For the past two decades, the United States military has been shaped by the shadow of terrorism.

From the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism defined the operational tempo, force structure, and funding priorities of the U.S. armed forces.

Yet as Washington shifts its strategic gaze to Beijing and Moscow, the pressing question is whether the U.S. military is truly prepared for great power competition—or whether two decades of counterterrorism left it ill-suited to face technologically advanced rivals.

The Counterterrorism Legacy-

Since 9/11, the Pentagon devoted enormous resources to hunting terrorists and dismantling insurgent networks. The U.S. military built a highly specialized counterterrorism apparatus:

• Special Operations Command (SOCOM) expanded dramatically, with elite units like SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force at the forefront.

• Intelligence fusion centers and real-time surveillance became the norm, with drones like the MQ-9 Reaper serving as the workhorse of targeted strikes.

• Counter-IED (Improvised Explosive Device) expertise was developed to protect troops from insurgent tactics.

• Training and advising missions equipped local partners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and across Africa to fight terrorists.

These adaptations created the most experienced counterterrorism force in history. Few nations can match America’s ability to track a single insurgent across continents and strike with precision.

But this specialization came at a cost. The wars of the “Global War on Terror” were low-tech compared to conflicts against peer adversaries. Facing terrorists armed with AK-47s, roadside bombs, and crude rockets did little to prepare U.S. forces for sophisticated electronic warfare, hypersonic missiles, or satellite-targeting weapons.

The Challenge of Great Power Competition-

China and Russia represent a wholly different kind of threat. Unlike non-state terrorists, they can challenge the U.S. militarily across all domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. Both are investing in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to keep American forces at bay.

• China’s Rise: The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is now the world’s largest by ship count. Its missile forces can target U.S. bases and carriers, while its space program advances anti-satellite capabilities.

• Russia’s Persistence: Despite economic weakness, Moscow has shown it can project power with hybrid warfare—combining cyberattacks, disinformation, and military force, as seen in Ukraine. Its nuclear arsenal remains a formidable deterrent.

The U.S. military must now prepare for high-intensity warfare against nations with advanced technologies, sophisticated command structures, and global reach.

Where the U.S. Excels-

Despite concerns, the U.S. military retains critical advantages that translate into great power competition:

1. Global Reach and Logistics – No other nation can deploy forces worldwide as quickly as the U.S., thanks to its fleet of transport aircraft, prepositioned bases, and maritime logistics.

2. Air and Naval Superiority – Carrier strike groups and fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22 still provide overwhelming force projection.

3. Alliances – NATO, Pacific partners, and strategic alliances give Washington a global network that Beijing and Moscow cannot replicate.

4. Technological Edge – Advances in stealth, artificial intelligence, cyber defense, and precision munitions keep the U.S. ahead, even if rivals are closing the gap.

5. Experience in Combat – While China hasn’t fought a major war since 1979, and Russia has relied mostly on regional conflicts, U.S. forces have remained battle-tested.

Where the U.S. Falls Short-

However, two decades of counterterrorism left gaps in America’s readiness for great power rivalry:

1. Industrial Capacity – U.S. shipyards and munitions factories struggle to keep up with demand. A prolonged conflict with China could quickly exhaust stocks of precision-guided munitions.

2. Cyber Vulnerability – America’s reliance on digital networks and satellites for command and control creates an Achilles’ heel against state-backed cyberattacks and anti-satellite weapons.

3. Aging Force Structure – Many U.S. platforms, from tankers to bombers, are decades old. Modernization efforts lag behind the pace of China’s shipbuilding and missile production.

4. Budget Prioritization – The Pentagon spent trillions on counterinsurgency operations, leaving less investment for next-generation systems needed against advanced adversaries.

5. Doctrinal Shifts – Adapting from decentralized counterterrorism missions to high-intensity joint warfare against peer states requires a fundamental cultural and organizational shift.

The Transition Underway-

Recognizing these gaps, the Pentagon has pivoted toward “great power competition” as its central doctrine. The 2018 and 2022 National Defense Strategies explicitly place China as the “pacing challenge” and Russia as an “acute threat.” Key initiatives include:

• Nuclear Modernization – Upgrading the nuclear triad to maintain deterrence credibility.

• Space Force – Protecting U.S. assets in orbit from adversary interference.

• Hypersonic Weapons Development – Accelerating programs to match China and Russia’s advances.

• Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) – Integrating operations across air, land, sea, space, and cyber.

• Pacific Posture – Strengthening alliances with Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and India to counter China’s influence.

Still, these efforts face bureaucratic hurdles, budgetary debates, and political divisions that slow progress.

The Balancing Act-

The reality is that the U.S. military cannot abandon counterterrorism entirely. Terrorist groups remain a threat, particularly in unstable regions like the Sahel, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Washington must therefore balance resources between fighting low-tech insurgencies and deterring high-tech rivals.

This balancing act is difficult: every dollar spent on drones over Somalia is a dollar not spent on hypersonic defense in the Pacific. Yet a singular focus is dangerous. Over-investing in counterterrorism risks leaving the U.S. vulnerable to China and Russia, while ignoring terrorism entirely risks another catastrophic attack.

Conclusion

So, is the U.S. military more prepared for counterterrorism or great power competition?

The answer lies in its legacy and trajectory. After two decades, the U.S. military is unparalleled in counterterrorism—its intelligence, special operations, and precision strike capabilities remain unmatched. But as the Pentagon pivots, it faces a steep climb to regain dominance in great power conflict.

Today, the U.S. military is better prepared for counterterrorism, but it is actively reshaping itself for peer competition. Whether this transition succeeds depends on the speed of modernization, the resilience of industrial capacity, and the political will to prioritize long-term strategy over short-term crises.

In essence, America’s military stands at a crossroads: the master of asymmetric wars against small foes, but still catching up to the demands of facing rivals that can challenge its dominance across every domain of warfare.