Technology and Partner Capacity in Irregular Warfare. As the global competition intensifies, Special Forces must become the bridge between America’s technological ingenuity and its human allies abroad. That bridge will be built not of steel and code, but of judgment, empathy, and discipline—the timeless qualities that define the Regiment.
The new National Security Strategy implies working only with partners the United States can trust and whose interests align with its own. Your essay’s focus on selective and interest-driven partnerships, as well as sustainable capability transfer, cultural fit, and conditional trust fits well with this approach.
That is one of the nuances I hope the current admin understands. We are obviously beholden to partnerships and alliances in various parts of the world. Still, oftentimes we select partnerships not based on shared interests, but rather on our own, transient concerns. It is one of the challenges we face in the Indo-Pacific. Potential partners and allies HEAR that we want them to partner with us to protect OUR interests, but somehow never hear what is "in it for THEM" and how the partnership protects their interests. We have to be selective and create bridges to long-term alliances and partnerships that serve shared interests, and do so in a deliberate manner, where those shared goals and values endure long after the deployment.
If we need an ally for our own interests, it helps to be clear about what they get in return. Their self-interest should guide their choice to work with us. Caveat emptor. A fair quid pro quo feels like the cement that holds real and useful partnerships together. The new National Security Strategy seems to move away from shared values as the basis for partnership. Even so, shared values, when they exist alongside mutual interests, should strengthen any relationship. Still, necessity sometimes pushes us into harder partnerships. At times we must work with countries because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” even when the fit is uncomfortable. I hope the Administration understands the necessity and judges risk appropriately.
Hey, great read as always. Really appreciate your insights on finding that balace. How do you see AI specifically fitting into this partnership philosophy in the coming decades?
The new National Security Strategy implies working only with partners the United States can trust and whose interests align with its own. Your essay’s focus on selective and interest-driven partnerships, as well as sustainable capability transfer, cultural fit, and conditional trust fits well with this approach.
That is one of the nuances I hope the current admin understands. We are obviously beholden to partnerships and alliances in various parts of the world. Still, oftentimes we select partnerships not based on shared interests, but rather on our own, transient concerns. It is one of the challenges we face in the Indo-Pacific. Potential partners and allies HEAR that we want them to partner with us to protect OUR interests, but somehow never hear what is "in it for THEM" and how the partnership protects their interests. We have to be selective and create bridges to long-term alliances and partnerships that serve shared interests, and do so in a deliberate manner, where those shared goals and values endure long after the deployment.
If we need an ally for our own interests, it helps to be clear about what they get in return. Their self-interest should guide their choice to work with us. Caveat emptor. A fair quid pro quo feels like the cement that holds real and useful partnerships together. The new National Security Strategy seems to move away from shared values as the basis for partnership. Even so, shared values, when they exist alongside mutual interests, should strengthen any relationship. Still, necessity sometimes pushes us into harder partnerships. At times we must work with countries because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” even when the fit is uncomfortable. I hope the Administration understands the necessity and judges risk appropriately.
Hey, great read as always. Really appreciate your insights on finding that balace. How do you see AI specifically fitting into this partnership philosophy in the coming decades?