Introduction
Throughout history, various states such as Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, and Russia have been likened to the Roman Empire, often considered its successors. In the modern context, the United States stands out as the sole contemporary parallel. The Roman Empire operated as a global superpower against the Parthians, while the U.S. faces its own regional contenders—China and Russia. Both entities maintained or maintain strong military forces, which have not always been the largest yet were among the most formidable of their times. Interestingly, Rome’s capacity for longevity was not solely attributed to its martial prowess. Instead, its success stemmed from a strategic application of military force that influenced adversaries’ perceptions, amplifying its military strength.
Competition is intrinsic to international relations. Engaging in competition involves states navigating various national power elements to gain strategic advantages without resorting to armed conflict. Primarily rooted in an informational sphere, this competition enables military operations, both in peacetime and warfare, to significantly impact the information landscape, albeit at considerable expense. Therefore, sustainable competition necessitates maximizing benefits while minimizing military deployment. The United States can draw lessons from Rome’s historical maneuvers, which focused on ensuring operational reach, forming effective coalitions, and fostering interoperability with allies.
Avoiding Strategic Culmination
As states expand, so do their interests, leading to increased direct competition with potential adversaries. Broadening a state’s interests compels substantial investment in security measures, creating a bureaucratic quagmire within the expanding nation. The expansion of territory necessitates an enhancement of the security framework, allowing for further territorial and interest expansion.
The term “security apparatus” often equates to the military force a state possesses to influence other nations. However, military force is subject to physical constraints, namely distance and cost. Military power is only impactful when it is nearby; a formidable force located far away lacks relevance. Furthermore, the act of employing military force incurs significant costs; unrestrained consumption results in strategic culminating points where the disadvantages outweigh marginal benefits.
As conflict evolves, states adapt their strategies to avoid reaching these strategic peaks. In ancient times, Rome effectively managed this by broadening its recruitment, especially during the Punic Wars. In modern contexts, capital investment has been the U.S. strategy, whereby military expenditure encompasses cutting-edge capabilities and highly trained personnel.
To maintain strategic efficacy, states must project military power—an indirect use of force motivated by perception rather than physicality. This reliance on perception fosters greater economic sustainability, as the knowledge deployed is neither consumed nor destroyed during usage. Consequently, there is a significant advantage for countries anticipating prolonged competition to prioritize military power over sheer military force.
Deterrence plays a crucial role in this equation, serving to convince adversaries against pursuing aggressive actions by highlighting disproportionate potential costs. While multiple facets of national power can contribute to deterrence, military strength remains paramount. The complex interplay between military capacity and diplomatic power is a cornerstone of grand strategy, which shapes outcomes amid competing global actors.
Invest in Operational Reach
Rome effectively deployed its military resources to ensure operational reach—defined as the geographic and temporal range within which joint forces can leverage military capabilities. Historical accounts cite a vast array of Roman legions strategically positioned across the empire, from the English Channel to the Black Sea. This distribution was critical; the Roman forces could not be expected to attend to every threat at all times. Instead, they relied on positioning to cultivate the perception of widespread availability.
Rome’s strategy involved stationing legions in regions with heightened threats, ensuring forces were within ready access to large enemy factions. Nevertheless, these legions actively maintained mobility, prepared to engage wherever necessary.
Additionally, Rome enhanced its strategic geography by constructing extensive road networks, facilitating rapid troop movements throughout the empire. This infrastructure effectively magnified the Romans’ operational reach, maintaining the perception of proximity to adversaries, regardless of actual distance.
The U.S. military composition consists of approximately 2.5 million servicemembers, a portion of which is active-duty. Although a complete mobilization could prove cost-prohibitive, the U.S. tends to station many of its forces domestically, increasingly adjusting this policy. By relying on critical air and maritime routes—modern manifestations of Roman road networks—the U.S. must prioritize securing these channels.
Recent activities from China and Russia suggest skepticism regarding the U.S.’s capability to deploy forces quickly and in substantial numbers to deter adversaries. To counter this perspective, America must advance its military posture and capabilities effectively.
Compete Alongside Allies and Partners
A second approach by Rome to augment its military power was its reliance on a network of alliances. Diplomacy, intertwined with military might, enabled Rome to establish a perimeter of client states, which were integral for regional stability. These allies were expected to manage local security, aiding in the defense of Roman territories and buying time for Roman reinforcements to arrive when necessary.
While American allies do not fully resemble client states, they play similarly pivotal roles, often managing local threats independently. Throughout the Cold War, there was a strategic arrangement where European forces would deter Soviet incursions while American resources were predominantly deployed elsewhere. This type of cooperative security arrangement mirrors Rome’s strategy, reinforcing U.S. deterrence at a fraction of the cost associated with unilateral military deployments.
Integrate Security Capabilities
Rome’s integration of auxiliary forces from client states further bolstered its military might. These auxiliary troops were pivotal in expanding the overall capabilities available to the Roman legions, allowing for multifaceted military engagement. Similar integration today can provide the U.S. significant strategic advantages, but allies largely need to enhance their capabilities harmoniously with American strengths.
Projects like the F-35 initiative mark strides towards interactivity between U.S. and allied forces. However, European NATO allies often fall short of defense spending commitments, primarily focusing on maintaining capabilities that can’t match American standards. Instead, the emphasis should shift to enhancing complementary capabilities that align with regional strengths, such as cyber capabilities seen in Estonia.
Moreover, effective spending strategies need not focus solely on military acquisitions. Investments in dual-use infrastructures—such as transport networks—can yield substantial benefits, enhancing U.S. deployment efficiencies should conflict arise, while also fostering economic development during peacetime.
By blending military investments with prudent diplomatic strategies, the U.S. can effectively amplify the perception of its military power, thereby solidifying its position against regional adversaries. Encouraging allies to pursue compatible and complementary military capabilities should remain a key component of U.S. grand strategy.
Conclusion
To maintain its interests and avoid strategic stagnation, the United States must employ deterrence to manage the costs associated with its military activities. Such strategies thrive in the adversary’s perception realm, transforming limited military presence into substantial power. Drawing from Roman historical strategy—from 60 BC to 68 AD—the U.S. can adopt three foundational pillars: operational reach, coalition-building, and military capability integration. However, it is equally important that the United States not overlook the intrinsic value of differentiating between vital and peripheral interests. Historical transitions within the Roman Empire culminated in shifts towards territorialism, causing critical vulnerabilities that significantly contributed to its decline.
