The past, present and future of integrated deterrence for US national security

“I think we’re in a crisis time right now,” said Lieutenant General (Ret.) H.R. McMaster as he recalled a pearl of wisdom from George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during World War II: “When you have the time, you don’t have the money, and when you have the money, you don’t have the time.” In the current crisis, however, the U.S. has neither. The current crisis encompasses three areas essential for effective deterrence: investing in modern technology, enhancing military recruitment efforts, and expanding military capabilities.

During a recent discussion on deterrence strategies hosted by the Leadership, Diplomacy and National Security Lab at the Barrett & O'Connor Center in Washington, D.C., McMaster — former National Security Advisor and Distinguished University Fellow at Arizona State University — detailed how the U.S. is falling short in effectively deterring threats to its national security.

“It's more important than ever that we can prove our strategic competence, and I know that’s what this program is about [and] what the policy workshop is about, and why the work we are all doing is so important,” McMaster told an audience of students and faculty from the Master’s in International Affairs and Leadership (MA-IAL) program at ASU, which prepares the next generation of leaders in diplomacy and global security.

According to McMaster, the U.S. is significantly underinvested in its “hard power” capabilities, or its ability to use potential military force and economic pressure to influence other countries and achieve national objectives. McMaster believes that there is an urgent need for the U.S. to improve these capabilities.

McMaster explained that the armed forces currently lacks the capacity to operate in multiple theaters simultaneously, and this weakness has fostered a coalition of aggressors who exploit America’s preoccupation in one region to advance their agendas in another, underscoring the critical need for robust hard power as a cornerstone of deterrence.

“We need to spend money more effectively. One of the ways we could do that is with multi-year contracting. We must put the demand signal out there that’s predictable for multiple years and also invest in new technologies,” explained McMaster.

The former National Security Advisor cautioned against the prevailing notion that America is weak due to a tendency to disengage from complex global challenges. For McMaster, today’s popular narrative around ending wars responsibly must shift back to one of winning—defeating adversaries—to restore credibility in U.S. deterrence strategies.

“Our fundamental misunderstanding of war and what you’ve heard lately these days, you hear a lot of people talk about bringing conflicts to a responsible end,” McMaster said. “I don't really understand what that means, because in war, each side tries to outdo the other.”

And effective deterrence depends on collaboration in Congress across party lines to tackle pressing national security issues. McMaster emphasized that we all share the responsibility to unite allies abroad and bridge divides at home. Ultimately, education is paramount; teaching the truth about our history is essential to fostering a strong sense of national pride and purpose.

McMaster argued for a redefinition of diplomacy, since attempts to separate military action from diplomatic objectives often lead to unfavorable outcomes.

“We have to remember what [former Secretary of State] George Shultz said: ‘Negotiation is a euphemism for capitulation unless the shadow of power is cast across the bargaining table,’” McMaster noted.

A successful diplomatic settlement must reflect the realities on the ground; failing to connect military strategies with political aims can undermine both.

“I think it's really the ability to integrate all elements of national power and efforts of likeminded partners to make progress toward well-defined goals and objectives in the security or foreign policy space,” McMaster said.