Renewed US calls for ‘whole-of-nation’ approach to national security

For many, the traditional concept of “national security” has generally focused on the “hard power” concepts of conventional economic and military power, espionage and intelligence gathering, quantifiable factors that can be analysed and tabulated to give an understanding of a nation’s power relative to others — however, as the global balance of power continues to evolve and deteriorate into a multipolar system, where rivals leverage “whole-of-nation” strategies, many have called for the West to embrace a more holistic view of national security. 

This contemporary reimagining of national security is best defined by US academic Charles Maier, who states: “National security ... is best described as a capacity to control those domestic and foreign conditions that the public opinion of a given community believes necessary to enjoy its own self-determination or autonomy, prosperity and well-being.”

While the United States and much of the Western world has embraced the traditional “definition” of national security, a growing number of potential rivals from Russia to China and even potential partners in Ukraine and India have begun to increasingly embrace a new “whole-of-nation” concept of national security, leveraging the whole power of the nation and building a system that sees their respective populations invested in the future direction and security of the nation, either through direct coercion, “benevolent” policies that engender trust and personal investment, or more commonly, a combination of the two. 

Recognising the strengths presented by such an approach, the US strategic non-profit technology company MITRE has called on the United States to begin building its own “whole-of-nation” strategy that provides the overarching plan and national direction, supported by pillars like the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy to capitalise on the strength this approach brings.

Strengthening the US and its allies

As part of an overall strengthening of the US-led alliance system and the individual nations that constitute it, MITRE also calls on the United States to support allies like Australia, the United Kingdom and Western European nations to begin developing their own strategies to strengthen their national resilience and better coordinate their response in the face of increasing geopolitical, strategic competition and foreign interference across the globe. 

Explaining the importance of this approach, former congressman Mike Rogers — now chairman of the board of trustees for MITRE — and Keoki Jackson — senior vice president and general manager, MITRE National Security Sector — writing for The Hill, articulate the growing importance for this new approach, “There is an urgency of now, and it’s a key lesson from Ukraine’s preparation to further defend itself after the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. After 2014, the Ukrainians mobilised all national resources and capabilities to counter the growing Russian threat and were prepared when hostilities commenced in February 2022.”

VIEW ALL

“Like Ukraine, we must ensure the same sense of urgency at home, taking advantage of every minute to increase deterrence and create capability against China, both in competition and for potential future conflict. To match the urgency of the threats, we must embrace timely, flexible cross-government approaches to match the complexity of the challenges. As two national security professionals with decades of experience, we propose the following recommendations to jumpstart and operationalise a ‘whole-of-nation’ approach to ensure our nation’s security for decades to come," Rogers and Jackson add. 

Rogers and Jackson identify three core focus areas for the United States and its allies to enhance national resilience to coercion, foreign interference and national security in the face of increasing global competition: Update and empower the defence industrial base, empower allies and partners through collaboration, and defend the homeland against cyber threats — each with their own unique impact on national security. 

Updating and empowering the defence industrial base

For both the US and its allies, including Australia, the age of the respective defence industrial base, combined with the dependence on vulnerable supply chains and the centralisation of major consolidation infrastructure significantly impacts the capacity of these nations to compete against potential adversaries — in particular, the global dependence on key strategic resources like rare earth elements (REEs) or high-quality magnets, microprocessors or low-observable materials has prompted a major rethink in many partners. 

Rogers and Jackson unpack the importance of this concept further, explaining, “As Ukraine’s conflict with Russia has shown, a nation’s path to victory is often helped or hindered by its ability to deliver capability to its warfighters. The capabilities needed are often provided by a strong and innovative defense industrial base. The US defense industrial base has been the world’s leader in providing capability but is challenged by China and its strategy of ‘military-civil fusion’. China’s end-goal is to ‘leapfrog’ the United States to become the predominant military power in the world.”

This is reinforced by Rogers and Jackson who stress the importance of the US Defense Production Act (DPA) as a means of modernising and broadening the scope and scale of the defence industrial base, who state, “(the) DPA authorities allowed the Department of Defense to secure many of the elements needed for domestic production of large lithium batteries, which are critical components in domestic and national security products. In August, the DOD used the DPA to launch an innovative partnership in Texas to accelerate production of inert gasses for military and commercial applications. The US government should expand the use of the DPA to create capacity in areas such as casting, forging and tooling, as well as additive manufacturing."

Empowering allies and partners through collaboration

The post-Second World War world is defined by the US-led world order and underpinned by the global alliance network, which has provided the United States with unrivalled global reach and tactical and strategic mobility — however, the peace dividend and the nearly three decades of relative peace has left much of the US and its system of allies unprepared for the new era of great power competition once thought confined to the pages of history. 

Accordingly, Rogers and Jackson stress the increasing importance of growing collaboration between allies and partners and the United States to enhance capability, maximise national resilience and security and to deliver true capability outcomes — leveraging the example of the NATO-focused Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), which is “focusing on developing warfighting technologies through partnerships with allied countries, the private sector and academia”. Rogers and Jackson call for the creation of an Indo-Pacific theatre organisation to achieve the same outcomes. 

“An Indo-Pacom innovation organisation would develop advanced capabilities in theatre focusing explicitly on the most critical challenges and could provide support to important initiatives such as the recently signed AUKUS agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. AUKUS will provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia and increase the advanced technology capabilities of these three nations in the Indo-Pacific region,” Rogers and Jackson, in explaining this model, identify the importance of collaboration between partners.  

Defend the homeland against cyber threats

The growing importance and equalising capability provided by cyber warfare capabilities present well-documented, significant challenges to national security. This is the final area of focus for Rogers and Jackson, particularly in light of growing cases of cyber attacks against business, academia and government organisations that threaten traditional security and the growing cohesiveness and functionality of societies around the world. 

Further emphasising this threat is the growing prevalence of cyber-backed corporate and industrial espionage which has been leveraged by state actors to access critical intellectual property across a range of industries, including defence and aerospace businesses as compliments to an adversary’s conventional and strategic forces present significant challenges that need to be protected against, as Rogers and Jackson articulate using China as an example: “While China continues to modernise and grow their conventional and strategic forces, they are also engaged in non-kinetic actions against the US, as evidenced by the OPM cyber intrusion in 2014 and continued corporate espionage against major US defense contractors and technology companies.”

The growing need for a “whole-of-nation” approach to cyber security and resilience is further expanded upon by Rogers and Jackson, who state: “The United States needs a whole-of-nation approach to secure its interests and institutions in cyber space. The US government has implemented many of the commission’s recommendations but, given the evolving nature of the threat, we must relentlessly pursue a comprehensive cyber approach to secure public sector and private industry assets.”

While each of these factors serve as traditional “defence”-oriented facets of national security, MITRE representatives Rogers and Jackson miss the broader importance of a truly “whole-of-nation”' approach to national security which includes areas of domestic policy that when neglected, undermine the “hard” facets of national power and security. 

Lessons for Australia’s future strategic planning

Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically and politically. Despite the nation’s virtually unrivalled wealth of natural resources, agricultural and industrial potential, there is a lack of a cohesive national security strategy integrating the development of individual, yet complementary public policy strategies to support a more robust Australian role in the region.

Contemporary Australia has been far removed from the harsh realities of conflict, with many generations never enduring the reality of rationing for food, energy, medical supplies or luxury goods, and even fewer within modern Australia understanding the socio-political and economic impact such rationing would have on the now world-leading Australian standard of living.  

Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia. Shifting the public discussion away from the default Australian position of “it is all a little too difficult, so let’s not bother” will provide unprecedented economic, diplomatic, political and strategic opportunities for the nation.

However, as events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power, or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..