ABSTRACT: The authors discuss the erosion of US military primacy and the corresponding dangers for American grand strategy and international security. They analyze three options for restoring strategic solvency and recommend a signi cant expansion of US defense resources to bring capabilities back into alignment with US global commitments. 

The U.S. is about to become embroiled in a debate of fundamental importance to its role in the world. That discussion, which will unfold with the release of President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal and his speech before Congress on Tuesday, will nominally be about how much America should spend on defense. But the real issue is whether Washington can continue playing its traditional leading role in international affairs.

Hal Brands, a national security expert and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, DC, told CNBC News that the plan appears to include a suggestion for sending additional 4,000 to 5,000 US troops into Syria "in order to help accelerate operations around Raqqa in the next 6 to 9 months"…"It's not really Trump's style to give deeply detailed policy proposals when he's speaking publicly," Brands noted.

"What that might look like is putting an extra 4,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops into Syria in order to help accelerate operations around Raqqa in the next 6 to 9 months," said Hal Brands, a national security expert and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C.

Foreign policy, Walter Lippmann wrote, entails “bringing into balance, with a comfortable surplus of power in reserve, the nation's commitments and the nation's power." If a statesman fails to balance ends and means, he added, "he will follow a course that leads to disaster."

Today, America is hurtling toward such a disaster. Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has possessed uncontested military dominance and enjoyed it at bargain-basement prices. Now, however, America confronts military challenges more numerous and severe than at any time in decades—just at the moment its military resources are showing the effects of prolonged disinvestment in defense. American politicians boast that the nation has the finest fighting force in the history of the world. But the brutal truth today is that the United States is slipping into what Samuel Huntington—building on Lippmann's ideas—termed "strategic insolvency." American military power has become dangerously insufficient relative to the grand strategy—and international order—it must support.

The United States will soon reach a crossroads in its struggle against terrorism. The international coalition fighting the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) has driven the group out of much of the territory it once held and, sooner or later, will militarily defeat it by destroying its core in Iraq and Syria. But military victory over ISIS will not end the global war on terrorism that the United States has waged since 9/11. Some of ISIS’ provinces may outlive its core. Remnants of the caliphate may morph into an insurgency. Al Qaeda and its affiliates will still pose a threat. Moreover, the conditions that breed jihadist organizations will likely persist across the greater Middle East. So the United States must decide what strategy to pursue in the next stage of the war on terrorism.