What Trump Should Avoid to Strengthen the United States: Restoring Military Power as a Key Mission of the “World Policeman” (continued)

Last time we discussed challenges that await the President-elect of the United States, when Donald Trump will receive the broad powers of the master of the Oval Office. More precisely, Mitch McConnell’s vision of these challenges – a senator from the state of Kentucky and the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate in 2007-2024.

The latter believes that Donald Trump will face a world of growing threats to the US: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are coordinating to weaken the American-led global order. According to the senator, isolationism and cuts in military spending only exacerbate these challenges. Trump should focus on rebuilding the military, strengthening alliances, and countering revanchist regimes. It is especially important not to leave Ukraine, since Russian aggression undermines European security, which will contribute to the aggression of China and other adversaries. Investments in defense and cooperation with partners are key to deterring global threats.

The US needs an army for several fronts – defense cannot be held hostage to politics

McConnell assured: The US needs an army capable of simultaneously responding to several threats. Without this, limited resources will create a dilemma of choosing between challenges, favoring opponents. Trump should reject the idea of ​​prioritizing China at the expense of Ukraine and return to strategic planning, which involves the ability to conduct several conflicts at the same time.

Opponents of defense spending in Congress often make it dependent on non-priority spending, holding the military hostage to political agendas. Despite rising domestic spending, key laws, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act, did not allocate funds for defense.

Isolationists mistakenly see military superiority as excessive or provocative, but ignoring this superiority will cost the United States dearly. America’s security and prosperity depend on its military strength, and maintaining that superiority is a necessary investment.

Is political bargaining around national security appropriate?

In recent years, the US has significantly reduced defense spending: in 2023, this indicator was only 3% of GDP, compared to 37% during the Second World War, 13.8% during the Korean War in 1950-1953, 9% during the war in Vietnam 1965-1975, 4.5 to 6% of GDP defense investment under President Reagan (1981-1989).

The historical dynamics of US defense spending seems to be quite telling. Currently, US defense spending is about 3% of GDP. This is significantly less than during the Great Wars and the Cold War, but in absolute terms the US remains the world’s largest defense investor.

While China and Russia actively increased their military capabilities, surpassing the United States in the production of ammunition, missiles and ships. This creates a threat, especially in the case of a protracted conflict, as the wars in Ukraine and Israel have shown.

The United States has a limited supply of ammunition, as priority was given to the development of the latest weapons instead of regular replenishment of arsenals. This creates risks, especially in conflict situations. China, having the ability to block key logistical supply routes, can make it difficult to provide operational support to American forces. Therefore, it is important to deploy resources in advance at strategic points and develop cooperation with international partners to guarantee access to bases and logistics hubs in the event of a threat.

In 2018, the Defense Strategy Commission called for increasing the defense budget by 3-5% annually to maintain US military superiority. This year, the commission said that due to growing threats, this is not enough. In the opinion McConnell, Trump should heed these recommendations, increase defense spending, cut wasteful spending and address the deficit. Economic reforms are also needed for sustainable growth and incomes.

Republicans included in the national security budget investments in the production of important components, in particular, rocket engines for long-range munitions and interceptors. But Democrats insist on equality between defense and non-defense spending, making it difficult to expand that spending. Obviously, political bargaining around national security is unacceptable.

Congress has given the Pentagon the authority to enter into multi-year contracts for critical munitions, reducing the risks that often arise from the annual budget process. This mechanism should be extended to other types of long-range weapons and anti-missile defense systems, for which stable demand is forecast.

To increase production, the Pentagon can more actively use the Defense Production Act of 1950, which gives the government the ability to prioritize and attract resources to create strategically important goods. However, this law has been misused recently, in particular, the Biden administration directed it at the production of solar panels. It is time to restore the focus of the Act on meeting the needs of national defense.

The US must rebuild its weakened defense-industrial base

Uncertainty in the signals from the Pentagon and Congress created obstacles for the industry, as companies were unsure about the stability of investments in weapons production and the security of supply chains. To solve this problem, stable and adequate defense budgets are needed, as well as timely adoption of draft laws to avoid delays in financing and implementation of new programs.

Congress has already established multi-year contracts for certain critical munitions, but this mechanism should be expanded to include other types of weapons with foreseeable long-term demand. In addition, the Pentagon should use the Defense Production Act more effectively, directing resources exclusively to projects related to national security, rather than to questionable initiatives, as has happened in the past.

Private companies don’t have to wait for the government to invest. Demand for air defense systems, long-range munitions and other critical weapons will grow. Business must proactively respond to this need, and Trump must urge the Pentagon and industry to act more decisively.

Bureaucracy inhibits the introduction of innovations even in the case of their obvious military benefit. Replicator, a Pentagon program aimed at quickly creating thousands of autonomous drones to counter threats from China and Russia, deserves praise. It involves the mass production of cheap drones with a high level of autonomy to ensure numerical superiority and strengthen the US defense position in critical regions. On conviction the leader of the Republicans, this initiative deserves attention, but it is better to improve the existing procurement processes. If the Pentagon does not accelerate the integration of new technologies, the US military risks falling behind adversaries who are faster to implement cheaper and autonomous unmanned systems.

It is regrettable to state that the process of manufacturing and selling weapons worth more than 100 million dollars in the USA is too slow. Contracts for expensive systems take more than 10 months to be approved, and foreign sales take up to a year and a half. The Trump administration should reform this process by streamlining ammunition shipments and building export stocks in advance. It is also important to increase the reserves of weapons to support allies in crisis situations.

To strengthen alliances, the US should actively share technology, as is happening in AUKUS – a defense partnership between Australia, Great Britain and the US, established in 2021 to strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific region. The basis of the agreement is to help Australia build a fleet of nuclear submarines, share advanced technologies (AI, cyber security, hypersonic weapons) and jointly counter China’s growing influence. The agreement also provides for deepening military cooperation, but has caused diplomatic disputes, in particular with France.

This will strengthen cooperation and allow allies – Japan, Israel or South Korea – to offer their own innovative solutions. Expanding co-production and creating interoperable systems will help lower costs, increase inventories and increase resilience to challenges from China.

The US cannot effectively compete with China without the support of allies

After all, the latter make up a significant part of the world economy. Instead of isolation, cooperation is needed to strengthen international trade. A step in that direction was the Trans-Pacific Partnership initiated by Obama, but the Trump and Biden administrations have focused on tariffs, undermining relations with allies and giving China an opportunity to expand its influence in Asia.

It is free markets that have ensured the economic prosperity of the United States, but the international trading system needs reforms to protect against the predatory practices of China and Russia. Without American leadership, China will dictate its own trade rules.

Foreign aid should be integrated into the strategy of great powers. Cooperation with allies can offer an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and strengthen the US position on the global stage.

…History shows that isolation is dangerous. On the eve of World War II, the US underestimated the threat, and this made it difficult to quickly restore defense capabilities. Today’s global challenges are even more serious. Failure to strengthen US military power could have catastrophic consequences.

The United States urgently needs a bipartisan consensus on the importance of military force in foreign policy. This should prevail over both ideas of passive internationalism and the desire for isolation. Rebuilding American military power is an urgent necessity.

Tetyana Viktorova