Is America’s Military Big Enough?
Original article by K.K. REBECCA LAI, TROY GRIGGS, MAX FISHER and AUDREY CARLSEN - New York Times
-------------------------------------
President Trump has proposed a $54 billion increase in defense spending, which he said would be “one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.”
Past administrations have increased military spending, but typically to fulfill a specific mission. Jimmy Carter expanded operations in the Persian Gulf. Ronald Reagan pursued an arms race with the Soviet Union, and George W. Bush waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Trump has not articulated a new mission that would require a military spending increase. This has left analysts wondering what goals he has in mind. Erin M. Simpson, a national security consultant, called Mr. Trump’s plans “a budget in search of a strategy.”
The United States has higher military spending than any other country partly because its foreign policy goals are more ambitious : defending its borders, upholding international order and promoting American interests abroad.
“Our current strategy is based around us being a superpower in Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific,” said Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “We’ve sized our military to be able to fight more than one conflict at a time in those regions.”
Some of Mr. Trump’s statements have suggested a reduced footprint for the United States military.
- He criticized America’s role as a global military stabilizer. Last month, in his first address to a joint session of Congress , he said the United States had “defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open.”
- He also called for defusing tensions with Russia, the United States’ chief military competitor.
But Mr. Trump has also taken positions that point to a more aggressive military posture.
- He has advocated challenging China and Iran more directly.
- He wrote on Twitter that America must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”
These statements have left analysts unsure about the role Mr. Trump wants the United States military to play in the world.
The following is a closer look at Mr. Trump’s proposed upgrades to four crucial aspects of the military — troops, air power, naval power and nuclear weapons — and what his new spending might achieve.
1 Troops
The United States has approximately 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, one of the largest fighting forces of any country.
The United States also has a global presence unlike any other nation, with about 200,000 active troops deployed in more than 170 countries.
Many are stationed in allied nations in Europe and northeastern Asia. Mr. Trump has criticized these alliances, saying the United States does too much to defend its allies. It seems unlikely, then, that Mr. Trump intends his spending increase to bolster those deployments.
“The general concept of readiness often happens without a conversation about what the forces are for,” said Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. “They don’t know exactly what they want to do, except that they want a bigger military.”
Mr. Trump wants to increase the number of active-duty military personnel in the Army and Marine Corps by about 70,000 — a rise of about 11 percent over the current total of 660,000 .
The United States increased troop levels in the early 2000s for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but has scaled down as it has withdrawn from those conflicts. Mr. Trump has been critical of those missions, suggesting that he does not plan to ramp up operations in either conflict.
Gordon Adams, a former senior White House national security budget officer, said, “Unless you decide you’re going to war — and going to war soon — nobody keeps a large military.”
2 Air Power
The United States has around 2,200 fighter jets , including about 1,400 operated by the Air Force. Mr. Trump wants to add at least 100 more fighter aircraft to the Air Force.
Analysts informally categorize fighter aircraft by “generations” as a way to compare capabilities. While there is some variation among analysts on how planes are classified, there is a broad consensus that American aircraft are more advanced than those of other nations.
While Mr. Trump has focused on the overall number of aircraft, this is an imperfect metric for either air power or cost.
The military already has plans to spend an estimated $400 billion on new F-35 fighter jets, a fifth-generation plane. But Mr. Trump has not provided any details on which programs he would expand.
Because different warplanes serve different roles at different costs, it is difficult to know what problem Mr. Trump is trying to address by adding 100 fighter aircraft.
3 Naval Power
The United States Navy has 275 surface ships and submarines. Mr. Trump wants to increase that number to 350, including two new aircraft carriers.
The new carriers would add to America’s already overwhelming advantage: More than half of the world’s 18 active aircraft carriers are in the United States Navy.
In early March, Mr. Trump said that the United States Navy was the smallest it had been since World War I.
Most analysts reject this comparison. Technological advances mean that individual ships are far more powerful and versatile than they were a century ago, allowing a single ship to fulfill capabilities that would have once required several ships.
Mr. Trump has not specified new missions that would require additional carriers, which could take years and billions of dollars to build.
Expanding the fleet size could come at significant cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that building a fleet of around 350 ships could cost about 60 percent more per year than average historical shipbuilding budgets, with a completion date of 2046.
But a larger fleet could help reduce pressure on the Navy, according to Brian Slattery, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “They’ve had to push those deployments longer and longer because the Navy needs to be in all the same places in the world, and there are fewer ships to do it,” he said.
Others argue that the Navy’s resources are stretched because they have too many deployments and that a more modest strategy around the world would alleviate the strain. “To the extent that they are not in great shape, it’s because they have too many missions,” Mr. Friedman said.
4 Nuclear Weapons
After Mr. Trump tweeted his pledge to expand America’s nuclear capability, he told the talk-show host Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
He has not specified whether he hopes to build more warheads or develop new weapons systems for delivering them.
The United States and Russia possess the vast majority of the world’s nuclear warheads, although both have reduced their arsenals under a series of treaties
Mr. Trump criticized the latest of those treaties, a 2010 agreement with Moscow called New Start, as “just another bad deal,” according to Reuters .
He has not clarified whether he will consider abrogating the treaty, which could open the way for the United States and Russia to expand their nuclear arsenals and capabilities.
Analysts say Mr. Trump’s call for a nuclear “arms race” could potentially cost billions. But as with other spending plans, he has not articulated a strategic goal.
--------------------------
While Mr. Trump has said that he wants to defeat the Islamic State, he has not explained how increasing the size of the military would accomplish that.
Mr. Trump’s focus on big-ticket items is mainly “useful in more conventional military campaigns,” said Michael C. Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies military leadership. “The kind of investments you would make if you were primarily focused on counterinsurgency campaigns are very different.”
Mr. Trump’s announcements appear to emphasize optics as much as strategy, Mr. Horowitz said. “To the extent that tangible pieces of military equipment symbolize strength, those are things that I think the administration is interested in investing in.”
-----------------------------------
RED RULES apply:
Be polite
No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
Be smart and stay on-topic
Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning.
One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic and will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart and stay on topic. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic, and will be deleted
Our President has declared that he wants a significant increase in military spending. This article gives the current situation.
Trump never specifies anything.
A couple of points. In regard to aircraft carriers. China has developed a missile with a range of 1100 miles. The fighters that fly off carriers have a range of 400/500 miles. Which puts the carrier in danger, without being able to attack the missile bases.
The waste in the military is gigantic. A recent report showed that over 5 years, $25 billion dollars in waste..Yet the DOD tried to bury the report.
Yes, we do need to keep a strong military, but spending without actually looking at the type of equipment needed isn't, IMO, the way to go.
I am greatly bothered by the absence of any serious public debate about defense spending... which is after all the largest part of the federal budget!
What are the missions that our armed forces must be ready to fulfill?
What size conflicts do we expect to engage in?
In what regions of the world?
How do the weapons systems we are now purchasing fit with those missions over the next three decades?
How do personnel levels fit those missions? (Keeping in mind that retirement and medical costs go far into the future.)
Like you say, the aircraft carrier would seem to be obsolete in an age of supersonic cruise missiles. And I cannot imagine that China is not working on remote control aircraft, capable of much higher performances than piloted aircraft... and cheaper... while we spend zillions on the F-35.
There are all sorts of questions. Not only are there no answers... there isn't even a debate!
😞
The lack of debate on the issue is concerning. When it comes to military spending, this seems to be the order of the day. Military Industrial complex anyone.
Here is a good article on the development of drones by the Chinese.
Good link.
K.... Imagine what that $25 billion wasted monies would do to help the VA and veteran health care? Of course the neo-con war mongers are deaf to veterans needs once they are really need help. Or am I wrong?
Soldiers are useful when they can fight. When they have been wounded, they are of no use. The GOP is very militant about not wasting money on "useless"...
Trump needs something bigger but it's not the US military.
One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic, and will be deleted.
I don't actually have to warn you...
The size of US military is related to how much the US wants to influence or boss the rest of the world.
The military exists to protect business interests. Always has, always will. Corporate taxes should be a major source of funding for the US military overseas.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
― Smedley D. Butler , War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
There's a lot of money to be made from war...
Wait, what do you call this?
One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic, and will be deleted.
This site has some strange policies no one seems to follow even on their own articles.
I call it a polite acknowledgement of Kavika's respect for a red Rule: Contribute substantive thought.
Anita... my Moderation of my Red Rules articles/seeds is by definition off-topic. I could have deleted your post, here... but I'm making one last effort at civility. From now on, though... if you persist...
Thanks for the suggestion kavika, that looks interesting.
My husband, last night, showed me a YouTube video about the latest supersonic military plane that is about 5X faster than anything we've had before. Supposed to be undetectable, as it flies so high, and at such great speeds... Guess who found its signature? The USGS, who noticed a rhythmic seismic anomaly. I'll look for the video... (I'll have to ask him to show me where it is...)
Anyway, it may be stealthy in the air, but not so much on the ground, if seismic stations can pick it up.
How much did it cost? While this may be a good idea, it seems to me that we should better spend our money...
This may be your story...
I think it is! I couldn't find the YouTube thing... If my husband locates it for me, I'll post it. It looked like a dolphin to me. Funny, that the USGS could track it using seismic devices...
Working smarter rather than just harder is the way to go. Efficiency and efficacy are more important than size; though, I'm not sure our small handed president would agree.
I don't see us in a massive ground war in a future too near to allow time for a build-up... so I see no point in increasing troop strength now.
I do see a high probability of smaller-scale military action. And I see no policy to prepare for that future.
Exactly. Trump's Yemen expedition only underscores how important our special ops are, and how easily, even with the best of the best, operations can go south.
Even if we someday learn to stay out of quagmires, there will still be targets of opportunity that cannot be simply blasted to dust and bloodspatter by a drone or three.
I would like to see us develop a reliable capacity to insert and extract significant ground forces, under solid air cover, for operations that might last up to a week. Including in very hostile environments. I would like to see all our troops out of the Middle East... but significant raids all across the region almost constantly. Regardless of borders.
Right now, we don't know where ISIS may strike. I would very much like to turn the table!
1,000 troops engaged in some losing battle in Syria. Retaking of Mosul, in Iraqnam for the umpteenth time. Waiting for the flag draped coffins to come home, to prove how worthwhile our efforts are to help our 'Allies'?
I don't know, Don. I don't understand how anyone can want to put American boots on the ground anywhere in the Middle East, for more than in-and-out raids.
Papa Bush led a war with a precise mission: clear the Iraqi army from Kuwait and destroy its capacity to ever again invade a neighbor. We went in, stomped the Iraqi army... and came home. Mission accomplished.
Bush junior led a war that never had a mission statement. We got quagmired in two countries. Despite the President's photo-op on that aircraft carrier... no mission was ever accomplished by those tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths.
Now there are voices calling for American troops in Syria. It's insane.
Thanks, Bob. What is the old saying about history repeating itself, and President Eisenhowers warning on his leaving office, about the military being used for private contractors gains? Been happening since Vietnam. We lost that one. Was any of that encounter worth 55,000 names on a wall, in D.C.?
I don't think we have enough distance from the Vietnam War to be able to evaluate its place in world history. (Full disclosure: I'm a Viet vet.)
While the war was a bloody waste on the face of it, it was also a part of the overall "Containment Policy" that ran from 1945 to the fall of the Soviet Union... and that policy was a brilliant success.
I don't know...
No.
Hi, XX...
Thank you for making worthwhile the time I took to seed this. The "images" are not images in the original article, so I had to take screenshots and then "insert image". That takes more time than simply "copy/paste everything, including the ads".
So... I appreciate that you read the article (which is purely informative, taking no position on anything). I appreciate that you cogitated. I appreciate that you made an effort to Contribute substantive thought.
Big enough for what?
I am greatly bothered by the absence of any serious public debate about defense spending... which is after all the largest part of the federal budget!
What are the missions that our armed forces must be ready to fulfill?
What size conflicts do we expect to engage in?
In what regions of the world?
How do the weapons systems we are now purchasing fit with those missions over the next three decades?
How do personnel levels fit those missions? (Keeping in mind that retirement and medical costs go far into the future.)
Like you say, the aircraft carrier would seem to be obsolete in an age of supersonic cruise missiles. And I cannot imagine that China is not working on remote control aircraft, capable of much higher performances than piloted aircraft... and cheaper... while we spend zillions on the F-35.
There are all sorts of questions. Not only are there no answers... there isn't even a debate!
😞
Kind of like there is no debate in Congress. Trump wants $54 billion more, cuts it from social services, aid to seniors, and the republican house and senate rubber stamp the request. Thanks go to those who voted for the Orange Peckerwood. Seems like the American way. Party in power, elected with a mandate. Sound familiar? McCain and Graham can't wait to send their military contractor buddies who elected them more money. Cost to us, flag draped coffins.
In one way, defense policy is like healthcare: it's complicated! It requires "long-term thinking", which is not often the strength of a Congressperson elected for two years.
As a result, both the public and the Congress can't be bothered to take the time to actually elaborate a "policy"...
All of the ''new'' ships and various types of weapons will give us the most powerful army in the world...Something that we already have.
One thing that has been a serious problem in all of the armed forces and the DoD in general is the tremendous amount of waste/fraud/theft, it's been an ongoing problem for decades, yet it doesn't seem to be addressed, and continues on.
If, in fact, this waste/fraud/theft was curtailed the extra dollars freed up could be used in place of the planned increase in the DoD budget.
Another thing I see as a problem is the current military is purely volunteer and the gap between the military and civilians is growing to a point that the American public really doesn't understand the military, nor do they have a vested interest in our military other than tax dollars. IMO, in many cases our military has become a ''mercenary force''...
IMO, I doubt if we will see a war between the major powers. (US, Russia, China) MAD will see to that. What we will see is proxy wars, just as we have seen in the past. These types of wars are fought on a difference scale and with a different goal.
As mentioned in other comments, hot spots the world over can come out of nowhere and require a very different type of engagement. This is the area that I believe we should be putting our money into.
Bob mentioned in would like to see a point where total units could be put into a hot spot with air cover for up to a week or so. With some units in the military this is their mission. Although having full air cover, an iron dome so to speak isn't a total reality.
Just my 2 cents.
We've all seen stories about $1000 toilet seats, and other abuses. With the enormous sums involved, there will always be some players trying to skim "just a little bit". I'm afraid, though, that the total of all this kind of waste/fraud is peanuts next to the waste of money that is every single F-35. The aircraft is still teething, so maybe it will get straightened out some day... but it is still not fully operational.
I would like to know why we are still working on another nuclear carrier. I do not see how the huge "carrier group" fleets are useful for the missions that I can see for the next two decades.
If we are serious about a "war on terror" (rather than what seems to me to be a "forever war" intended primarily to keep the folks at home in line) we must:
Clearly identify our enemies : ISIS, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, and so on. Is Hezbollah a declared enemy or not? Hamas? "Yes, but no... kinda sorta enemies" just doesn't do for a real war. The longer we go without identifying exactly whom we are fighting, the less credible the war!
Announce to all interested parties that we will attack these enemies wherever they may be. If a third party intervenes, then that third party will be treated as an enemy until the end of the operation. (In other words, if Iran for example gives air support to an enemy target, we will destroy Iranian aircraft, and perhaps their bases, without hesitation. If this rule is clear, no ME power would ever intervene.)
Attack, destroy, depart. Targets of all sizes, all across the world. A company-sized one-day in-and-out against ISIS in Iraq one day, followed immediately by a battalion-sized week-long hammer-blow against Boko Haram in Nigeria. We can take the offensive on the condition that we never allow ourselves to be quagmired.
Equip for this war:
Medium-sized, non-nuclear carriers. I am not particularly knowledgeable about Navy aircraft, but I'd guess about 30 aircraft: something like 18 Hornets, 3 Growlers, 3 Hawkeyes, and 6 Seahawks.
Helicopter assault ships. Perhaps the America class? (I'm not an expert!) Operating alone or in association with the above medium carriers, depending on the risk of air combat.
Troops organized in assault groups of various sizes, because the training and the Table of Equipment for an infantry squad that operates independently are not the same as a squad that is part of a battalion.
This may be completely wrong. I am not a defense wonk. But I am deeply disturbed that no one seems to be presenting any policy propositions, of any kind...