Okay, the new National Military Strategy came out this week.

War on Terrorism is Dead.  I find no mention of terrorists.  Instead the new focus is on Violent Extremist Organizations (ISIS).

Hybrid Conflicts.  The concept attributed to the Russians has been expanded into a description of a category of conflicts, the Hybrid Conflicts

Integrated Military Strategy.  The consequences of the changes are reflected in a graphic in the document,  Conflict with some conflicts can be thought of as a continuum.  The military strategy can be conceptualized at a higher level - Deter, deny, defeat and disrupt, degrade, defeat.

My initial reaction is all of this is not really helpful.  Strategy is supposed to inform employment.  I don't think this does that.  For example, deny applies to a the higher end of the spectrum, but by the framework, we would not seek to deny ISIS or the Russians in the Ukraine; we would seek to disrupt and degrade.

Okay for a classroom discussion but not okay for doing strategy.

US aircraft are very vulnerable on Polish and Baltic air bases which do not have shelters to protect them.  Paper in progress,

July 8th...

This morning's TASS has an article on a snap inspection of the Russian base in Armenia.  The points from the article:

First, the Russians continue to emphasize the requirement for units to deploy from garrison positions.  They have really taken the lesson from the Georgia invasion.

The drone they mention at the end of the article has been pretty much incorporated into the force.  It is very primitive.  Although they have been working on UAV's, they are multiple generations behind other militaries.

July 10th - In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the next Chairman of the JCS said that Russia represents an exstential threat to the United States.

I wish he had not said that.  He sound like Netenyahu.  Talking this way undermines what he will say in the future.