| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Value of U.S. Land Power |
| 2026-08-19 |
| Commentary by Jerry McGinn and A.J. Dilts Published August 17, 2026 [CSIS] The emergence of drone warfare, AI-infused targeting cycles, and the “transparent battlefield” in Ukraine and Iran today have intensified debates over the role of U.S. ground forces within the nation’s joint force. In response, CSIS has launched a yearlong Future of Land Power study to explore the enduring importance of U.S. land forces, their contribution to deterrence and stability across key regions, and how they must adapt to remain effective in an era defined by great power rivalry, technological change, and all-domain warfare. The project’s first working paper, “The Value of U.S. Land Power,” argues that land power, or “the ability—by threat, force, or occupation—to gain, sustain, and exploit control over land, resources, and people,” is essential for the United States to determine political outcomes and achieve strategic objectives. Through integrating historical, institutional, and policy perspectives, the report finds that the roles and responsibilities of land power are rooted in certain inherent characteristics that transcend changing technologies and threats: Through its persistent, human presence, land power offers the ability to secure, hold, and control territory and the power to deter and decisively defeat foreign aggression. Land forces, or the personnel and capabilities in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, are the binding agents of the joint force, enabling power projection far from U.S. shores by protecting ports, airfields, and command and control infrastructure; holding enemy air and naval assets at risk; and transporting U.S. personnel and supplies across terrain. Land forces’ wide-ranging capabilities and modular force structures equip policymakers with a flexible and cost-effective range of military options across the spectrum of conflict. U.S. land power is expeditionary and dependent upon allies and partners for access, basing, and overflight, enabling U.S. force projection to distant regions. The use of land power has greater potential for casualties and therefore carries a higher political risk. More at the link |
| Posted by:badanov |