"Therefore, let those who desire peace, prepare for war" is a fourth century Roman adage that George Washington used during his 1790 address to Congress. It succinctly conveys the idea that preserving peace requires the ability to defend one's interests. It underlines the fact that adversaries do not respect weakness. While we have often argued for diplomacy as the best and least costly means of resolving international tensions, we fully recognize that negotiating from a position of military weakness seldom succeeds.
Nearly all of America's important diplomatic successes, including bringing the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion, have been enabled by a strong military. Yet today's American military is not what it once was and claiming that it remains unbeatable does not make it so. Many of our military aircraft are older than the pilots who fly them. The land-based leg of our nuclear triad, the Minuteman III missile, is more than 50 years old. The United States Navy operated nearly 600 ships by the end of the Cold War and now has less than 300 ships deployed. The size of our army has fallen by over 20 percent in that past decade and is now smaller than at any tine since the 1930s. In terms of budgets, procurement policies and personnel there is much work to be done if we hope to negotiate from a position of strength, much less defend ourselves from aggressors.
While America's defense budget has continued to rise in dollar terms, it has long been falling as a percentage of GDP. At the height of the Cold War the United States spent 9.5 percent of GDP on defense. That fell to 5 percent by 1990 and is only 2.7 percent today. Some are quick to point out that our defense budget of 850 billion dollars is still much larger than any other nation. That is true, but our allies, Britain, Germany, and Japan would each be hard pressed to field a single division. Likewise, the Chinese and Russian defense budgets are smaller than ours, but so is the pay of their soldiers and the cost of their weapon systems.
America needs to spend more on defense, but it also needs to spend more wisely. Following the Cold War, dramatic cuts in defense spending forced consolidation in the defense industry. According to the Defense Department, since 1990, our defense sector has shrunk from 51 aerospace and defense prime contractors to only 5. The predictable outcome has been a greatly increased reliance on a much small number of contractors. Many segments of the defense market are now controlled by companies with monopoly or near-monopoly positions. Bidding is often uncompetitive simply because only one firm possess the necessary expertise. This has led to skyrocketing costs.
During the Second World War, it took only 18 months to build the Pentagon and three years to build an atomic bomb. Even today, China and Russia can deliver new weapons systems in 2-3 years. The current procurement the time for new American weapons systems often exceeds 10 years. The navy's new Columbia class submarine is more than a year behind schedule. Its new aircraft carrier program is two years behind schedule and the Constellation frigate program will be at least three years late. The Government Accounting Office has described the Pentagon's procurement program as "alarmingly slow". They are right. These delays significantly undermine readiness.
Cost over runs have become as common as delays. For example, in 2021, the commander of the U.S. strategic forces pointed out, "You cannot life-extend Minuteman III." Admiral Charles Richard added that no one currently in the Air Force could even understand the outdated technical drawings needed to repair these 50 year old missiles. Nevertheless, not even one of the new Sentinel missiles intended to replace the Minuteman III missiles, has been deployed. Instead, massive cost overruns in the $100 billion Sentinel program have necessitated special authorization to continue funding its long delayed development.
Money matters, but so do people and the U.S. military is suffering from a shortage of both active duty and skilled civilian personnel. Last year, despite lowering physical and mental requirements, the Army, Navy and Air Force all failed to meet their recruiting targets. While a competitive job market contributed to the problem, so has a perception that the Biden-Harris administration is more concerned with political correctness than combat readiness.
Thanks to decades of outsourcing our heavy industry, the United State lacks the industrial capacity to maintain its current fleet. Not only do we lack enough skilled electricians, welders, and machinists in the defense sector, but many of those who are still working will soon retire. The results are painful. Nearly half of our fast-attack submarines are not ready for sea and the overhaul time for aircraft carriers has risen by a third. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro has gone so far as to suggest using foreign shipyards.
Meanwhile the Pentagon is starved for high-tech talent. While the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians have repeatedly sought to hack important parts of American society, the Defense Department remains short of cyber security experts because they can find more lucrative employment in the private sector. The same is true for computer scientists and software engineers. Dozens of first-line F-35 aircraft remain parked waiting for software upgrades.
The threat is real. Our potential adversaries in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang have consistently expanded their military forces and developed more advanced weapons. Russia has developed an array of hypersonic nuclear capable missiles against which there is no effective defense. China has more ships in the Pacific than the U.S. Navy. North Korea has developed not only nuclear weapons, but also long range delivery systems. Iran has assembled the largest missile force in the Middle East and deployed sophisticated cyberwarfare technology against Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Both presidential candidates say that they support a strong national defense, but their records and attitudes towards the military differ sharply. Former President Donald Trump has consistently placed far more emphasis on rebuilding the military than Vice President Kamala Harris. The Trump administration substantially increased the defense budget. The Biden-Harris administration did not. Trump has aggressively called on our allies to increase their own defense spending. Harris has not. Trump has promoted advanced military technology. He created the Space Force and his campaign platform specifically includes improving America's ballistic missile defenses. The Biden-Harris administration did little on either front. While Trump questions political correctness in the military, Harris strongly supports it. History is not kind to nations that neglect their defense. Therefore, let those who value peace through strength, vote for Donald Trump.
David H. Rundell is a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia and the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor to the U.S. Central Command and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
