Trump proposes 50% increase ($500 billion) in defense spending
The President has had yet another of his more enlightened turnabouts. Earlier this year Russel Vought, the director of the OMB, proposed a real cut to the regular defense budget. However, after a series of highly effective deployments of the US military at the President‘s behest, the United States might now finally embark on the largest peacetime military buildup in American history.
Even a fraction of this proposal would be a worthwhile long-term boost to US military capabilities and capacity at a time when a tripolar nuclear world as well as simultaneous Russian and Chinese military buildups present a twin challenge that can only be addressed by a robust renewal of US raw power. The recognition that the United States is not only locked in a new Cold War but closest to a large-scale conventional great-power conflict since the 1940s is both reassuring and timely. There‘s an obvious lag between financial commitments and an actual growth in military muscle. Therefore, the sooner the under-investment in the defense industrial base during the post-Cold War era is put into full reverse, the sooner will the United States be able to nip any expansionist claims by regional powers in the bud.
The reasons for the President’s change of mind are nothing short of transparent. As has been the case throughout history, military success leads to a greater appetite for the repeated use of military force to further any number of strategic or political objectives. Moreover, there‘s a positive correlation between greater military prowess and an increased proclivity to put that prowess to the test. In other words, military success feeds military spending and military spending reduces the threshold for the use of force by mitigating risk aversion. This, in turn, increases the probability of future tactical, operational or even strategic victories. It‘s the benign cycle that has been a recurring feature of US foreign policy, a cycle which is usually broken by disillusionment.
In the 1920s and 30s it was the post-Great War syndrome, in the 1970s it was the post-Vietnam syndrome and in the 2010s it was the post-Iraq syndrome.
Thanks to the judicious and effective military operations by this administration in Iran and Venezuela, a healthy degree of confidence in the US armed forces as a tool of ambitious statecraft was restored.
The President and his team have tasted victory and are now intent on prolonging the sensation for as long as possible by asserting dominance across various military theaters. I applaud the newfound determination to tackle threats to US interests head on but despite the President’s laudable proposal, there are numerous caveats to consider.
Financing the buildup through tariff revenue, as POTUS seems to have in mind, would be a mistake. Tariff revenue is a volatile source of revenue both fiscally and politically. Furthermore, it is one of the least economically efficient means of collecting revenue. It would be more prudent to rely on additional tax revenue or to reduce government spending to grow the defense budget without recklessly ballooning the already sizeable national debt burden. Ideally, the President would reach a compromise with the more pragmatic and hawkish Democrats in Congress to turn his plan into a reliable, stable and prolonged bipartisan effort that would transcend the remaining three years of this administration. Otherwise, long-term private sector commitments will be more difficult to secure.
With a $1.5 trillion defense budget, US unipolarity can be restored in full. The US could simultaneously deter or, if need be, confront Russia and China while intervening in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to remove obstacles to US regional hegemony.
Regardless of what comes next, the mere proposal will reshape the entire status quo in Washington as it pertains to the defense budget by overcoming the lethargy that has hitherto marked the defense appropriations process.
Even a fraction of this proposal would be a worthwhile long-term boost to US military capabilities and capacity at a time when a tripolar nuclear world as well as simultaneous Russian and Chinese military buildups present a twin challenge that can only be addressed by a robust renewal of US raw power. The recognition that the United States is not only locked in a new Cold War but closest to a large-scale conventional great-power conflict since the 1940s is both reassuring and timely. There‘s an obvious lag between financial commitments and an actual growth in military muscle. Therefore, the sooner the under-investment in the defense industrial base during the post-Cold War era is put into full reverse, the sooner will the United States be able to nip any expansionist claims by regional powers in the bud.
The reasons for the President’s change of mind are nothing short of transparent. As has been the case throughout history, military success leads to a greater appetite for the repeated use of military force to further any number of strategic or political objectives. Moreover, there‘s a positive correlation between greater military prowess and an increased proclivity to put that prowess to the test. In other words, military success feeds military spending and military spending reduces the threshold for the use of force by mitigating risk aversion. This, in turn, increases the probability of future tactical, operational or even strategic victories. It‘s the benign cycle that has been a recurring feature of US foreign policy, a cycle which is usually broken by disillusionment.
In the 1920s and 30s it was the post-Great War syndrome, in the 1970s it was the post-Vietnam syndrome and in the 2010s it was the post-Iraq syndrome.
Thanks to the judicious and effective military operations by this administration in Iran and Venezuela, a healthy degree of confidence in the US armed forces as a tool of ambitious statecraft was restored.
The President and his team have tasted victory and are now intent on prolonging the sensation for as long as possible by asserting dominance across various military theaters. I applaud the newfound determination to tackle threats to US interests head on but despite the President’s laudable proposal, there are numerous caveats to consider.
Financing the buildup through tariff revenue, as POTUS seems to have in mind, would be a mistake. Tariff revenue is a volatile source of revenue both fiscally and politically. Furthermore, it is one of the least economically efficient means of collecting revenue. It would be more prudent to rely on additional tax revenue or to reduce government spending to grow the defense budget without recklessly ballooning the already sizeable national debt burden. Ideally, the President would reach a compromise with the more pragmatic and hawkish Democrats in Congress to turn his plan into a reliable, stable and prolonged bipartisan effort that would transcend the remaining three years of this administration. Otherwise, long-term private sector commitments will be more difficult to secure.
With a $1.5 trillion defense budget, US unipolarity can be restored in full. The US could simultaneously deter or, if need be, confront Russia and China while intervening in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to remove obstacles to US regional hegemony.
Regardless of what comes next, the mere proposal will reshape the entire status quo in Washington as it pertains to the defense budget by overcoming the lethargy that has hitherto marked the defense appropriations process.
