Should U.S. spend more on defense?

By James Jay Carafano

If a child comes home with a "needs improvement" on his kindergarten report card, most parents won't panic. They know there is time to get the kid up to standard before the deadline for that Harvard application falls due.

Defending America is different. A subpar grade for military preparedness ought to be an immediate concern.

Today, despite our multibillion-dollar investment, America's military is not all that great. That was the finding of a two-year research effort by a team of analysts at the Heritage Foundation.

"The Index of U.S. Military Strength" grades the armed forces. The ranking this year? Marginal.

Heritage is not alone. Every single service chief issued a similar warning this spring when testifying at the annual readiness hearing before Congress.

For example, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno declared that the "Army cannot fulfill its role in the defense strategy" if all cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 are fully implemented.

The Marine Corps is running about two-thirds the number of battalions it has historically needed to meet day-to-day operational demands.

Indeed, by the time President Obama leaves office, every branch of the U.S. military will be smaller than it was on 9/11.

Does that make sense? Is the world safer for America today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001?

When the U.S. military lacks the capacity and capabilities to protect all its vital interests, the country is worse off. It is just that simple.

Few dispute that today's U.S. military is comparatively smaller and less capable to handle the missions assigned to the Pentagon - especially given the variety of active adversaries and competitors. But some argue that this is no big deal.

After all, they say, nobody really wants to fight World War III with the United States.

That's probably right. But this rejoinder misses the point.

Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing don't want to get into a fighting war with the United States. Even al-Qaeda and the Islamic State don't really want to mess with us. They would actually prefer that the United States not repeat the large-scale military interventions mounted against them during the Bush administration.

Yes, everyone would prefer to win without fighting. Sadly, diminishing U.S. military might plays directly into our opponents' preferences as well as their strategy.

As U.S. relative power declines, the Pentagon becomes increasingly unable to deal with more than one problem at a time. For example, if Washington becomes absorbed in a Middle East crisis, it will have less capacity and appetite to intervene elsewhere.

If the United States lacks the means to win, then an enemy's answer is a lot easier: Just demonstrate the ability to make sure America knows wars will be messy. That will convince Washington to back off.

As problems grow and the Pentagon loses more capacity to deal with them, U.S. decision-makers will become increasingly risk-averse. Adversaries will exploit America's indecision and reluctance to engage.

This administration has tried to make up for shaving military power by adding a double dose of diplomacy. Its efforts have demonstrated that hard and soft power are not interchangeable.

Adding a diplomatic initiative is no substitute for dumping a division. The Russian reset, for insistence, didn't deter Russian adventurism in Europe.

Deliberate self-weakening in the face of an aggressive adversary invites aggression. The military and diplomacy work better when they wisely complement each other.

Washington doesn't need more war-mongering. But it does need a responsibly sized and capable military - one that realistically matches the needs of a global power with global interests. Pairing the right armed forces with the right foreign policy is the best answer.