120 Comments

So history rhymes. We are repeating Britain in the 1920s and 1930s, only now with Powerpoint.

Expand full comment

At least the Brits didn’t put forth anyone like Kamala.

Expand full comment

That's true. All the British communists were good old boys from Oxford and Cambridge. They had a marvelous command of the King's English.

Expand full comment

Blunt and Philly would have loved Pete Buttegeig.

Expand full comment

Phillby

Expand full comment

At least they woke up in '38.

Expand full comment

It was almost too late when they did. Worse, appeasement is back in style now that Sir Keir Starmer and Labour have no problem with the ICC going after Bibi.

Expand full comment

If it had not been for the US they would have folded up sooner or later.

Expand full comment

We are repeating Britain of the 1930s, except unlike Britain then, there is no United States waiting in the wings to back us up when things go tango uniform.

Expand full comment

Here's the Chinese version of something, for some reason or other - https://www.rand.org/zh-hans.html The picture on the title page appears to be that of the Bund in Shanghai...

Expand full comment

CDR, spot on (as usual). What do you with a bankrupt process? You go broke. Patterns of human behavior historically (there's that word) repeat. "Gentleman, we've run out of money, we're going to have to start thinking." (British head of admiralty a long time ago, IIRC...or not). Problem is, government, and DoD "thinks" badly, if at all. As our national debt explodes, discretionary spending (DoD is the largest component still, I think) is going to shrink, not grow. The acquisition process (JCIDS, anyone?) and Military Industrial Complex (TM) have gotten slower and more expensive (slow multiplies cost, so how is that helpful, JCIDS, asking for a friend). So, we've run out, or our running out of money, and apparently can't think. We can't do analysis, so we can't determine what our future needs will be with any confidence, so we get think tank produced thought pieces like this that highlight (what you aptly pointed out), the utter inability to make a choice...in anything. Everything is critical, DoD, State, HHS, et al. If ever someone is going to take a serious run at disrupting the current world order, I'd say we've entered a very dangerous window of time.

Expand full comment

Hot take over breakfast. Haven't gone through the full 132 pages yet but it is downloaded from Rand.

"In the name of all that is holy. There is nothing more worn out in natsec discussions coming from the Imperial City than “all elements of national power.”"

One of the first things that stuck out to me as well. Especially this from RAND's summary:

"A truly “all elements of national power” approach is required to coordinate and leverage resources across DoD, the rest of the executive branch, the private sector, civil society, and U.S. allies and partners."

and...

"The Joint Force is at the breaking point of maintaining readiness today. Adding more burden without adding resources to rebuild readiness will cause it to break."

Jointness is failing. Let's take the concept and make it truly terrifying and strap it to all federal agencies, and, while we are at it, let's throw in foreign lobbyists to ensure that we are responsive to the needs of our allies, and those who aren't allies but qualify as "foreign partners" for the moment.

"Who are the “they”? People are policy, so let’s review the commissioners in Appendix A on page 77. The extended bios are there."

Nice for RAND to include the mini-bios, but I named searched each on both LinkedIn and Open Secrets Revolving Door profiles. Every single one is a creature of D.C.. To the extent that care about the defense of the nation beyond their next pay check? Sure! As long as there is the understanding that D.C. is the nation that they wish to defend.

I think I want more fiber in my breakfast!

Expand full comment

RAND, eh? I seem to recall they had a lot to say and a fair amount of input about our (mis)adventures in SE Asia a few years back.

Expand full comment

It is later than we think. If the critical year is 2027, it is a decade too late for sixth generation aircraft to be fielded. It is a decade too late to build new ships in quantity. Fix what you have and make munitions as a top priority. Break as many rice bowls as you can to make that happen.

Expand full comment

Given our current capacity to field new aircraft and ship classes, I am afraid that we are TWO decades too late.

Expand full comment

But we are doing a good job at getting kids to transitions.

Expand full comment

I do not often have good things to say about either the F-35 or the actions undertaken by the Obama Administration, but this morning's news gives me more confidence in our committment to the fifth generation platform. The big O not only went through with the sale but parts have continued to flow over the past three administrations.

https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/exclusive-us-pitches-unique-f-35-fighter-jet-to-israel-idUSN24299784/

To take out the leader of Hamas in Tehran? Man! Impressive. Imagine the shake up in our NatSec structure if the oppositie had happened. Russia supplied Su-57s taking out PM Netanyahu at the Watergate Hotel.

Expand full comment

Speak softly. Carry a big stick.

Expand full comment

Do we know what caused the demise of the individual in Teheran?

Expand full comment

Physics. 😏

Expand full comment

Heh. Bullet? JDAM? Poison? Non-halal food? The world wonders...(-;

Expand full comment

A very, very well made bed for his eternal slumber.

The story is MOSSAD had someone in the building, figure out which room he normally sleeps in, put a sizeable charge of C4 in it (in the explosives equation, factor P for Plenty cannot be understated) and when he was snoozing, he met his 72 Virginians.

Damn, I wish the US had some competent spies...

There's a YT vid floating around of the head of MOSSAD going into the office the next day, doing his happy dance.

Expand full comment

Very nice. The f35 / F15 scenario, even the cruise missile was very...complicated. This makes sense, and even if it isn't true, talk about living rent free in someone'(s) heads wondering where it's safe to sleep, and OBTW, who to trust.

Expand full comment

BBC was reporting it as an airstrike. Could have been a cruise missile. I think it was more likely a precision munition with terminal guidance input from the ground. But, it could have been non-halal food.

Expand full comment

It's possible, but not likely, that housekeeping left him a present. But probably an air-surface munition of some sort.

Expand full comment

A la Tom Clancy?

Expand full comment

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Tehran by hidden explosive device: report

Bomb was planted inside Haniyeh’s guesthouse room around 2 months ago, report claims

Expand full comment

Yes, an exquisite capability excellently demonstrated by the Israelis.

What worries me is the Houthi drone hitting Tel Aviv beforehand, or the deep drone strikes by Ukraine against Russian strategic aircraft. Will we adapt faster, or the Chinese?

We may have cause to be glad that the Pacific is a wide moat.

Expand full comment

Trillion of bucks for TACAIR, and IDF kills a chief negotiator trying to give back Israeli hostages.

Look at map.

It flew thru mostly U.S. owned airspace

Expand full comment

This fall or early spring. Time’s up. People should be able to set their watch based on the Olympics for this kind of thing. Although this time it is really going to be situated based on our greatest moment of weakness.

Expand full comment

It is very possible that we'll get our butts kicked in 2027. But whether or not that happens, we should absolutely begin repairing the industrial base and rebuilding ship/sub/aircraft building capacity. The best time to do that was 15 years ago, but the second best time to do it is NOW.

Expand full comment

This process plays out time and again. The system cannot and will not change itself absent massive outside shocks to it. Those shocks can come in two forms, disruptive individuals (that happened in 2016 and we saw how that ended) and massive failures (i.e. 9/11 or losing a major war).

Expand full comment

I froze at the GDP chart!

US GDP is very different than GDP in 1970. In 1970 US was an industrial economy, today US is a financial institution. Paul Krugman said the only thing I agree with him: "US is a financial institution with an army" (not so good at that). There is very little industry base to mobilize as done in 1916 and 1942! While 3% of 2024 GDP is in real dollars lager than the real dollars of the Reagan build up.

DoD system acquisition is more broke now than when I entered it from a job the real Air Force in 1985! One observation: F-35 was unworkable in 2005, why this example of unilateral disarmament is being delivered needing a new engine that is not funded much less in development!

F-35 debacle is the rule since the C-5 was not killed when it should!

Third observation, strategy: US is scarcely able to do one of the major plans: either going after MacKinder or doing our Mahan. It is either or! Likely not adequate in either! Mahan wins!

All we need is shipyards!

Expand full comment

Paul Krugman is a vicious political hack who just bleats out Dems good Reps bad.

Expand full comment

He is!

Expand full comment

I’ve met him. In person he is mild mannered. But his NYT columns seem like they were written by Robespierre - only more hateful. In many cases he talks about issues he knows nothing about but it doesn’t matter. He want to send his opponents to the guillotine and that’s not a metaphor.

Expand full comment

How dare you say that about an award winning (Nobel?) academic who has consistently been wrong MORE than Joe Biden for the last several decades. (Harumph!)

Expand full comment

Krugman looks at the real world and wonders how it would work in theory.

Expand full comment

If he actually looks at the real world that still puts him ahead of many economists.

Expand full comment

"[Krugman}...has consistently been wrong MORE than Joe Biden". OK, maybe for the last several decades, but over a lifetime? I am skeptical, Mr. Sceptic.

That Krugman is more articulate, has a PhD and is a Nobelist must certainly lessen the appearance of wrongness. It is 2024. Something can be wrong only with a consensus. I see none here. Lastly, that "How dare you" is so Gretaesque. Harumph, Sir! How dare you?

Expand full comment

Sir, I stand corrected, and apologize for engaging in hyperbolizingazation...er, exaggerationalizatio...oh, forget it.

Expand full comment

You know ... the Thing.

Expand full comment

So here we are again... and again... and again. Some aspirational gobbledygook of necessary reforms from the NATSEC nomenklatura to help right the ship. And now we have the klaxon of the national debt bleating away & that debt gets a "vote" on what's possible. Nice to see the continued handiwork of our "best and brightest" shining through with another treatise on how to pound a steel square peg into a round hole with a rubber mallet.

Expand full comment

Shapes for the 6 sided wind tunnel.

The "research staff" were all RANDies.

Nothing about common defense more "national interests" grist!

Expand full comment

"Who in politics can find a way to reform entitlement spending and increase taxes inside the next four POM cycles? That will have to be done before any large increases in defense. Who will say, “no” to those who demand $1 in welfare state spending for each increase of a $1 towards natsec spending."

Precisely!! Pretty much nobody would appear to be the answer.

Expand full comment

Captain, they are called "entitlements" because folks paid for them and are therefore "entitled" to the benefit. To true conservatives, contracts are important. Say for example a young man has the choice of careers and he chooses military service. When he enters, the government says, "serve twenty years honorably and we will give you half the pay you earn on the day you leave, pulse half the increases we give to that pay grade." If the man does his 20, honorably, isn't he entitled to the pay he was promised?

If another man works for General Motors, and pays his proper amount in Social Security taxes, into what they call a "trust fund," isn't he entitled to the proper check when he turns 65.

It appears to me as if you want to claim welfare and food stamps as "entitlements," which they are not. Folks are entitled to military retirement because they put in the years. Folks are entitled to Social Security because they put in the money. That's why they are entitlements.

Expand full comment

OK. Not sure why you are telling me this. However I should point out that all the examples you give are legitimate entitlements, such programs as SNAP, Medicaid, welfare etc. certainly are not proper entitlements, as you point out. Those are what need to be scaled back or eliminated.

Expand full comment

Then stop calling charity, "entitlements." Words are important. There are folks who want to cut the Social Security benefits that folks like me expect to collect once we start working. That is the "entitlement reform" you say is needed.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

When folks say we need "entitlement reform," my response is heck no. Leave military retirement alone.

Now, if you want to talk about "welfare reform," I'm all ears.

Expand full comment

Actually I was quoting CDR Sal, and I do differentiate between entitlements and welfare. However, both major entitlements (social security and Medicare) DO need reform or else they will run out of funding in a few years. I would tend towards Welfare elimination or at least drastic cut backs. As the Walrus said:"..time to speak of ships and sealing wax and kings".

Expand full comment

Words do mean exactly what DC chooses them to mean. It is fair to say that entitlements include Obama phones (maybe even 3-4 per family), $4000 debit cards, airline tickets, and vouchers for 4 star hotels for illegals crossing the border, free bus passes, free needles, sex changes for military service members, the free lunches (and breakfasts) at school that have morphed in free meals at libraries for the same kids during the summer (Where are the parents?), race based admissions to schools, jobs, promotions. Because "People tasked with 'hard decisions' decide the 'hard decision' is to decide to say 'yes' to every good-idea fairy that threatens to heavily pout if their #1 goal is not your #1 goal." "SNAP, Medicaid, welfare" get to be entitlements for illegals. Did they pay for them? Nope. But nonetheless, they are given the benefits. "It’s the economy, stupid." Where is our Carville when we need him? "It's the commies, stupid."

Expand full comment

"Words are important. "

Indeed. So why not start by defining "entitlement"?

Expand full comment

Can we expect people who cannot define "woman" to be successful with words of four syllables?

Expand full comment

Nobody is ever going to "cut" social security. However, it will be inflated out of relevance as the debasement of the dollar continues unabated.

Expand full comment

"isn't he entitled to the proper check when he turns 65."

No.

"The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

There is, though, some difference of opinion.

Expand full comment

We don't have a "justice" system. We have a legal system. It is aways refreshing when the just result and the legal result are the same, but, it is often just a coincidence.

Expand full comment

Love the article. One observation regarding figure S-1: Nixon was 1968 - 1976.

Expand full comment

Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. And then we had Ford. So all my time in uniform was under Nixon, except for the last year.

Expand full comment

Good catch - thank you. I was focused on 1968-1972 should have be shaded in red, not blue, further reinforcing the point being made.

Expand full comment

An "all elements of national power approach" is the exact same ideological slight-of-hand as "whole of government approach." What it really means is subverting every level of the national defense establishment with collectivist, woke, one-world garbage.

Expand full comment

Totalitarian governments are much better at "all elements of national power" / "whole of government approach" than representative republics. Doesn't mean their results are better, it's just easier to get the cats herded in the "command directed" direction. See "Socialist / Communist Government financial failures / USSR, Venezuela" for more details...

Expand full comment

Add UK to your list. I hope we don't add USA to your list.

Expand full comment

I see a more nefarious reason, to bring the full force of the military in line with Homeland Security against domestic challengers

Expand full comment

Doesn’t this commission already exist and is fully funded in some place called the Pentagon?

Expand full comment

The GOFOs do not have the deep connections that the individuals on the blue ribbon panel have. This is less about defense and the Pentagon and more about all the other fingers in the pie.

Expand full comment

Or the Deep understanding of what they need.

Expand full comment

CDR Sal,

Based on my many years in DC, I can say that absolutely nothing matters except the election. If the entire Chinese fleet was in the Chesapeake the only question anyone inside the Beltway would ask is “How will this affect turnout?”

Expand full comment

Have to wonder how much the election results are playing into the decision calculus in a large Asian competitor's small circle of advisors and decision makers.

Expand full comment

I am ever more convinced every DC politician and bureaucrat would unplug any one of our life support systems to charge a cell phone headset.

Expand full comment

Did kamala read the report?

Expand full comment

Can she read?

Expand full comment

She has read Howard Zinn.

Expand full comment

Doubt it. Someone gave her the talking points in person, repeated slowly ~15 times.

Expand full comment

Maybe that's why she cackles.

Expand full comment

She cackles because she is privy to the inside joke and we aren't.

Expand full comment

"It's a big club and we ain't in it"

Expand full comment

Dump the extra money into the industrial base and hope war doesn't start before we get it built?

Expand full comment

I agree, things are screwed up. Then again, the only time I saw a coherent strategy matched with a supporting budget was Reagan's NSDD 75. We were trying to defeat an evil empire then.

Regrettably ever since we appeared to want to be an empire - and not get the consent of the taxpayers and recruits' parents - and save money at the same time - with the inevitable result.

We aren't an empire now. Bush 1st's dream of an American dominated New World Order was a farce. Kabul was the final gasp.

As a matter of 'critical to national defense' we've no need to defend everyone else's freedom of navigation, no requirement to ensure China gets best shipping rates on Nike sneakers and laptops with MSS backdoors. We've no need for troops in Africa, Europe, Asia either.

We will need to ensure resources are there for a 'right sized' military - but, it is due time to have a national defense strategy for America and not globalist mercantile interests who are simultaneously funding our demise.

Expand full comment