Findings Should Serve as Wake-Up Call

The Commission on the National Defense Strategy, a bi-partisan group of eight individuals authorized by Congress to examine the national defense strategy of the United States, released its findings in July of this year.

The group of eight, all with experience in national defense matters, were charged with reviewing our nation’s most recent national defense strategy, including the assumptions, strategic objectives, priority missions, operational concepts and strategic and military risks associated with that strategy.

The commission was also tasked with conducing an assessment of the strategic environment to include the threats to the national security of the U.S., including both traditional and non-traditional threats; the size and shape of the force; the readiness of the force; the posture, structure and capabilities of the force; allocation of resources; and the strategic and military risks in order to provide recommendations on the national defense strategy for the U.S.

The commission’s findings are alarming and should serve as a wake-up call for America: “The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.”

As sobering as those words are, the nearly 100-page report has received very little attention—including none from the two primary Presidential candidates.

The commission says the magnitude of the threats the U.S. faces is understated and significantly worse than when the National Defense Strategy was issued two years ago, especially when viewed globally and as being compounded. Commission members say since the release of the National Defense Strategy in 2022, we’ve witnessed, but not accounted for, the strategic impact of the “no limits” partnership between Russia and China and their partnership with Iran and North Korea, the outbreak of war in the Middle East and the scope and duration of the war in Europe.

The commission said that in many ways, China is outpacing the U.S. and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment. Without significant change by the U.S., the balance of power will continue to shift in China’s favor.

Additionally, China this year announced a 7.2% increase in defense spending. Russia, meanwhile, will devote 29% of its budget on national defense as it continues to reconstitute its military and economy after its invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Vladimir Putin seeks a return to its global leadership role during the Cold War.

The commission noted China’s work in fusing military, diplomatic and industrial strength to expand its global power.

The U.S. cannot compete with China, Russia, and their partners alone—and certainly cannot win a war that way, the commission says. Given the growing alignment of authoritarian states, the U.S. must adopt a system of deterrence and power that includes a coordinated effort to bring together diplomacy; economic investment; cybersecurity; trade; education; industrial capacity; technical innovation; civic engagement; and international cooperation.

In its findings, the commission says that Defense Department (DoD) business practices; byzantine research and development (R&D) and procurement systems; reliance on decades-old military hardware; and a culture of risk avoidance reflect an era of uncontested military dominance. DoD leaders and Congress must replace a risk-averse organization with one that’s able to build and field the force the U.S. needs.

The commission found that the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat. It must do a better job of incorporating innovative technology; field more and higher-capability platforms, software, and munitions; and deploy innovative operational concepts to employ them together better.

Also, alarming is our industrial base. The commission found that U.S. industrial production is grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology and munitions needed today, let alone given the demands of great power conflict. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain and replenish weapons and munitions. Fixing this shortfall will require increased investment.

The commission report cites an especially acute problem with our shipbuilding industrial base, saying the Navy’s ability to construct, maintain and repair the maritime forces it requires is fundamentally in doubt. Not being able to maintain and repair its current fleet translates to a lack of readiness.

The report notes that one Chinese shipyard has more capacity than all U.S. shipyards combined.

The commission’s report paints a grim and concerning picture. Resources are needed and needed now. The report says the U.S. must spend more effectively and efficiently to build the future force and not perpetuate the existing one.

Accordingly, Congress should pass a supplemental appropriation to begin a multi-year investment in the national security and industrial base. Additionally, Congress should revoke the 2023 Financial Responsibility Act that mandates spending caps and provides real growth for FY 2025 defense and non-defense national security spending. At bare minimum, the base budgets should be increased at an average rate of 3 to 5% annually above inflation.

Subsequent budgets will require spending that puts defense and other national security components on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the U.S. national security effort seen during the Cold War.

But here’s where the challenge begins for our political leaders. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported earlier this month that the U.S. budget deficit exceeded $1.8 trillion in the latest fiscal year. The government faces a persistent gap between federal outlays and tax collections. Last fiscal year, the government collected $4.92 trillion in revenue and spent $6.75 trillion—a deficit of $1.83 trillion. You cannot run a household with this mindset. Neither should we run our government this way.

The U.S. has incurred so much debt that it spent $950 billion on interest payments alone—a 34% increase from last year. Those interest costs surpassed military spending.

These numbers are not sustainable. Our new president, a new cabinet and a slate of new congressional leaders will need to make some very important decisions. Do we continue to live with red ink and have policies that allow Americans who enjoy a seemingly endless array of federal benefits? Or do we have a budget that allows for federal outlays supportive of a strong national security posture?

The answer is obvious and may require reforms to entitlement spending and additional taxes.

China’s most recent military exercises that encircled Taiwan included 125 aircraft and 17 warships, including an aircraft carrier. This was a record number of units and perhaps an ominous foreshadowing of China’s intent with respect to Taiwan. The commission says that even short of all-out war, the global economic damage from a Chinese blockade of Taiwan has been estimated to cost $5 trillion or five percent of the global gross domestic product.

War with a major power would affect the life of every American in ways we can only imagine. Deterring war by projecting strength and ensuring economic and domestic resilience is far preferrable to and less costly than war.

The commissioners contend that the U.S. public is largely unaware of the dangers the U.S. faces, or the costs required to adequately prepare. They do not appreciate the strength of China and its partnerships or the ramifications to daily life if a conflict were to erupt. The public is not anticipating disruptions to their power and water or access to all the goods on which they rely. Quite simply, they have not internalized the costs of the U.S. losing its position as a world superpower.

Rear Admiral Jurkowsky served on active duty for 31 years, beginning his career as an enlisted sailor. He sits on the board of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) and is the author of “The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.”