As the Pentagon shifts its focus towards the Western Hemisphere and homeland security, the Arctic region must not be overshadowed in the upcoming National Defense Strategy.
Recent years have witnessed a pronounced expansion of Russian and Chinese activities—commercial, military, and research—within the Arctic, which poses direct threats to U.S. territory and economic interests.
Unfortunately, the discourse surrounding Arctic security in the United States has often been dominated by discussions on shipbuilding delays, procurement shortfalls, and concerns over dual-use threats posed by adversary research facilities.
This neglects a critical requirement: the development of a lethal, cold-weather military force.
Moreover, discussions about U.S. homeland defense have predominantly concentrated on the southern border and coastal areas, leaving a significant gap regarding Arctic security.
To deter adversarial threats and secure the U.S.’s northernmost frontier, the Pentagon should undertake three crucial steps: enhancing cooperation among military command structures, expanding the Army’s Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center in Alaska, and increasing the involvement of non-Arctic NATO members in Arctic training programs.
**Enhancing Command Structure for Arctic Cohesion**
The U.S. military organizes operations through several geographic combatant commands—specifically Northern Command (NORTHCOM) overseeing North America, Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) responsible for the Indo-Pacific region, and European Command (EUCOM) which focuses on Europe.
The Arctic spans these three commands, presenting unique challenges in developing a unified strategy.
Currently, the fragmented command structure complicates cohesive planning and response efforts and allows adversaries to capitalize on the gaps.
To foster a more unified Arctic strategy, it is vital for EUCOM, INDOPACOM, and NORTHCOM to exchange liaison officers to enhance coordination at both senior and mid-levels.
High-ranking officers should align strategies and policies, while mid-level officers should focus on integrating daily operations, including intelligence and logistics, thereby creating a more cohesive approach to Arctic security.
Additionally, joint training exercises like NorthCOM’s Arctic Edge and INDOPACOM’s Northern Edge must be systematically aligned in their scheduling.
These exercises recently occurred concurrently for the first time, demonstrating a successful model for cross-command collaboration.
Moving forward, synchronizing these training calendars should become the norm, thereby reinforcing both operational readiness and inter-command collaboration.
While full EUCOM participation in Alaskan exercises may be logistically challenging, integrating EUCOM liaison officers at different stages of planning and execution would enhance coordination across the Arctic geographic commands.
By prioritizing seamlessness within the command structure, the U.S. can close potential vulnerabilities that adversaries might exploit, reinforcing its resolve to deter aggression at the Arctic border.
**Expanding Cold-Weather Military Training**
A critical element in addressing Arctic security is the expansion of the Army’s Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center in Alaska (JPMRC-AK).
This initiative marks a significant opportunity for improving military readiness to operate in cold-weather conditions.
Currently, only the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), part of the 11th Airborne Division, has participated in training rotations at this facility.
The Army should extend training opportunities in Alaska to additional units, making it a mandatory stop in the training regimen.
This move is essential to avoid relegating cold-weather training to a niche area limited to a select few soldiers, which risks undermining overall military readiness.
By building a proficient cold-weather fighting force, the U.S. asserts its military prowess across all terrains, from the deserts of the Southern border to the frozen tundras of Alaska.
A visible presence of U.S. troops in the Arctic is crucial for safeguarding the homeland and indicating America’s readiness to defend its interests in the region.
**Involving Non-Arctic NATO Members in Polar Training**
Furthermore, the United States should leverage its NATO leadership role to incorporate non-Arctic NATO countries into cold-weather military training.
Traditionally, NATO’s Arctic exercises have involved primarily member states with Arctic borders, but including non-Arctic allies can significantly enhance overall capability and coordination.
For instance, the U.S. Navy’s participation in activities like Arctic Specialist alongside Denmark, Norway, and Sweden serves as a strong foundation for broader collaboration.
Incorporating non-Arctic NATO allies into these exercises would bolster their cold-weather skills and enhance multinational coordination—essential for a unified response against adversarial actions in the Arctic.
While this change may introduce logistical challenges, the benefits of greater Arctic-trained forces among NATO members are essential for effectively countering potential threats.
As the administration gears up for a renewed emphasis on Western Hemisphere security, this presents an opportune moment to cultivate a more agile and lethal Arctic military force, securing the United States’ northern frontier.
In conclusion, the U.S. military must prioritize appropriate strategies and training to safeguard its interests in the Arctic amid rising global tensions.
The outlined steps not only strengthen national defense but also reinforce the U.S. commitment to deterrence and security across all borders.
image source from：atlanticcouncil
