News

Ross Babbage, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, argues the US and its allies (including Australia) need to implement a solid strategy to counter China under the lead of the Trump administration. 

Believe it or not, President Donald Trump has a grand strategy. According to some analysts, Trump’s endless streams of erratic and apparently improvisational ideas don’t add up to anything consistent or purposeful enough to call a grand strategy. We see it otherwise. Beneath all the rants, tweets, and noise there is actually a discernible pattern of thought — a Trumpian view of the world that goes back decades. Trump has put forward a clear vision to guide his administration’s foreign policy — albeit a dark and highly troubling one, riddled with tensions and vexing dilemmas.

Many Republicans want to increase defense spending above the current budget caps in place. Fiscal conservatives might only want to raise it by $100 billion over 5 years, while major defense hawks -- like Sen. John McCain -- may push for increases north of $400 billion, according to Katherine Blakeley, research fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.

Thomas Mahnken, the president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, agreed that readiness and modernization have suffered in recent years, but counseled against opening a floodgate of new funds before it was clear how the Pentagon would effectively spend them. “Improving readiness and modernizing the force will require additional resources beyond those permitted by the Budget Control Act, but we need to keep in mind that the Defense Department’s capacity to absorb an infusion of resources is limited,” he said. “The Pentagon today is a lot like a person who has been slowly starving for years; there are limits to how effectively it can spend a large infusion of cash. One byproduct of our neglect of modernization over the past decade and a half is that there are few programs that are ready right now to accept new funds. Rebuilding the American military will take time.”

“The Navy’s idea was much more about, the F-35 has a command and control node that might be part of a strike package that’s mostly F/A-18s rather than F-35s doing a whole strike mission by themselves, which is what the Air Force model might be,” Bryan Clark, naval analyst Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and former special assistant to past Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News on Friday.

“We’re going to use the F-35 more as an enabler and a strike lead and as a command and control platform than as a fighter platform on its own.”

“Bilden has a wide range of experience that could help in the SECNAV position,” said Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “He served in the military, was successful in business, and is knowledgeable of and experienced in Asia’s politics and economics. His efforts on the USNA Foundation and NWC Foundation Boards indicate a commitment to the Navy and should have provided him the opportunity to better understand the challenges and opportunities facing today’s naval forces. He has an impressive academic record at Georgetown and Harvard, which should give him a good foundation in international relations and its implications for business and economics.