{"id":433106,"date":"2010-03-16T06:00:53","date_gmt":"2010-03-16T10:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/?p=79299"},"modified":"2010-03-16T06:00:53","modified_gmt":"2010-03-16T10:00:53","slug":"the-%e2%80%98mullen-doctrine%e2%80%99-takes-shape","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/433106","title":{"rendered":"The \u2018Mullen Doctrine\u2019 Takes Shape"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_79300\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"width: 490px\"><a href=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mullen-speech.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-79300\" title=\"Mike Mullen\" src=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mullen-speech-480x334.jpg\" alt=\"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen (Defense Department photo)\" width=\"480\" height=\"334\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen (Defense Department photo)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>It&#8217;s not the Mullen Doctrine &#8212; yet. But in a recent speech that&#8217;s  attracted little notice outside the defense blogosphere, Adm. Mike  Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the first set  of criteria for using military force <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/newshour\/extra\/teachers\/lessonplans\/iraq\/powelldoctrine.html\">since  Gen. Colin Powell held Mullen&#8217;s job nearly 20 years ago<\/a>. And  Mullen&#8217;s inchoate offerings provide something of an update &#8212; and  something of a refutation &#8212; to Powell&#8217;s advice.<\/p>\n<p><div id=\"attachment_2848\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"width: 140px\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2848\" title=\"nationalsecurity\" src=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/08\/nationalsecurity.jpg\" alt=\"Image by: Matt Mahurin\" width=\"130\" height=\"130\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Image by: Matt Mahurin<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"floatButtons\">\n<div style=\"float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;\"><script src=\"http:\/\/digg.com\/tools\/diggthis.js\" type=\"text\/javascript\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div style=\"float: left; margin-bottom: 10px;\"><script type=\"text\/javascript\"\n\tsrc=\"http:\/\/d.yimg.com\/ds\/badge2.js\"\n\tbadgetype=\"square\">\n\t<?php the_permalink(); ?><\/script><\/div>\n<div style=\"float: left; margin-right: 10px;\">\n\t<script type=\"text\/javascript\">\ntweetmeme_source = \"TWI_news\";\ntweetmeme_service = \"bit.ly\";\n<\/script> <script src=\"http:\/\/tweetmeme.com\/i\/scripts\/button.js\" type=\"text\/javascript\"><\/script>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"float: left;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" href=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php\">Share<\/a><script src=\"http:\/\/static.ak.fbcdn.net\/connect.php\/js\/FB.Share\" type=\"text\/javascript\"><\/script><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p> Mullen&#8217;s  speech, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jcs.mil\/speech.aspx?ID=1336\">delivered to  Kansas State University on March 3<\/a>, was not intended to provide an  inflexible blueprint for how the U.S. ought to use its military, aides  to the chairman said. Instead, the speech meant to draw conclusions from  Mullen&#8217;s three years as chairman advising two administrations about the  scope &#8212; and, Mullen&#8217;s aides emphasize, the limitations &#8212; of military  force in an era of stateless and unconventional threats after nine years  of continuous warfare.<br \/>\n&#8220;This is his legacy,&#8221; said Patrick Cronin, a  defense analyst with the Center for a New American Security. &#8220;He has  articulated the Pentagon&#8217;s rediscovery of limited war theory.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps  Mullen&#8217;s most provocative &#8220;principle,&#8221; as he called it in the speech,  is that military forces &#8220;should not \u2013 maybe cannot \u2013 be the last resort  of the state.&#8221; On the surface, Mullen appeared to offer a profligate  view of sending troops to battle, contradicting the Powell Doctrine&#8217;s  warning that the military should only be used when all other options  exhaust themselves. Powell&#8217;s warning has great appeal to a country  exhausted by two costly, protracted wars, one of which was launched long  before diplomatic options had run out.<\/p>\n<p>But Mullen&#8217;s aides said  the chairman was trying to make a subtler point, one that envisioned the  deployment of military forces not as a sharp change in strategy from  diplomacy but along a continuum of strategy alongside it. &#8220;The American  people are used to thinking of war and peace as two very distinct  activities,&#8221; said Air Force Col. Jim Baker, one of Mullen&#8217;s advisers for  military strategy. &#8220;That is not always the case.&#8221; In the speech, Mullen  focused his definition of military force on the forward deployment of  troops or hardware to bolster diplomatic efforts or aid in humanitarian  ones, rather than the invasions that the last decade saw.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Before  a shot is even fired, we can bolster a diplomatic argument, support a  friend or deter an enemy,&#8221; Mullen said. &#8220;We can assist rapidly in  disaster-relief efforts, as we did in the aftermath of Haiti\u2019s  earthquake.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>As much as it seems as though Mullen&#8217;s first  principle allows for an era of increased conflict, his additional  principles flowing from that insight would appear to place constraints  on the military. Mullen&#8217;s major proposal is that the military should be  deployed for future counterinsurgencies or other unconventional  conflicts &#8220;only if and when the other instruments of national power are  ready to engage as well,&#8221; such as governance advisers, development  experts, and other civilians. &#8220;We ought to make it a precondition of  committing our troops,&#8221; Mullen said, warning that &#8220;we aren\u2019t moving fast  enough&#8221; to strengthen the institutional capacity of the State  Department and USAID in order to lift the greatest burdens of national  security off the shoulders of the military.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We shouldn&#8217;t start  something unless we have the capacity to bring everybody on board,&#8221;  Baker elaborated, highlighting the &#8220;precondition&#8221; as among the most  important aspects of Mullen&#8217;s speech. &#8220;I almost read that as more of a  cautionary note.&#8221; That, at least, is commensurate with the spirit of the  Powell Doctrine&#8217;s cautions about a national over-reliance on military  force. &#8220;If you&#8217;re going to have anything to sustainable to resolve a  conflict, then there&#8217;s got to be something that follows,&#8221; Baker added,  &#8220;or you&#8217;re going to dump it on the military.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Stating the  position from another &#8212; and more controversial &#8212; angle, Mullen  contended in his speech that foreign policy had become &#8220;too dependent  upon the generals and admirals who lead our major overseas commands,&#8221; an  implicit rebuke of the structural factors resulting in the increased  diplomatic profile of military leaders like Gen. David Petraeus of U.S.  Central Command and Adm. James Stavridis of U.S. European Command. In  other words, if State and USAID don&#8217;t like being outshined by officers  like Petraeus, they need to show a greater assertiveness and capacity to  respond to foreign policy challenges before a president turns to the  military to solve a problem.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is an imbalance in our  civilian capacity to work alongside the military in fragile states,&#8221;  said Cronin, a former senior official at USAID. &#8220;The combatant commands  are regionally based out in the world, and we don&#8217;t have any civilian  equivalent of that. So we have to find a way to connect our civilian  organization, which is essentially a country team centered on an  ambassador, with the interagency represented underneath, with the  combatant commander, who has broad swaths of geography and can work  across boundaries &#8212; which is necessary when you&#8217;re dealing with  non-state and mobile threats.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, Mullen, the first  chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to embrace the <a href=\"http:\/\/washingtonindependent.com\/426\/series-the-rise-of-the-counterinsurgents\">theorist-practitioners  of counterinsurgency<\/a> &#8212; who contend that the loyalties of a  civilian population are decisive in a conflict between a government and  internal rebels &#8212; offered insights that reflected the worldview of the  counterinsurgents. &#8220;Force should, to the maximum extent possible, be  applied in a precise and principled way,&#8221; Mullen said, because the  contemporary battlefield is &#8220;in the minds of the people.&#8221; That&#8217;s the  first time a chairman has embraced the concept of &#8220;population-centric&#8221;  warfare, a departure from the &#8220;enemy-centric&#8221; focus of doctrines like  Powell&#8217;s, with its focus on applying &#8220;overwhelming force&#8221; to vanquish an  adversary. Mullen also implicitly departed from Powell&#8217;s conception  that war should be conducted with minimal &#8220;interference&#8221; from civilian  policymakers by arguing that the current threats the U.S. faces require  an &#8220;iterative&#8221; process, requiring &#8220;near constant reassessment and  adjustment.&#8221; He said victory in contemporary warfare would feel  &#8220;a lot  less like a knock-out punch and a lot more like recovering from a long  illness.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Mullen is no stranger to offering broad  reconsiderations of American strategy. Before becoming chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff &#8212; the president&#8217;s senior military adviser &#8212; in  2007, Mullen was the nation&#8217;s highest-ranking Naval officer, and in 2006  he embraced a concept called the &#8220;thousand ship navy,&#8221; a way of  thinking about global security partnerships. Mullen <a href=\"http:\/\/www.afji.com\/2006\/12\/2336959\">defined<\/a> the idea as &#8220;a  global maritime partnership that unites maritime forces, port operators,  commercial shippers, and international, governmental and  nongovernmental agencies to address mutual concerns&#8221; in an October 2006  op-ed in the Honolulu Advertiser. Similarly, using the handle  @thejointstaff, Mullen might be the senior military leadership&#8217;s most  prolific Twitter user.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the counterinsurgents whom Mullen  has embraced have grappled with how to interpret Mullen&#8217;s speech.  Andrew Exum, author of the popular blog Abu Muqawama, <a href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\/abumuqawama\/status\/10046561502\">tweeted<\/a>,  &#8220;Is this speech by Adm. Mullen a big deal or nothing particularly  earth-shattering?&#8221; Robert Haddick, one of the editors of the influential  Small Wars Journal blog, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.foreignpolicy.com\/articles\/2010\/03\/05\/this_week_at_war_the_powell_doctrine_is_dead\">declared  Mullen&#8217;s speech to have buried the Powell Doctrine<\/a> by presuming  &#8220;low-level warfare is an enduring fact of life.&#8221; Other bloggers have  dissected <a href=\"http:\/\/notsogreatgame.wordpress.com\/2010\/03\/13\/guest-blogger-a-doctrinal-shift-in-american-military-strategy\/\">whether  it&#8217;s even fair to characterize the speech as a &#8220;Mullen Doctrine<\/a>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>If  it&#8217;s not the Mullen Doctrine yet &#8212; &#8220;That&#8217;s your guys&#8217; judgment,&#8221; Baker  said &#8212; it might form the basis for one. Baker said that he would  encourage his boss to expand the speech and develop its ideas for a  longer essay in one of the major foreign-policy journals. &#8220;He felt like  he had something to say here,&#8221; Baker added, &#8220;so he went out and said  it.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen (Defense Department photo) It&#8217;s not the Mullen Doctrine &#8212; yet. But in a recent speech that&#8217;s attracted little notice outside the defense blogosphere, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the first set of criteria for using military force [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4314,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-433106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4314"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=433106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=433106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=433106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=433106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}