The Benefit of Forward-Deployed Conventional Forces and U.S. Grand Strategy

• In Event: Evaluating Grand Strategy

Abstract

Is there a security benefit to forward-deployed conventional forces? If so, is it worth the costs of maintaining those forces? I argue that there is a security benefit to forward-deployed forces, but that benefit most applies to areas on the periphery of a great power’s interests. I arrive at this answer by positing that in disputes between nuclear powers, the side with the more conventional options for escalation in the area where a dispute occurs possesses greater bargaining power. However, this bargaining advantage is concentrated over peripheral disputes. I apply this conditionality to current U.S. security objectives, and I argue that conventional options for escalation would be most useful in the global commons, Eastern Europe, and the South China Sea. I then weigh the benefit of having a bargaining advantage in each of these areas against the opportunity costs of maintaining the defense spending necessary to create superior conventional options there. I estimate that forward-deployed conventional forces offer a net benefit in defense of the global commons and in the South China Sea but not in Eastern Europe. Stationing enough conventional forces there to be superior vis-à-vis Russia would be too costly and too dangerous. This leads to a recommendation that the United States should have an engaged grand strategy with a force posture that forward deploys naval and air assets but places low priority on ground troops.

Author

• Tyler Bowen, Johns Hopkins SAIS