On February 19, the Mitchell Institute published a report on the theory of the United States Space Force of Competitive Endurance. The report assumes that the core theoretical approach of the Space Force could undermine its institutional development and long -term effectiveness as a military service. Shortly after the report was published, Chief of Space Operations Gen forbade. Chance Saltzman Space Force Guardians to participate in forums sponsored by Mitchell Institute. The strong reaction means a gap between Space Force Leadership and the Mitchell Institute, an independent think tank that “is dedicated to infusing war fights in the Space Force.” The report of the Mitchell Institute goes beyond criticizing the theoretical approach of the Space Force and plays in deep -rooted uncertainties, such as the existence of the Space Force itself.
The theory of competitive endurance has three core principles: avoid operational surprise, refuse the first Mover benefit and perform responsible counter-space campaigns. A central theme of emerging theory is the need for continuous evaluation and evolution as an understanding of the space domain. The two -day space workshop of the Mitchell Institute produced a 36 -page report that challenges the theoretical approach of the Space Force. The most important findings of the report suggest that the Space Force lacks clearly defined roles and missions, the activities are not normalized such as other war fighting domains, the transmission of commercial space capacities undermines his military role and his warrior ethos must be reinforced.
At first glance, the criticism is not new and seem harmless. However, the fact that they are not new suggests that the leadership of space troubles does not adequately tackle these challenges. This offers an indication of the strong leadership reaction. It is also not the first time that the Mitchell Institute offered an opinion that did not resonate with the National Security Space Enterprise. In August 2024, scientists from Mitchell Institute challenged army space activities in an editorial loaded with misleading assumptions. Army leaders offered a formal refutation; However, the strongest reprimand came from the commander of Space Command, General Stephen Whiting, who challenged the Mitchell Institute’s claim that the army revealed the Space Force Mission. In both cases, the opinions of the Mitchell Institute showed a lack of understanding of the strategic environment.
The Mitchell Institute deviates of its nature as a “fact -based” independent think tank. Useful criticism should concentrate on the theory, rather than speculation. For example, a recent main article suggested that the maneuver principle is an important element for completing the theory and is overlooked as a core assumption. This useful criticism adds depth to the theory consumption process by ensuring that competitive endurance has flexibility and adaptability to prevent operational surprises. The assumption that was found in the Mitchell Institute report is that ‘the American taxpayer will not support a military service that he does not understand and that is not planning to’ win ‘in the Mitchell Institute report. This will lead to decreasing budgets and the inability to place the possibilities that are crucial for the success of space. “This speculative statement is not a fact -based policy recommendation.
The findings of the Mitchell Institute report are incongruent with the theory of competitive endurance. The most striking thing is that the titles’ subscribe in the 2025 white book that describes the theory and the previous 2023 C-Noot emphasizes that it is a proposed theory for the Space Force. Gene. Saltzman acknowledges that this is not the final theory and evokes that Guardians openly debate. The report of the Mitchell Institute also noted that “at a time when the newest service determines its identity, removing ‘winning’ from Guardian -vocabulary stifles the development of a warfeighting mindset.” The sentiment lacks the facts -based objectivity that is needed for meaningful policy recommendations.
The Mitchell Institute does identify the need for policy changes, increased resources and increased warfare culture. These are admirable goals, but must relate to the manners and resources. An axiom that comes to mind is that people in glass houses are not allowed to throw stones. It is easier to criticize a theory than to develop one. It is easier to argue for more resources when you do not have to manage them and balance them. It is easier to ask for an increased warfighter ethos than to stimulate them in a large organization. This is not an insult to the Mitchell Institute or its scholars. Instead, it is a call for action for a more substantive discourse. Gene. Saltzman’s decision to ban Guardians from Mitchell Institute events, sends the wrong message. There is a need for a larger dialogue, no less.
The space domain is not special, but it is unique. The theoretical approach of the Space Force must acknowledge that overwhelming destruction is self -destructive because excessive debris endangers all the space activities, including their own. Space fight differs because of this consideration of air, land and sea warfare. The Space Force must talk about recommendations for counterproductive policy because of the self -destructive nature of the domain. The occurrence of excessive debris that spoils the domain for all actors is a reason why the Ministry of Defense has established principles of responsible behavior. The space force must find out how the space -superiority can be obtained and maintained without endangering the domain at its own expense.
The Mitchell Institute must re -assess how the “innovative, in -depth, insightful and effective ideas and solutions for strengthening the space power of America.” Losing the trust and trust of the leadership of the Space Force is a red flag that provides space professionals. The Mitchell Institute must strive to provide objective policy recommendations and to prevent speculation. To treat the theoretical approach of the Space Force to undermine institutional development and long -term effectiveness is counterproductive. The Space Force should pay attention to the criticism and map a path to restore gates with the Mitchell Institute. Guardians should not be banned from events of Mitchell Institute; They must be willing to defend the theoretical approach of the army. We have to focus higher and always be above the fight.
Colonel Pete Atkinson is a headquarters adviser at the headquarters of the Department of the Army and a public administration and policy student at Old Dominion University.
Spacenews strives to publish the various perspectives of our community. Whether you are an academic, executive, engineer or even a committed citizen of the Cosmos, send your arguments and points of view to opinion@spacenews.com to be eligible for online publication or in our next magazine. The perspectives that are shared in these op-leds are exclusively those of the authors.
Leave a Reply