Space endurance: A call for more dialogue, not less 

On February 19, the Mitchell Institute published a report on the United States Space Force’s Theory of Competitive Endurance. The report assumes the Space Force’s core theoretical approach could undermine its institutional development and long-term effectiveness as a military service. Shortly after the report was published, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman banned Space Force guardians from participating in Mitchell Institute-sponsored forums. The strong reaction signifies a divide between Space Force leadership and the Mitchell Institute, an independent think tank that is “dedicated to infusing a warfighting attitude in the Space Force.” The Mitchell Institute report goes beyond criticizing the Space Force’s theoretical approach and plays into deep-rooted insecurities, like the existence of the Space Force itself. The Theory of Competitive Endurance has three core tenets: avoid operational surprise, deny first-mover advantage and conduct responsible counter-space campaigning. A central theme to the nascent theory is the need for continuous evaluation and evolution as understanding of the space domain matures. The Mitchell Institute’s two-day Space Endurance Workshop produced a 36-page report that challenges the Space Force’s theoretical approach. The report’s key findings suggest that the Space Force lacks clearly defined roles and missions, its operations are not normalized like other warfighting domains, its over-reliance on commercial space capabilities undermines its military role and its warrior ethos needs strengthening. At face value, the criticisms are not new and appear innocuous. However, the fact that they are not new suggests that Space Force leadership is not adequately addressing these challenges. This offers a clue about the strong leadership reaction. It is also not the first time the Mitchell Institute offered an opinion that did not resonate with the national security space enterprise. In August 2024, Mitchell Institute scholars challenged Army space activities in an editorial fraught with misleading assumptions. Army leaders offered a formal rebuttal; however, the strongest rebuke came from the Commander of Space Command, Gen. Stephen Whiting, who challenged Mitchell Institute’s claim that the Army was encroaching on the Space Force mission. In both instances, the Mitchell Institute’s opinions demonstrated a lack of understanding of the strategic environment. The Mitchell Institute is deviating from its nature as a “fact-based” independent think tank. Helpful criticism ought to focus on the theory, rather than speculation. For example, a recent editorial suggested that the principle of maneuver is an important element to completing the theory and is overlooked as a core assumption. This useful critique adds depth to the theory-building process by ensuring competitive endurance has flexibility and adaptability to avoid operational surprises. Unhelpful conjecture is the assumption found in the Mitchell Institute report that “the American taxpayer will not support a military service it does not understand and that does not plan to ‘win.’ This will lead to decreasing budgets and the inability to field the capabilities critical to Space Force success.” This speculative statement is not a fact-based policy recommendation.The Mitchell Institute report findings are incongruent with the Theory of Competitive Endurance. Most notably, the title subscript in the 2025 white paper describing the theory and the preceding 2023 c-note emphasizes that it is a proposed theory of success for the Space Force. Gen. Saltzman acknowledges this is not the definitive theory and calls for Guardians to debate openly. The Mitchell Institute report also noted that “at a time when the newest service is establishing its identity, removing ‘winning’ from Guardian vocabulary is stifling the development of a warfighting mindset.” The sentiment lacks the fact-based objectivity needed for meaningful policy recommendations. The Mitchell Institute does identify the need for policy changes, increased resources and heightened warfighting culture. These are admirable ends but need to relate to the ways and means. An axiom that comes to mind is that people in glass houses should not throw stones. It is easier to criticize a theory than it is to develop one. It is easier to advocate for more resources when you do not have to manage and balance them. It is easier to call for increased warfighter ethos than to inculcate them across a large organization. This is not an affront to the Mitchell Institute or its scholars. Instead, it is a call to action for more substantive discourse. Gen. Saltzman’s decision to ban Guardians from Mitchell Institute events sends the wrong message. There is a need for greater dialogue, not less.The space domain is not special, but it is unique. The Space Force theoretical approach must recognize that overwhelming destruction is self-defeating because excessive debris endangers all space operations, including their own. Space warfighting differs from air, land and sea warfare because of this consideration. The Space Force should talk about counterproductive policy recommendations because of the domain’s self-defeating nature. Preventing excessive debris that spoils the domain for all actors is one reason why the Department of Defense established tenets of responsible behavior. The Space Force must figure out how to gain and maintain space superiority without compromising the domain at its own expense.The Mitchell Institute should reassess how it offers “innovative, in-depth, insightful, and effective ideas and solutions for strengthening America’s aerospace power.” Losing the trust and confidence of the Space Force leadership is a red flag that should be concerning for space professionals. The Mitchell Institute should strive to deliver objective policy recommendations and avoid speculation. Lamenting that the Space Force’s theoretical approach undermines its institutional development and long-term effectiveness is counterproductive. The Space Force should take heed of the criticism and chart a path to mend fences with the Mitchell Institute. Guardians should not be banned from Mitchell Institute events; they should be prepared to defend the military’s service’s theoretical approach. We must aim higher and be always above the fray. Col. Pete Atkinson is a principal space advisor at the headquarters of the Department of the Army, and a public administration and policy doctoral student at Old Dominion University.SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to [email protected] to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.