Building a Force to Fail

The most recent defense budget proposal continues the perilous trend of disproportionately investing in technologically advanced, high-cost, and high-end strategic systems such as the Ohio-class replacement nuclear submarine, the Ford-class aircraft carrier and the Long-Range Strike Bomber. These new systems are specifically designed to counter the growing high-end military capabilities of China and Russia. The same budget proposal calls for cutting planned purchases of surface ships, reducing the end-strength of U.S. ground forces, and bringing more units home from forward stations abroad. Strategic flexibility and presence are traded for limited high-end capability. The belief is that investing in these high-cost systems will simultaneously deter conflict escalation and enable U.S. victory in the event of full-scale combat.

But, the reality is, the United States is already involved in protracted contests with several strategic competitors. And, while one or more of these contests could eventually escalate to the hostilities of open war, our enemies are achieving their objectives long before the boundary of actual combat is crossed. Our discerning adversaries fear the strengths of America’s technologically advanced force. They make strategic calculations about when and under what conditions the United States may employ its military to deny their objectives. By purposely operating below our strategic threshold, enemies avoid the strengths of our military force by ensuring it is never employed. In essence, they keep America’s greatest war-fighting capabilities off the battlefield by never establishing a true battlefield in the first place.