria must be observed to truly be successful.
First and foremost, the selection of officer and enlisted personnel for these roles must be extremely rigorous in screening those with relevant warfare qualifications in a primary military discipline, in addition to the desire and soft skills that are necessary in an advisory role. Some of the soft skills include empathy, patience, and creativity in working through ambiguity when dealing with host-nation forces. The ability to read a situation when the individual is not native to a region or completely fluent in the language is a must as there is a great deal that may not be stated clearly due to cultural or rank sensitivities. Another benefit of soft skills as employed by members of the U.S. military is evident when briefing senior leadership on the true or underlying message in communications from foreign governments and press agencies. The cultural sense gained from deep study of a region, to include its languages and cultures, serves FAOs as they advise their leadership in addition to helping them better engage with allies.
The second criterion for FAOs and other military professionals who have the training and/or experience derived from working directly with foreign military forces is directly related to career progression and the professionalization of career development in this area. The importance of professional engagement skills should be nurtured and monitored at the individual level. To properly track career progression across the uniformed military requires the use of Military Operational Specialty (MOS) codes or equivalent systems to tag those individuals who have relevant training and experience. Each component of the military may do this in different ways, to include the use of secondary codes or designators, but the important point is to enable the identification and subsequent career progression for those officers and enlisted personnel. With the ability to identify experience against a career track, with opportunities to promote based on tangible experience and results, the military can more effectively attract talent to roles that engage directly with foreign militaries. Moreover, when a crisis occurs and the military is looking for service members with relevant experience, using an MOS code to search through personnel databases is far easier than sending a query across the entire organization.
The third criterion to build a sustaining program for preparing U.S. military forces for direct engagement with foreign militaries is a robust and flexible training program. Training needs to focus at the individual level to prepare for career advancement, and at the unit level to prepare for deployment. Depending on the level of engagement, the use of certification exercises should be considered to ensure preparation and interoperability across multiple units prior to deploying. Training courses should be reviewed continuously for relevancy against assigned missions, with a feedback loop from deployers to capture and act upon data, both qualitative and quantitative. The U.S. DoD currently operates a variety of training centers and schoolhouses with different elements required for these engagement missions, where a first step might be adapting and enhancing existing curricula. In that each service component addresses its own training needs, additional opportunities exist in standardizing curricula and leveraging best practices. The standardization of training, namely the establishment of common standards across all branches of the military, is a critical step to implement best practices as the new standard in addition to offering the curriculum to all branches. With real-world experience gained from both hostile and permissive environments, the U.S. military has the required professionals currently in uniform who can continue to refine and improve training curricula.
One specific area of training that can serve as a baseline for all military engaged with training and advising activities with foreign military forces is Language, Regional Expertise and Culture (LREC) training. LREC training should be available at a variable level, dependent upon the type of engagement and rank, to these service members and units prior to working with foreign militaries. The U.S. Army has made this a focus for Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB) units, which can effectively engage across a broad spectrum and are specialized by region, using a similar model to the one employed by U.S. Army Special Forces. The SFAB structure frees up combat units to focus on combat missions, in addition to leveraging the skill sets and organizational structure at multiple levels within the SFAB to better engage in a region or country. Other benefits to the SFAB construct include relevancy for military career progression using an additional skills identifier for those soldiers with the relevant training.
At the global level, SFABs are built to support global deployments with six brigades comprised of one National Guard and five active-duty brigades under a common command structure. Through a comprehensive structure an SFAB can operate across many countries in a region, provide advisory support through higher headquarters and sustain this presence through a rotation of forces. The U.S. Army has developed the SFAB organization with a clear training pipeline and certification exercise prior to deployment, thereby ensuring a sustainable presence without having to rely on combatant forces. The U.S. Army has built upon its experience in both Afghanistan and Iraq to develop a professional and sustaining capability with a focus on advisory roles at a scale that will make an impact for a country or region.
Conclusions
For military soft power to make a sustainable difference, it must be part of a larger strategic approach that takes into account relevant Great Power Competition objectives by region. Combatant Area Commander campaign plans are a natural fit to evaluate where and how military engagements should be planned, with the aforementioned alignment between Department of State initiatives for U.S. military-led training efforts. Only through strong regional alignment will the effects be able to compete effectively with GPC competitors, who have executed their strategy through a rigorous top-down model that encompasses all aspects of military engagement and weapons sales.
The objectives that are directly influenced by the deployment of soft power should have a longer-term goal where the implementation and actions may change, preferably based on results and a refinement of actions to meet defined goals. The strategic timeline is a critical element due both to the longer-term influence felt from developing personal relationships with up-and-coming decision-makers and the need to counter the strategic timeframe of GPC competitors. The U.S. military is uniquely positioned as a non-partisan element in the U.S. government with the necessary abilities to operate in ambiguous and dynamic environments. As the U.S. military is adaptable and capable to take on evolving missions, the risk of not applying analytical rigor to results against goals is high.
The immortal words of management guru Peter Drucker, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure,” apply to military engagements and suggest that they should be tracked. This concept speaks to the expectations specific to a country or region, which should be a mix of qualitative and quantitative evaluation, to include engagement activity in addition to the results of those engagements as measured in performance. Esper alluded to this during his speech to the Atlantic Council on 20 October 2020, through the concept of measuring the number of engagements and a FMS dashboard to show clearly the level of activity for a specific country. These two metrics represent an important initiative, where engagement and FMS activity can be clearly compared by region and country at the DOD level. The risk is that these metrics will represent the totality of U.S. military activity on a static dashboard, without taking into account other qualitative metrics or subjective input from the region.
Neither China nor Russia can offer the soft power benefits that come from U.S. military activities in support of our allies, due in no small part to the fact that the people of other countries do not want to emulate a controlling political system where the rights of the individual are secondary to the ruling of the controlling ideology or political party. With long-standing repression of ethnic minorities in China, combined with recent actions in the South China Sea, trust in China at the individual level is very low, at least among those countries directly affected by Chinese activities. Russia has exhibited a similar level of domineering activity on its borders, supporting dictatorships while attempting to negate the effect of democratic processes.
For the U.S. military to capitalize on its soft-power abilities a continued focus on improvements in training, professionalization of the forces and a long-term horizon are critical. While U.S. foreign policy will continue to recognize the importance of allies and coalition partners, the strategic execution will rely on the Combatant Area Commanders and ambassadors for a specific region or country. Where the DoD and the DoS can work together in a complementary fashion while maintaining a consistent level of activity, the United States will continue to win. In those regions where the United States chooses not to compete or competes inconsistently is where our Great Power Competitors can continue to make inroads.
China, in particular, has used a whole-of-government approach very successfully, combining investment opportunities targeted at the level of country leadership through the Belt and Road Initiative to engage with foreign leadership at the highest levels. These investments provide the opportunity for China to gain influence through corrupt business practices (at least as measured by Western norms) with minimal financial gain for the population of a specific country. Recent infrastructure projects funded by China have included the exportation of temporary Chinese laborers, thereby eliminating investment in local labor forces. Furthermore, the long-term obligation to pay off debts derived from infrastructure projects will persist for many years beyond the rule of a specific leader, effectively restricting the long-term growth options for a country.
However, China has been operating effectively across multiple countries in the developing world, to include developing trade and military-to-military relationships with multiple countries in Africa and Latin America in recent decades. This is in addition to exporting military hardware, weapons systems and “Smart Cities” technology, ostensibly to manage crime, traffic, and energy consumption for an urban area through a networked systems of cameras and other sensors backed by facial recognition technology. The above example illustrates how the playing field has changed, which will require the United States and its allies and partners to take on the challenge in the most professional manner possible. The opportunity to leverage an existing source of strength, namely military soft power, will help offset gains from the competition while building or maintaining long-standing relationships for future generations.
About the Author
Captain Michael Bruneau is a Navy Reservist Foreign Area Officer (FAO) who started his Navy career in the Special Operations (EOD) Community. He has led and supported multiple partner and ally military engagements across the globe, to include the Indo-Pacific, European, and Central Commands. In his civilian career, he is the Vice President and General Manager of Norfolk Ship Repair for BAE Systems, where he leads a team of industry professionals in supporting U.S. Navy and civilian ship maintenance and repair.