For the last time, Trump did not rebuild the military, regardless of what he says. I work with them every day. I can assure you that our military is anything but rebuilt.
Top Five Steps Trump Has Taken To Prepare The U.S. Military For Whatever Comes Next
Loren Thompson
Senior Contributor
Aerospace & Defense
I write about national security, especially its business dimensions.
Last week’s domestic reaction to the killing of Iran’s top military commander was predictably partisan and speculative. Nobody can say for sure what will happen next in the Persian Gulf—just as we don’t know what lies ahead on the Korean Peninsula, in Eastern Europe, or in the Horn of Africa.
In such circumstances, the only prudent posture for America’s military is to be prepared for a diverse array of challenges. That is the vector President Trump put military plans on when he took office. Whatever you may think of Trump the man, he installed a highly capable defense team that systematically addressed military deficiencies inherited from the Obama years.
The Obama Administration badly misread global security trends, failing to anticipate Russia’s military resurgence, the rise of ISIS, and various other challenges. As a result, Washington took a number of steps such as the drawdown of forces in Europe and Iraq that later looked misguided. It fell to Trump to reverse course and revitalize the nation’s defense posture.
He did this first and foremost by increasing defense outlays 25% between 2016 and 2020—an increase in funding greater in size than the entire military budget of any nation other than China. But the president didn’t just throw money at the problem. From its first months in office, the administration always had a plan for recovering ground lost during the Obama years.
An Abrams tank on night maneuvers in November. President Trump's military modernization program ... [+]
DEFENSE VISUAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SERVICE
Here, in my judgment, are the five most important things the Trump defense team has done.
Increased funding for readiness. On the eve of Trump’s election, the Government Accountability Office reported “persistently low readiness levels” in the joint force, which it attributed to high operating tempo, end-strength reductions, under-funding of training activities, and the departure of seasoned weapons maintainers. Military aircraft accidents increased 40% between 2013 and 2017, signaling a deterioration in pilot skills. Military leaders warned only a fraction of the force was ready to fight effectively on short notice.
Against that backdrop, the Trump Pentagon launched a multiphase process to rebuild the military. In 2017, it would increase spending on readiness. In 2018 it would sustain funding for readiness—training, maintenance, etc.—while filling “holes” in the military posture such as inadequate stocks of precision munitions. In 2019 it would begin making down payments on increased lethality to cope with the challenges posed by Russia and China, and in 2020 it would go full-bore on buying a new generation of weapons. Trump’s team saw it would take years to return to a high state of readiness, and so that’s where its plan began.
Investment in core warfighting systems. When President Trump took office, the U.S. military was suffering from decades of under-investment in new technology. The Air Force’s fleet of bombers, fighters and tankers was the oldest it had ever been. The Army’s helicopters and armored vehicles consisted largely of programs begun during the Reagan years (or earlier). Some warfighting systems had grown so decrepit that the military services were proposing their retirement despite a lack of newer weapons with which to replace them.
The Trump team greatly increased funding for development and procurement of new weapons. Outlays for R&D increased over 50% between 2016 and 2020, while outlays for the procurement of weapons rose 35%. Much of this money was devoted to fielding a new generation of warfighting systems, including a more survivable bomber, longer-range rotorcraft and unmanned systems. But funding was also provided to accelerate upgrades to signature warfighting systems such as the Army’s Abrams tank and the Navy’s Virginia-class attack submarines.
Modernization of nuclear forces. Recapitalization of the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal was the first major military initiative Trump cited when he announced he intended to seek the presidency. Deterring nuclear attacks by sustaining a diverse and survivable retaliatory force has long been the foundation of the U.S. defense posture, but by the time Trump decided to run the entire strategic arsenal had grown old, including its command and control network and its industrial complex. Yet the Obama Administration had repeatedly delayed or deferred investment in new nuclear capabilities.
Following release of a nuclear posture review, the Trump Administration affirmed plans to modernize all three legs of the strategic arsenal—sea-based missiles, land-based missiles and bombers—while making major upgrades to the command network and revitalizing industrial facilities. Unlike President Obama, President Trump has never expressed ambivalence about the need for nuclear weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons that can be carried on F-35 fighters and other weapons to match the shorter-range devices Russia deploys in Europe.
Bolstering resilience in space. In the years since the Cold War ended, U.S. military forces have become heavily dependent on satellites for missile warning, secure communications, intelligence and navigation. For instance, a typical Army brigade contains many hundreds of systems dependent on signals from the Global Positioning System to function effectively. The same is true of smart bombs used by the Air Force and Navy. Seeing how important orbital systems have become to the joint force, Russia and China are developing diverse means for destroying or degrading key space systems in wartime.
The Trump Administration has launched a major effort to increase the resilience of U.S. space assets, which includes making orbital capabilities more survivable, protecting ground systems, and rendering downlinks/uplinks harder to jam or intercept. Much of the new money is going to secret projects such as sophisticated sensor arrays, but the organizational manifestations of increased emphasis on space are easy to see: a sixth branch of the military called the Space Force, a unified command, a dedicated Space Development Agency, and other bureaucratic constructs. President Trump has done more to elevate the priority of national security space activities than any other chief executive.
Pressing allies to do their part. President Trump has not been shy about telling allies they must do more to support collective security. That goes particularly for the European members of NATO, many of whom have stopped thinking rigorously about the military threat posed by Russia. For instance, Germany—one of the world’s biggest economies—spends less in a year on defense than Washington does in a month. The ability of NATO forces to deter or defeat Russian aggression is undermined by this lack of commitment.
Trump has correctly stated that the U.S. gets less from its alliances than overseas partners do even though it pays much more to keep those alliances viable. Some have said this makes him a neo-isolationist. However, the extensive funds provided by the administration for efforts such as the European Deterrence Initiative demonstrate that Trump’s main goal isn’t to withdraw from overseas, but to fashion a collective security posture that assures victory if war occurs.
The above five efforts are just the beginning of what the Trump defense team has done to bolster America’s military since taking office. From hypersonic weapons to multi-domain warfare to soldier lethality, Trump has done more to rebuild U.S. warfighting capabilities than any president since Reagan. It is hard to imagine any of the Democrats currently seeking their party’s presidential nomination pursuing a military agenda that is similarly ambitious.
