How solid are the assumptions underpinning American grand strategy? How valid are the key ideas that U.S. officials have about how the world works? Such assumptions represent the intellectual foundation upon which American statecraft rests. If the foundation is solid, American strategy has a decent chance of success. If the foundation is shaky, American strategy may collapse.
The U.S. defense community, as well as partners around the world, are searching for clues as to how President-elect Donald Trump will reshape the U.S. military. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to repeal the Budget Control Act (BCA), raise defense spending, and reverse declines in military readiness and capabilities. He proposed building a 350-ship Navy, returning Army active-duty end-strength to at least 540,000, increasing the Marine Corps to more than 200,000 personnel, and maintaining more than 1,200 combat-coded Air Force fighter aircraft. “Peace Through Strength” will require spending above the President’s FY 2017 budget request, which exceeds the BCA caps by more than $100 billion over the next five years.
“We think we know kind of how volatile everything is going to be in the future, and it turns out we have no idea,” said Katherine Blakeley, a research fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Another day, another market-moving tweet from the future President of the United States. This time the target was defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. In the tweet, President-elect Trump called the F-35 program and its cost, “out of control” and pledged to save billions of dollars in military and other spending once he takes office. Shares in Lockheed and other defense contractors promptly dropped. But fixing concerns with the F-35 program is no easy task.
The Senate continues to negotiate a bill funding the federal government into the spring. Congressional Republicans wanted to extend the measure through September, the end of the government’s fiscal year. But the incoming Trump administration pushed for the shorter-term funding so the next president can put his stamp on the government as soon as possible.
“Programs that have had cost problems or performance problems are going to be subject to renegotiation,” said Bryan Clark, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The LCS program is “tailor-made for the new administration to revisit.”
1667 K Street NW Suite 900
Washington DC, 20006
202-331-7990
info@csbaonline.org
