Throwing a bunch of money at a million different things to see what sticks – as we have been doing since the 9/11 attacks – is not going to cut it anymore. Either is relying on the threat of a ridiculously gigantic arsenal of big, scary bombs. The my bomb is bigger than your bomb strategy desperately needs to be replaced. We must, as five-star Army general and president of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower advised, "learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
Going forward our military strategy must be forward-thinking, innovative and, above all, crafty. Our potential adversaries figured this out years ago. While we were busy fighting wars in the Middle East, countries like China and Russia were busy examining America's weak spots and investing in new technologies to exploit our vulnerabilities – developing anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) networks and designing smart asymmetric-warfare strategies to try to keep us off balance.
Relying on the military-industrial complex to write our military strategy guarantees that innovative, forward-thinking strategic planning is discouraged. As Eisenhower also said, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."
The United States should never be in a position where we are forced to pick and choose between the most dangerous regions of the world. We must be able to sustain security simultaneously in Russia, Africa, South and East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Likewise, we should not be forced to forgo critical military capabilities that we need to protect ourselves. America must have a military that has the fortitude to fully protect this country, regardless of where the threat comes from or in what form it comes in.
That said, contrary to what some in Washington believe, we don't have a bottomless bank account when it comes to military spending. The military should never be immune to thoughtful spending and strict fiscal accountability – and that statement does not make us soft on defense, disloyal to the military, or unpatriotic in any way. What it makes us is responsible realists.
1787's Promise to You: We know that there is a lot that we don't know. The ideas we offer in this section come from research that is readily available to us. We promise that we will always listen to people who have more national security experience than we do. We will never stop listening and learning.