The U.S. Military Is In Decline. Cutting Defense Spending Would Be a Disaster

As House Republicans Continue reading bandy about a major cut to the US military’s budget for next year, one voice of reason explained why that tired and non-strategic approach only serves to hurt the troops and harm our strategic position in the world relative to our problems.

Talk at AEI this weekJohn Cornyn (R.TX), US Senator, stated that the United States attempts to “repeatedly cash the ‘peace dividend’ when there is no peace.” 

Take a look at the adverb: Repeatedly.

The 1990’s peace dividend provided cover for a very real procurement holiday from which the U.S. military has never fully recovered. The lapse in modernization of the military was followed by a hollow buildup in support of the wars in Iraq. AfghanistanThis was then canceled by the Budget Control Act era, and sequestration.

The result is a smaller, older, less ready—but more expensive—military. America is facing its own declining combat power. shrinking conventional and nuclear deterrents. Our military superiority across the armed forces, domains of war and operational challenges is in decline.

Our decline has been going on for a while, adding to the problem.

Four years ago, the 2018 national defence strategy said America’s “competitive military advantage has been eroding.”

The 2014 National Defense Strategy Commission was established less than a decade ago. found That “America’s military superiority—the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security—has eroded to a dangerous degree.” Bipartisan commissioners stated that the confluence of negative trends could have created a crisis in national security for the United States. “an emergency.”

2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel in no uncertain terms They also raised similar issues in their report. “sufficiently serious” The 20 commissioners all believed that an explicit warning was appropriate. They stated: “a train wreck is coming” The following are the highlights “aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force.”

The 2010 body concluded the following: “business as usual” Attitude towards their findings was “not acceptable.”

Business-as-usual appears to be the preferred approach. de jure Over three decades, there has been a steady increase in military investment. These troubling trend lines became evident each time Washington voted for a reduction in defense spending, without any strategic planning or rationale. The House could be tempted to repeat the mistake, but this time due to its unforgiving past and insufficient margin within the force to achieve more with less.

Senator Cornyn stated that the nation is clearly in its midst. great power competition And has not “risen to the challenge.” He said The situation calls for “a sense of urgency” lacking in Washington. He stated that he doesn’t feel that Washington is sufficiently prepared to handle a multi-front conflict. “I don’t see all hands on deck,” Cornyn continued, including regarding America’s defense and aerospace industrial base, should a crisis escalate in Asia.

It is true. if understated, assessment of our current comfort level surrounding assumptions about when or how severely others may use force and challenge the status quo in varied regions of the world—and how much luxurious time the US would have to respond.

Why would House Republicans choose a budget number that isn’t threat-informed, given the dire state of our defenses, industrial capacities, and the increasing number and severity global challenges?

Because any reasonable analysis would say—and has said for years now—that defense budgets above inflation are only the minimum needed to stem the tide and recover.

With strong defense spending that is predictable and consistent, what took decades to make, will take decades to undo.

Nor is a $75 billion cut to the military’s budget even what’s really on the table. Speaker McCarthy appears to agree. think It is simple to return budgets at 2022 levels. “what we were spending just two or three weeks ago.”

No, Mr. Speaker.

The 118th Congress is responsible for funding the military in fiscal years 2024-2025. This year’s budget for 2023 is settled, overwhelmingly voted upon, and signed into law.

It is possible to return to 2022 spending levels in 2024 There are many more A $75 billion reduction in funding for the US military is more than any other proposal. After more accurate inflation data becomes available, the House GOP will propose a defense cut that is well over $100 billion.

This irresponsible and shortsighted proposal would result in an almost immediate outcome and create a “force that is measurably smaller and less capable than the one we have today.”

My. colleagues have saidWhile “prospects for these cuts are not looking good, it is important to understand how dangerous even presenting them as a viable option is to our nation’s national security.”

Mattis was the former Secretary of Defense. fond Say it like this: “Let’s take our own side in this fight.”

MORE: Why Putin Fears the M1 Abrams Tank

MORE: I Went to War in the Leopard 2 Tank Ukraine Wants

MORE: World War III – Where Could It Start?

MORE: A U.S.-China War Over Taiwan Would Be Bloody

Expertise and experience: Contributing Editor since 1945 Mackenzie Eaglen She is a resident fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies of the American Enterprise Institute. Follow her on Twitter: @MEaglen. Ms. Eaglen worked at AEI as a staff member for the National Defense Strategy Commission. The commission is a bipartisan congressionally mandated review group whose final report was released in November 2018. “Providing for the Common Defense,” Included assessments and recommendations for administration. Earlier, Ms. Eaglen served as a staff member on the 2014 congressionally mandated National Defense Panel, established to assess US defense interests and strategic objectives, and in 2010 on the congressionally mandated bipartisan Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, which evaluated the Pentagon’s defense strategy. Ms. Eaglen is also a member of the US Army War College Board of Visitors. This group provides advice on program effectiveness and objectives.