Winning depends upon the combination of will and capability. In the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, U.S. capability was twice that of our enemies, and our will was three times less. Consequently, we lost all three wars.
Isaiah Berlin observed that understanding how a person thinks requires drilling down to the central idea he holds, usually hidden behind diversionary rationalizations. In the cases of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the hidden central idea of the policymakers was that America was too rich to lose. In each war, the policymakers believed the enemy—a fraction of our size in population, wealth and modernity—was outclassed. Our weapons and firepower seemed to assure our inevitable success. This Jupiter complex restrained the commitment of both adequate resources and resolute persistence. Since America could not lose and the wars were not existential, our presidents sought to win without inflicting too much harm upon the enemy or committing the required number of American forces, while not arousing the American people by demanding taxes to pay for the wars. Our presidents lacked the will to win. Our enemies had more determination than did a succession of seven American presidents.
Today, the situation is worse. We no longer have a superior capability, let alone the will to win. Under President Reagan four decades ago, America confronted the Soviet Union, and the Defense budget was 6% of GDP. In 2025, America confronted China, and the Defense budget had been slashed in half, to under 3%. Either we spent twice as much as necessary to deter the Soviet Union, or we are foolishly underfunded to deter China, a more formidable foe than was the Soviet Union. We’re like the owner of a fine house in a rough neighborhood who cuts in half his home insurance because he is tired of paying 6% in insurance. Then his house is burnt down.
No comments:
Post a Comment