Le think tank Hudson Institute a été fondé en 1961. Son président, John P. Walters s’exprime sur les principaux enjeux autour du processus décisionnel, notamment aux États-Unis. Après un long parcours dans différentes administrations de la Maison-Blanche, son analyse permet de mieux comprendre les évolutions de la stratégie américaine et ses conséquences sur la scène internationale.
On Political–Military Decision-Making, Leadership, And the Pressures Shaping American Strategy
On Political–Military Decision-Making, Leadership, and the Pressures Shaping American Strategy
The Hudson Institute think tank was founded in 1961. Its president, John P. Walters gives his views on the main challenges regarding the decisional process—in the United States in particular. With the experience of a long career under various White House Administrations, his analysis offers better understanding of developments in US strategy and its international consequences.
À l’occasion d’un numéro de la Revue Défense Nationale consacré à la décision politico-militaire, nous avons rencontré John P. Walters, président-directeur général du Hudson Institute. Fort de son expérience au sein de l’appareil gouvernemental américain et de plus de vingt années passées à la tête de l’un des think tanks les plus influents des États-Unis, il livre une réflexion approfondie sur la manière dont les dirigeants prennent réellement leurs décisions sous contrainte, sur les difficultés propres aux démocraties à les y préparer, sur l’évolution des enjeux du rapport civil-militaire à l’ère de la compétition stratégique, ainsi que sur la mise à l’épreuve de la dissuasion élargie et des alliances dans l’environnement stratégique contemporain.
John P. Walters soutient que la crise de la décision dans les démocraties n’est pas procédurale, mais intellectuelle et morale. L’enjeu central consiste à former des dirigeants capables d’affronter la réalité, de s’entourer de points de vue divers et de porter des jugements dans des contextes marqués par l’incertitude et les contraintes politiques. Il souligne que la volonté politique, la cohésion entre alliés et la crédibilité stratégique sont devenues des conditions essentielles dans une période caractérisée par une défiance croissante, des perceptions divergentes des menaces et la renationalisation des priorités politiques de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique, faisant peser une pression sans précédent sur la dissuasion élargie et l’avenir de l’Alliance transatlantique. Enfin, il nous aide, nous lecteurs français, à mieux comprendre les ressorts de la construction de la pensée américaine.
For the Revue Défense Nationale’s issue on political–military decision-making, we spoke with John P. Walters, the President and CEO of Hudson Institute. Drawing on his experience in government and two decades at the head of a major American think tank, one of the United States’ most influential, he reflects on how leaders really make decisions under pressure, why democracies struggle to prepare them, the evolving challenges of the civil–military relationship in an era of strategic competition, and how extended deterrence and alliances are being tested in today’s strategic environment.
Il reste 92 % de l'article à lire
Plan de l'article
From your experience in government and at the head of a think tank, how do people make good decisions in complex, high-pressure environments? And what role can the Hudson Institute play in improving that process?
We live in an age saturated with information. We have never had so much information but we still feel we lack information to see a situation clearly and we often observe decisions that appear contradictory or counterproductive. What tools or habits help leaders preserve clarity amid cognitive bias and constant noise?
Public debates repeatedly reach for the same historical reference points—1914, 1936, 1938, or 1956—to signal risks of escalation, polarization, appeasement, or the loss of strategic autonomy, as in the Suez precedent. But do these analogies genuinely really illuminate the strategic landscape we face today?
To what extent do US military strategies adequately account for political constraints and public consent? Is there a persistent gap between what is militarily desirable and what is politically sustainable in democracies?
How would you define political–military relationship today? Where do you see its main strengths and weaknesses, in the United States but also in other countries you might use as points of comparison? And more broadly, would you say this is ultimately not just a political–military issue, but a civil–military one as well?
In France, the President maintains a very direct relationship with the Chief of Defense, and the chain of command is relatively compact and centralized. In the United States, by contrast, the system is built around combatant commands and a more layered structure. Given today’s strategic environment and the technological transition—particularly the integration of AI—do you believe the current US chain of command, from the President to the combatant commanders, remains fit for future conflicts? Or do you see a need for restructuring or adaptation, and if so, in what direction?
How do you see our preparedness for facing enemies like China, Russia? How do you see the future of our alliances? You mentioned alliances and extended deterrence. How do you see the pressures on US commitments, particularly in Europe?
A few words in conclusion?
Hudson Institute, think tank, leadership, Congrès américain, Donald Trump, NATO
_astronaut_Sophie_Adenot_(jsc2025e058846_alt).jpg)
