Biden, like Jimmy Carter, must adapt to confront emerging dangers.
In less than a week, Germany’s military strategy has been transformed by Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine.
Will the Biden Administration have a similar epiphany about safeguarding Americans in the face of advancing dictators? Progressives complain that the Pentagon’s budget is higher than that of any other country, but the fact is that military expenditure is at an all-time low.
It is on track to account for less than 3% of the economy.
Defense expenditure hit a postwar high of 9.1 percent in 1968 but never went below 4.5 percent even in the 1970s, peaking at 6 percent in 1986 at the height of Reagan’s Cold War buildup.
(See the adjacent graph.) In the previous two decades, American military capability has been depleted by terrorist operations, and the present army may be too weak and elderly to smash a peer military, much alone aggression on two fronts.
Some argue that it doesn’t matter: Europe can deal with Russia, and Taiwan is in China’s area of influence.
However, authoritarians have no incentive to stop devouring territory if there is no cost, and the United States is obligated to protect treaty friends in NATO or Japan if they are next on the menu, not to forgetting the US territory of Guam.
One reason the United States is failing to dissuade bad conduct is because rivals are aware that American military strength is waning.
Controlling the sky is critical to American warfighting in any region, but the US Air Force fighter inventory has shrunk from 4,000 aircraft in 1991 to about 2,000 now, with an average age of 29 years, up from 11.5 in 1991.
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH WSJ Potomac Watch Keep an eye on the Energy Sanctions That Would Really Hurt Putin.
SUBSCRIBE The Air Force has sacrificed preparedness in order to purchase more capable equipment, which it also needs to remain competitive.
Heather Wilson, President Trump’s Air Force Secretary, was correct in stating that the United States needs 386 squadrons by 2030, up from 312—particularly additional bomber and tanker squadrons to deal with distance in the Pacific.
The Navy is operating at the same rate as during the Cold War, but with half the number of ships, and the fleet is smaller and older than China’s.
The Navy needs and desires many more attack submarines as a strong deterrent against China, but it lacks the repair yards to keep up with the present inventory.
Longer-range attack aircraft are required for carriers.
The Marines are the only branch that is rapidly adapting to the future.
However, the cost is a diminishing military, including three fewer infantry battalions and tanks that the nation may lose if land hostilities return.
The Army’s mandate should be Europe, but according to analyst Thomas Spoehr, the land force’s budget is down about 11 percent in real terms since 2018, including cutbacks to drills and purchasing less of everything from helicopters to munitions.
Any confrontation would need massive volumes of ammunition, and under present plans, US troops might run out of some of the most powerful and vital weapons in weeks.
The Pentagon must accelerate planned procurement of long-range antiship and combined air-to-surface standoff missiles right now.
However, it cannot afford to halt working on hypersonics or offensive cyber, which implies that budget must be increased.
The Biden administration has been promoting a “divest to invest” approach that foregoes weapons in order to create technologies for the 2030s, a plan that now belongs in a Pentagon paper shredder.
A paper titled “Battle Force 2025” at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is full of proposals for making the most of current assets: For example, modifying Navy submarine-hunting aircraft to combat with anti-surface ammunition.
An increase in military budget does not prohibit decreasing waste, including controversial concepts such as limiting staff expenses and healthcare costs.
Instead than utilizing so many pricey uniformed cops, hire public relations and attorneys.
Inform retirees that they will have to make do without subsidized food, and shut the commissaries.
General officers should be reduced.
If an Air Force colonel or a Navy captain can occupy a billet appropriately, it should not be a flag job.
The top brass bears some of the responsibility for the country’s lack of readiness, particularly procurement blunders like the F-35 and the Ford-class aircraft carrier.
But there has never been a better moment for Congress to overhaul the way the Pentagon purchases equipment, consolidating political responsibility in a single agency.
The Biden administration has been promoting a “divest to invest” approach that foregoes weapons in order to create technologies for the 2030s, a plan that now belongs in a Pentagon paper shredder.
A paper titled “Battle Force 2025” at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is full of proposals for making the most of current assets: For example, modifying Navy submarine-hunting aircraft to combat with anti-surface ammunition.
An increase in military budget does not prohibit decreasing waste, including controversial concepts such as limiting staff expenses and healthcare costs.
Instead than utilizing so many pricey uniformed cops, hire public relations and attorneys.
Inform retirees that they will have to make do without subsidized food, and shut the commissaries.
General officers should be reduced.
If an Air Force colonel or a Navy captain can occupy a billet appropriately, it should not be a flag job.
The top brass bears some of the responsibility for the country’s lack of readiness, particularly procurement blunders like the F-35 and the Ford-class aircraft carrier.
But there has never been a better moment for Congress to overhaul the way the Pentagon purchases equipment, consolidating political responsibility in a single agency.
Read more by Jai at CommentaryByJaiKrishnaPonnappan.com
You may also want to read more analysis about geo-politics here.