The Commission on the National Defense Strategy contends that the US is unprepared for today’s threats

T

here is a global military power whose thinking is stuck in the conceptions of a storied past.

It has been late in recognizing growing threats from an axis of enemies who scheme to undermine it. It lacks adequate personnel, ammunition, and perhaps worst of all, the unity of purpose required to defeat or at least deter ruthless foes.

We must be talking about Israel, correct?

No. We are referring to the United States of America.

Two weeks ago, the Commission on the National Defense Strategy appointed by Congress to review the latest version of America’s National Defense Strategy (2022) released a chilling report after taking testimony from nearly 100 defense experts. Beefed up by RAND Corporation analytics, the commission’s report provides detailed recommendations that should be a must-read for America’s next president if he or she desires to spend defense dollars to build the future force, not perpetuate the existing one.

After stating the obvious — that the US was slow to recognize the threat of terrorism to the homeland before 9/11 — the commission contended that the US is unprepared for today’s threats, which it called “the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for a near-term major war.”

The commission contends the US military is still sized to fight a two-front war like World War II, while “the next war would be fought across multiple theaters, would involve multiple adversaries, and likely would not be concluded quickly.”

Just as Israel is confronting enemies from all directions, America must be ready for what it calls an axis of “malign actors” that includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and international terrorists, acting in concert or independently in their spheres of influence. Even if they can’t defeat America militarily, their goal is to reduce its global political clout — and in China’s case, to surpass US economic dominance.

While Russia is spending 35 percent of its federal budget on defense and security and Chinese military spending is increasing at a 7 percent yearly clip, American defense spending of $850 billion annually is not keeping pace with inflation. The report calls on Congress to fund a multiyear investment to spur innovations in national security and upgrade the military-industrial base. The country’s all-volunteer armed forces are seeing recruiting shortfalls, raising the commission’s concerns that “a future conflict could overwhelm the capacity of the active-duty force.”

Commission members contend that US industrial production is “grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions needed today, let alone given the demands of great power conflict.” If that isn’t bad enough, enemies are bombarding US cybersecurity defenses every day with cyberattacks and disinformation. If they decide to escalate and attack critical infrastructure, they could disrupt the flow of power and water, and grind the transportation and financial systems to a halt.

Old Idioms Die Hard

All that raises the question: Is there anyone out there who cares to listen?

Commission members were clear that ongoing political polarization harms military and national security. Look at how many months it took for Congress to overcome partisan rancor and finally pass special military aid packages to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan.

Apathy might present the biggest impediment to building the force of the future. Panel members noted a dire need to educate the public about global threats; to explain why the US must get involved in conflicts, even if they are far away and seem intractable; and to prepare average Americans to bear their share of the inevitable costs. The Commission report stated its belief that “the nation needs a renewed sense of engagement and patriotism, and we support calls for increased public and civic service.”

This too presents a major challenge.

Political discourse has become too superficial to get those points across. The fireside chats and half-hour addresses to the nation that allow a president to explain policies in detail, without interruption, have become a museum relic in an era when a 280-character tweet taxes people’s attention spans.

Could any future administration rally the American people and Congress in a bipartisan fashion to back higher taxes to finance a military revamp? If Ronald Reagan once said his 11th commandment was “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican,” his successor George H.W. Bush coined the 12th commandment: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Leveling with the American People

Raising taxes of any kind, for any reason, is against the Republican Party’s creed, no matter how unrealistic that position has become, with America mired in $35 trillion in debt and Congress tied up in knots every few months trying to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a national default. The Democrats’ solution to this semi-annual crisis centers on eliminating the debt ceiling, which would open the door to unlimited future deficit spending.

Don’t expect either presidential candidate to take this report and run with it, at least not during a campaign that’s become increasingly focused on personality, not policy.

An examination of both Donald Trump’s certified website, which lists his 20 core positions for making America great again, and the Republican Party platform passed at the recent national convention, shows that neither comes close to touching on any of the issues the commission raised. When it comes down to it, any consideration of building the military force of the future should take place in a series of cabinet meetings, behind closed doors, but Trump’s transactional brand of foreign policy is focused on his relationships with world leaders, an approach that does not lend itself to sophisticated theories and ideals.

As to Kamala Harris, if you peruse the list of people she is reportedly considering for high-level cabinet positions if she wins, most of them would be retreads and holdovers from the Obama and Biden administrations who have presided for 12 of the last 16 years and bear much of the responsibility for the erosion of global US clout.

Both candidates are busy chasing the 270 electoral votes they will each need to become president, but will the winner level with the average American residing in the windswept plains of Nebraska or even deep in the heart of Texas to explain why a Chinese takeover of Taiwan, a reconstituted Soviet Union, a nuclear Iran, or an unhinged North Korea poses a threat to their personal security and economic wellbeing?

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1024)