This is Where the Navy Gets More Money

you have to hedge somewhere

What a whirlwind of a week this has been. I don’t think I have seen so much move so fast in a week since after a new President was sworn in.

If you have not seen the pattern yet, here is the broad outline: President Trump was not bluffing or exaggerating when it came to his policy positions. He will take the ground he wants, you can join him or fight him—but he is taking the hills he said he wanted to take. He is going to do it as much in “all at once” mode as he can, overwhelming opposition and keeping the lords of inertia on the back foot.

He will do things in ways others have not, for reasons others have not, but he will do them.

So—what could we expect for our Navy as it faces the People’s Republic of China west of the International Date Line? Things are looking more and more like there will be less of “tinkering with the knobs” and more of the “rip the knobs out” in order to change the focus of DOD.

Via John Vandiver at Stars and Stripes:

Austin Dahmer and Alexander Velez-Green, known for their hawkish views on China, will serve in senior posts focused on developing military strategy, the Defense Department said Tuesday. Both have close ties to Elbridge Colby, the nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy. If he’s confirmed, Colby and company will be the Pentagon’s primary strategists with a big say on how U.S. troops are deployed around the world.

This USA is a maritime and aerospace power, by technology, geography, and national interest. That is where our comparative advantage is in any fight.

Any fight against the PRC in the Western Pacific will be mostly a maritime and aerospace fight. That plays into our advantage, if we are willing to lean into it decisively.

…a 2023 research report by Dahmer for the Marathon Initiative…gives granular insight into what is dubbed a “strategy of denial” in the Pacific
…

The approach aims to deter adversaries from acting aggressively by convincing them “that they would fail to realize their objectives if they attempted such behavior,” ... In the report, Dahmer does not take a position on how big the DOD budget should be. But without a big boost in expenditures, he wrote, the Pentagon would need to search for savings or “bill payers” to surge capabilities required to deter potential Chinese aggression against Taiwan, Okinawa or the Philippines. “One of the largest bill payers in resourcing the strategy of denial should be the Army,” the report said.

While it would be great to just grow the top-line, that simply is not a realistic option given the broader budgetary and policy needs of the moment. This is the core issue of The Terrible 20s that I first warned everyone about a decade and a half ago.

If we are betting the most likely fight and the most dangerous fight are with the PRC, then we have to accept risk elsewhere in order to leverage our comparative advantage, and where the fight will be.

...recommends about $70 billion less annually for the Army, which along with other cuts would give about $40 billion more apiece to the Navy and Air Force.

We have to get everyone to understand the budget realities. Given the broader budget goals, we are probably looking at a fixed pie.

Yes, we need land power, but not an active duty Army stationed overseas to fight a continental land war. We can support NATO and prepare for the next Great Pacific War, but NATO will have to follow the lead of Poland and the Baltics and beef up their land forces. Big Green will have to be more National Guard, lower readiness, and needing more time and strategic sealift and airlift to head east or west from CONUS.

We have to make a bet and put it on the table. I’ll bet with Dahmer, Velez-Green, and Colby.