Rebuilding U.S. Defenses After Ukraine
Biden needs to pivot to meet growing threats as Jimmy Carter did.
By The Editorial Board
U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division are seen inside an operating base at the Arlamow Airport in Wola Korzeniecka, Poland, Feb. 24. / PHOTO: OMAR MARQUES/GETTY IMAGESVladimir Putin’s assault on Ukraine has caused Germany to revolutionize its defense policy in less than a week. Will the Biden Administration have a similar awakening about defending Americans with dictators on the march?
Progressives complain the Pentagon budget is larger than any other nation’s, but the truth is that defense spending is at historic lows. It’s heading to under 3% of the economy.
Defense spending reached a postwar high of 9.1% in 1968 but never fell below 4.5% even in the 1970s, reaching a high of 6% in 1986 at the height of the Reagan buildup that helped win the Cold War. (See nearby chart.)
American military power in the last two decades has been burned up in counterterrorism operations, and the current force may be too small and geriatric to crush a peer military, let alone aggression on two fronts.
No matter, some say: Europe can deal with Russia, and Taiwan is in China’s sphere of influence.
But authoritarians have little incentive to stop gobbling territory if they pay no price, and the U.S. is bound to defend treaty allies in NATO or Japan if they’re next on the menu, not to mention the U.S. territory of Guam.
***
One reason the U.S. is struggling to deter bad behavior is that adversaries know American military power is in retreat.
Controlling the skies is indispensable to American warfighting in any theater, but the U.S. Air Force fighter inventory has fallen to about 2,000 from 4,000 aircraft in 1991 and the average age is 29 years old, up from 11.5 then.
The Air Force has cannibalized readiness to buy more capable equipment, which it also needs to stay competitive.
President Trump’s Air Force Secretary, Heather Wilson, was right that to deal with “the world as it is” the U.S. needs 386 squadrons by 2030, up from 312—especially more bomber and tanker squadrons to cope with distance in the Pacific.
The Navy is working at the same clip as the Cold War with half as many ships, and the fleet is smaller and older than China’s navy.
The sea service needs and wants many more attack submarines—a potent defense against China—but the Navy lacks the maintenance yards to keep up with even current inventory.
Carriers need attack aircraft with longer range.
The Marines are the only branch adapting fast for the future.
But the price is a shrinking force, including three fewer infantry battalions and tanks the country may miss if land battles make a comeback.
The Army’s brief should be Europe, though the land force’s budget is down nearly 11% since 2018 in real terms, as analyst Thomas Spoehr calculates, including cuts to exercises and procuring less of everything from helicopters to ammunition.
Any conflict would require enormous amounts of munitions, and on current plans U.S. forces could run out of some of the most lethal and important stuff in weeks.
The Pentagon needs to ramp up planned purchases of long-range antiship and joint air-to-surface standoff missiles—now.
But it can’t afford to stop working on hypersonics or offensive cyber, which means spending will have to increase.
The Biden team has been pushing a “divest to invest” strategy that skimps on weapons to develop technology for the 2030s, a plan that now belongs in a Pentagon paper shredder.
A memo at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies called “Battle Force 2025” is full of ideas for making the most of existing assets: Modifying Navy submarine-hunting aircraft to fight with anti-surface ordnance, for instance.
A boost in defense spending doesn’t preclude cutting bloat, even heretical ideas like controlling personnel spending and healthcare costs.
Contract public affairs and lawyers instead of using so many expensive uniformed officers.
Tell retirees they’ll have to muddle through without subsidized groceries and close the commissaries.
Cut general officers.
If an Air Force colonel or Navy captain can reasonably fill a billet, it shouldn’t be a flag position.
The brass bear some blame for the country’s lack of preparation, especially acquisition catastrophes like the F-35 or the Ford-class aircraft carrier.
But what better time for Congress to renovate how the Pentagon buys equipment, concentrating political accountability in one office?
***
The precedent here is Jimmy Carter, who began his Administration bemoaning the “inordinate fear of Communism” but did a 180-degree turn three years later and began a defense buildup as the Soviets gained ground around the world.
Mr. Biden has wanted to focus on domestic affairs but Presidents have to deal with the world as it is.
Mr. Putin’s invasion means the end of post-Cold War illusions, and it heralds an age of new threats to our allies and the homeland.
Americans don’t want to learn through defeat that, as retired Lt. Gen David Deptula has warned, “the only thing more expensive than a first-rate military is a second-rate one.”
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario