Trump’s Defense Buildup The only military we can’t afford is one that is too small.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defense-buildup-1488585951
It’s conventional wisdom that Donald Trump is a very different sort of Republican than Ronald Reagan, but in his speech to Congress Tuesday the 45th President made clear that he intends to walk in the 40th President’s footsteps in one crucial respect. That’s his call for a dramatic increase in defense spending—as necessary today as it was when the Gipper took office 36 years ago.
This year’s Pentagon budget is $619 billion, of which $68 billion is for “overseas contingencies” in Iraq and elsewhere. That sounds like a big number—until you consider the broader trends, budgetary and strategic. Defense spending reached a post-9/11 peak of $757 billion in 2010, but then began to come down sharply as part of Barack Obama’s imaginary peace dividend following his withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
The first big chop, in 2011, involved a 10-year, $487 billion cut that capped successful weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter on the short-sighted assumption that American pilots were unlikely to get into dogfights with their Russian or Chinese counterparts. Such acquisitions cuts are doubly wasteful, since they squander the fruits of billions in research and development costs while postponing the replacement of legacy aircraft that become increasingly expensive to fly and maintain.
Then came budget sequestration in 2013, which led to an additional $37 billion cut that year alone. The cuts hit operations and maintenance especially hard, with a 30% reduction in day-to-day operating funds so the military could maintain spending on wartime operations. The Pentagon continued to labor under dwindling budgets until last year, when it bottomed out at $596 billion, even as U.S. forces still fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The result is a military that is heading toward the demoralized and underequipped “hollow force” of the late 1970s. Some 62% of the Navy’s mainstay F-18 fighters—and 74% of the Marines’—are grounded for lack of parts or maintenance or otherwise deemed unfit for combat.
The Air Force faces a shortage of at least 700 fighter pilots and 4,000 maintainers, the product of a retention crisis as the service cuts back on flying hours and lays off personnel. Only one-third of the Army’s combat brigade teams are considered “ready” to deploy in 30 days. The Army, with 470,000 soldiers, is as small as it has been since the eve of World War II.
All of this can’t be wished away by the usual misleading statistics from ideological opponents of increased military spending. It’s true that the Pentagon’s budget is as large as that of the next seven militaries combined. But unlike Russia we do not rely on cheap conscripts as soldiers, and we do not ask our officers to live off graft in lieu of a living wage and Tricare.
We also can’t skimp on research and development by swiping intellectual property or producing copycat equipment as the Chinese do. U.S. commitments are global while those of our adversaries and allies are mainly regional. China doesn’t need an Atlantic Fleet. Russia has no vital interest in maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz or Panama Canal. Mr. Obama tried to “pivot” to Asia from the Middle East, but the Middle East has other ideas.
As Robert Gates warned when he departed as Defense Secretary in 2011, after periods of conflict the U.S. has typically made the mistake of disarming too much. This time we are doing so while still fighting in Afghanistan and again in Iraq. The U.S. spends barely 3% of gross domestic product on defense—about 16% of the federal budget—down from 4.7% in 2010 and a modern high of 6% in 1986. Not least among the lessons of history is that the only military the U.S. can’t afford is one that is too small.
***
The Trump Administration’s plan to add $54 billion to the Pentagon’s budget is a down payment for addressing the immediate readiness crisis, and his plans to lift the sequester should remove some of the Pentagon’s fiscal uncertainties. Mr. Trump can save some money by negotiating lower prices for planes such as the F-35 with large block purchases that provide contractors with incentives to reduce unit costs. But he will also have to recapitalize U.S. forces for the long term.
The U.S. requires a military that can defeat any potential adversary while deterring challenges from countries tempted to assert regional dominance or gain an asymmetrical edge such as in missiles or space. Mr. Trump may not have shown Reagan’s eloquence when he said last year that “I’m going to make our military so big, so powerful, so strong, that nobody—absolutely nobody—is gonna mess with us.” But the Gipper would have approved his message.
Comments are closed.
