The Space Force Association issued a strong rebuttal to a Mitchell Institute report that argued the U.S. Space Force is more focused on competitive endurance than on defeating adversaries.
WASHINGTON — A recent critique of the U.S. Space Force’s guiding principles for competing against adversaries has provoked strong pushback from the Space Force’s leadership and its advocates, exposing disagreements about how the U.S. should prepare for potential conflicts beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
The controversy began with a report published Feb. 19 by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, a nonpartisan think tank affiliated with the Air & Space Forces Association. The report challenged the Space Force’s strategic framework, known as “competitive endurance,” which was developed under Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman. The doctrine, which emphasizes sustained competition and deterrence, is criticized in the report for not embracing a more aggressive posture to counter threats from adversaries such as China and Russia that are expanding their capabilities to disrupt U.S. satellites.
Following the release of the report, Saltzman moved to bar Space Force personnel from participating in Mitchell Institute events, pending further guidance, according to a report by Breaking Defense.
The Space Force has not publicly commented on the Mitchell Institute report, but in what appears to be no coincidence, the service’s nonprofit advocacy group, the Space Force Association, issued a strong rebuttal on Feb. 24.
Space Force Association leaders Damon Feltman and Bill Woolf in a blog post said the Mitchell Institute’s report “has sparked negative commentary about the Space Force’s theory of competitive endurance and its perceived lack of warfighter focus,” adding that “while critical analysis and counter viewpoints are essential to refining military strategy, these critiques fail to consider the full scope of the Space Force’s efforts to develop and enhance its warfighting concepts.”
Saltzman has “emphasized creating warfighting capability and ethos” from the beginning of his tenure, said SFA. “In one of his first messages to the field, he emphasized fielding combat-ready forces” that need to be prepared to outcompete rivals, deter aggressors and defeat enemies.
The “competitive endurance” framework represents a strategic vision that space is continuously contested, requiring the U.S. to maintain superiority through sustained competition. This approach emphasizes resilient systems, distributed capabilities, and technological innovation that can withstand and recover from attacks.
The Mitchell Institute suggests this framework doesn’t go far enough in preparing for actual combat in space. Its report questioned whether the Space Force is cultivating the necessary “warfighting ethos” — the mindset and capabilities needed for direct military superiority, including potential offensive operations.
SFA points to recent reforms in Space Force unit structures and training programs, which have been designed to increase participation in warfighting exercises, wargaming simulations, and high-intensity operational readiness drills.
The Space Force is “actively building the capabilities, structures, and ethos necessary to achieve space superiority,” said SFA. “In an era of increasing competition in space, the United States cannot afford to underestimate the critical role the Space Force plays in securing and sustaining strategic advantage.”
