Bigger, Better, Badder
Throughout the Cold War, the United States was largely able to keep the peace by threat of force, whether nuclear and conventional. Along with a nuclear policy that allowed for First Strike use, relying upon the promise of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)”, another policy was maintained: Flexible Deterrent Options (FDO) or Flexible Response. The key to FDO was the ability of the United States to win two regional wars and a counter insurgency at the same time, one against the USSR in Europe, the other against China or North Korea in Asia, and an insurgency in South/Central America or Africa. This is sometimes called a “two point five wars doctrine.”
As Soviet-Chinese relations deteriorated and US-Chinese relations increased Richard Nixon relaxed this policy to allow for the US to only be able to win one major and one counter insurgency effort, a “one point five war doctrine.” This policy stayed in place until George Bush Sr. took office and the Cold War ended reducing the need to maintain this standard. Defense budgets lowered, capabilities reduced until 2001 and the 9/11 terror attacks. With these attacks, the new US Defense Doctrine of 1–4–2–1 began.
Introduced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the 1–4–2–1 Doctrine states: the US must be able to first and foremost defend all its territory, deter threats in four major critical areas, quickly fight and win against two enemies, and beat one of those enemies “decisively,” which would mean a complete hostile takeover of that nation. This policy remains in place today, but many people, like the American Heritage Foundation and military leaders themselves, say that the current defense budget makes it impossible to fulfill these requirements. The Presidency of Donald Trump will likely bring the United States to its most militarily ready posture since the early days of the Cold War.
President Trump has called for the following growth of the United States Military: (1) to fully repeal the defense sequester, (2) to increase the size of the U.S. Army from 475,000 to 540,000 active duty soldiers, (3) to increase the size of the navy from 280 to 350 ships, (4) to increase the size of the Air Force to 1,200 fighter aircrafts, (5) to increase the size of Marine Corps from 24 to 36 Battalions, (6) to increase America’s seaborne ballistic missile defense capabilities, (7) to increase America’s cyber warfare and defense capabilities and, (8) to eliminate financial waste within the Pentagon and Department of Defense.
This last point is the most important out of all of them, because wars are won through logistics and budgeting more than they are through force of arms. Having a massive military is illogical if the country cannot afford it. The DOD itself admitted to wasting $125 billion over five years and it is within the realm of possibility that the number was much higher in reality.
If President Trumps team can reduce that waste, it would help pay for a great deal of his proposed upgrades. The committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the total cost of President Trump’s upgrade plans to be $150 billion over a decade. If the Pentagon is able to shore up its wasteful spending, this would yield a surplus $100 billion. However if he is unable to do this, then drastically increasing spending would unwisely increase US debit and deficit problems.
The most likely occurrence for a modern two regional wars scenario, or as they are now called, “Major Regional Conflicts,” are between the United States and a combination North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. In the event of war in the Pacific, it is likely the United States Marine Corps and Navy will take point in the conflict; they are traditionally deployed there due to the large number of island chains and ocean. The Air Force would likely provide strategic bombing support but leave most aviation duties to the Navy and Marines, as both forces have sufficient in-house aerial capabilities. The Army would certainly still participate but the superior expeditionary capabilities and pacific tradition of the Marines would leave the Army playing a secondary role.
However, if a MRC were to occur in Europe, then the Army and Airforce would lead due to the large amounts of ground battles that would take place and the heritage of their roles there. The Navy and Marines would certainly also participate, with the Navy maintaining naval superiority against seaborne attacks, blockading, and maintaining supply lines. However, they’d play less of an active role than they would in the Pacific, where their efforts would involve major battles and engagements with an enemy force.
The United States Military is quite clear, and has been for some time, that at its current level of force it cannot adequately do the job the United States Government has tasked it with. Leaders from every single branch have testified to this multiple times under oath. President Trump’s increased funding and expansion of the US Military will make it possible. However, if done in a financially irresponsible way, it could put the United States in a position of greater strategic weakness. Every dollar spent on defense now, especially if borrowed, is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere or in the future, perhaps more prudently.
