Prospects for War

Princeton international affairs fellow Heather Penatzer has written an article for the British online publication Unherd entitled The Triumph of the Trump Doctrine.

She says that ever since the end of World War II, American foreign policy has been dominated by three priorities:  First, the security of Western Europe against the threat of Soviet communism.  Second, attempting to stabilize the Middle East, taking on Great Britain’s former role in securing access to the region’s oil.  Third, protecting America’s commercial interests in the East Asia-Pacific region.

The three regions of interests formed a hierarchy of sorts: Europe first, the Middle East second, and Asia third. And despite runaway globalisation, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rise of China, this hierarchy of priorities has largely remained consistent. The past several US administrations doubled down on toppling regimes in the Middle East while acting as though Western Europe requires the same amount of US assistance that was needed to remedy the destruction of WWII and fend off Communism.

Penatzer thinks these preoccupations are outdated and praises what she calls the “Trump Doctrine” for setting new priorities.  She writes:

At the heart of the president’s vision is a desire to devolve European security back to European states and to disengage from the sands of the Middle East. Reducing American commitments in those two regions is paired with an activist approach to the Western Hemisphere, while playing hardball economic statecraft with Beijing. While the execution of this reorientation has been mixed and, in several cases, dangerously flawed, the Trump Doctrine is a much needed update to last century’s strategic status quo.

Europe has gotten the message.  Furthermore, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created a sense of urgency.

The Wall Street Journal‘s Bertrand Benoit recently published an article entitled Germany’s Secret Plan for War With Russia.  The reporter got his hands on a 1,200 pages document setting out detailed plans to mobilize and provide logistical support for 800,000 German and allied troops in the event of an attack from Russia, which it projects may happen in 2029.  It also sets our plans for an “all-of-society” approach to war, organizing civilians for resistance and guerilla actions.  Such plans are in conjunction with Germany’s  100 billion euro ($116 billion) rearmament initiative.

Meanwhile, France has gone so far as to introduce “voluntary military conscription” to enlist 18 and 19 year olds in 10 months of service, with an emphasis on combat training, as part of the country’s efforts to be ready for a war by 2030.

Norway, Sweden, and Finland have already been bolstering their military forces and training their citizens for resistance.  So has Poland.  In contrast, in the words of an article by UK analyst Keir Giles, Britain Hits Snooze as Russia Threat Intensifies, with the deck, “There is now clear evidence that despite an acknowledged threat, the UK is extending its holiday from history.”

In Asia, Japan–despite its pacifist post-WWII constitution–is growing its military capability against the threat of China.  So is South Korea.  China’s announced target, Taiwan, modeling its strategy on Ukraine’s success in styming a much more powerful military power, is implementing a “porcupine defense,” using decentralized units and small, individually operated and hard to detect weapons systems to resist invasion.

Now, historically, it’s not good news when Germany (WWI & WWII), France (Napoleon), and Japan (WWII) militarizes, since all three countries have been threats to the whole world.

It’s surely healthy for nations to be ready to defend themselves, rather than expecting the U.S.A. to protect them.  Some would say that a world filled with nations armed to the teeth is dangerous, since those weapons might not always be used merely for territorial defense.  Then again, military deterrence and  “peace through strength” have proven track records.

I myself question whether Russia is going to invade Europe in four years or less.  Just as the U.S. has been giving the same level of assistance to the Europeans that it did before the Soviet Union fell apart, the Europeans may be assuming that Russia is as powerful as it was during the Cold War.   Russia hasn’t even been able to conquer Ukraine, which would seem to be much less formidable than the NATO countries.  And in trying to take over Ukraine, Russia has suffered a million casualties and used up a big part of its military technology.

China, though, is a much greater threat.  It has dramatically built up and modernized its forces, including investing in cutting-edge military technology that rivals or even surpasses what the United States has.

Unlike these other countries, United States has not appreciably built up its military, though it is already powerful.  Still, concerns have been raised. Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, warns that The U.S. Can’t Handle a War.  “From ships to shells to soldiers, the U.S. military lacks the personnel and matériel it needs to fight a major war.”  She writes,

Over the past few decades Washington has traded a larger, more durable military force for one that is high-tech but brittle. Defense planners have made small quantities of expensive, cutting-edge weapons a priority over producing enough firepower for a long fight.This shift relied on advanced weapons having the power to end fighting decisively and quickly. Yet modern wars have evolved to require both advanced systems and sheer volume of 20th-century staple munitions, such as artillery shells and missiles.

Ukraine is using up to 15,000 artillery shells a day in its fight against Russia’s invasion. The United States produces only 40,000 shells each month.

The United States is also short on advanced munitions, such as precision-guided missiles. When America helped defend Israel from Iranian attacks late last year, our warships used a year’s worth of SM-3 interceptor missile production in a single night. Offensive strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen are likewise draining stocks of cruise missiles — the same kind that would be critical in a conflict in the Pacific. War games simulating a conflict with China estimate that the United States would run out of certain vital weapons, such as long-range anti-ship missiles, in as little as a week.

She expresses support for President Trump’s mandate and Defense Secretary (sorry, War Secretary) Pete Hegseth’s efforts to reform the Pentagon and beef up our military capabilities.

The U.S. has treaty commitments to come to the aid of any NATO country and it has informal agreements to come to the aid of Taiwan.  But under the Trump doctrine, which may or may not survive the next presidency, that could change, though part of the Trump doctrine is being tough on China.

The deeper question is this:  Short of a direct attack on American soil, do you think the U.S. would, or could, or should go to war to protect other countries?

Photo: Ceremony on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, via Centre for International Policy Studies,  Public domain.