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.
More from CNAS
ReportsImproving Joint Operational Concept Development within the U.S. Department of Defense
Executive Summary For the first time in nearly four decades, the DoD is developing joint warfighting concepts designed to counter advanced military rivals—specifically China a...
By Paul Benfield & Greg Grant
CommentaryWhy the Pentagon Should Abandon ‘Strategic Competition’
The U.S. Defense Department has recently been taught it too needs to say the magic word in every force, capability, or resource request. But the magic word isn’t please; it’s ...
By Becca Wasser & Stacie Pettyjohn
CommentaryDon’t Sweat the Small Stuff: Getting Force Design Right in the Next National Defense Strategy
Biden should narrowly focus the DoD on high-end deterrence against China and Russia instead of strategic competition or managing an expanded array of lesser threats....
By Stacie Pettyjohn & Becca Wasser
CommentaryPresentation is key: Why the Pentagon’s budget data needs a makeover
As technology advances, Congress and the DoD need to not only focus investments on capabilities, but also on DoD processes and organizational culture....
By Jennie Matuschak