March 30, 2018

A Balanced Defense

By Jerry Hendrix

When President Trump signed the 2018 omnibus spending bill, he committed the nation to a two-year, $1.416 trillion defense-spending plan, but his signature did not answer the larger question that has been hanging over the defense debate: Should the nation invest in increased lethal capabilities — that is, more technical solutions such as stealth aircraft and more precise intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance systems — or expand capacity, otherwise known as growing the force? The new national-security strategy issued by the White House in December and the national-defense strategy released by the Pentagon in January both endorse building capacity — increasing the number of personnel and ships, aircraft, and vehicles overall — as a strategic goal, although the Pentagon document is muted in its phrasing.

However, capabilities proponents, from both the right and the left, make arguments, from fiscal and technology perspectives, that it is no longer possible or necessary to maintain large numbers of troops, tanks, aircraft, and ships in the active force. They advocate instead a smaller but more lethal force centered around advanced capabilities. Voices from the expanded-capacity school argue that a generation of investment in exquisite capabilities has resulted in a diminished force that is too small to maintain the peace or win a war. They advocate significantly increased defense budgets, such as the one just approved, and a larger overall force that includes a bigger Army, Air Force, and Navy.

These approaches — increased capabilities and expanded capacity — appear greatly at odds with each other and draw on dissimilar assumptions regarding the global security environment. Each deserves an honest, objective examination. Is some balance between the two approaches possible?

Read the full article on National Review.

  • Commentary
    • PAXsims
    • May 28, 2020
    Pipelines, chokepoints, and what the heck are we doing?

    There has been some recent discussion within the community about how to move people from “not a game designer/controller” to “professional (paid) game designer/controller” in ...

    By Dr. ED McGrady

  • Video
    • May 18, 2020
    Remote work at the Defense Department after the virus

    Susanna Blume, Senior Fellow and Director of the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), discusses the future of telework at the Defense Department a...

    By Susanna V. Blume

  • Commentary
    • Inkstick
    • May 13, 2020
    It’s Time to Rethink our Wargames

    National security practitioners held several high-profile pandemic wargames and exercises in the years prior to the outbreak of COVID-19. Often, these games eerily predicted e...

    By Chris Dougherty

  • Commentary
    • April 9, 2020
    Sharper: America's National Security Workforce

    The greatest source of strength in American national security is the people who lead and serve within its institutions. The ongoing U.S. response to the global coronavirus out...

    By Emma Moore, Chris Estep & Cole Stevens

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia