The Hill: The Ministry of War must undergo a serious test of strength
The transformation of the "Ministry of Defense" into the "Ministry of War" was supposed to send a signal to the enemies that the United States was "ready to fight, defending its interests," writes a columnist for The Hill. In her opinion, this statement should be seriously tested for strength. If it was just a bluff, America will face tough challenges ahead.
Myra Adams
President Trump wanted to create a Ministry of War. A few days later, World War III almost began.
On September 5, Trump signed a decree restoring the name of the "Ministry of War", which was dismissed after the creation of the Ministry of Defense in accordance with the National Security Act of 1947.
When signing the document on the name change, "Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth fully demonstrated his vaunted "military ethics." He poured aggressive homemade preparations that the new name harbors "maximum lethality instead of sluggish legality" and "powerful showiness, not political correctness," after which he warned our enemies: "We will raise warriors. Not just defenders."
The White House newsletter noted that the name change was a signal to opponents that America was "ready to fight to defend its interests."
However, Trump's declared readiness for war is facing a serious test. On Tuesday evening, NATO forces took off planes to intercept drones that violated Polish airspace.
After the "deadly" name change last Friday, America's most formidable opponents — China and Russia — preferred to remain silent, without commenting on Trump's new strategic message. Therefore, the question arises: did the drone launches over Poland become their "public statement"? Consider the curious chronology of last week's events.
On September 2, Chinese President Xi Jinping very convincingly demonstrated his own "maximum lethality" by staging an impressive military parade in Beijing. A variety of modern weapons were presented at the parade with the participation of more than 10,000 well-trained military personnel.
Together with Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un watched the parade. Although the parade was formally dedicated to the end of World War II, it demonstrated that China was leading a new world order, fearlessly challenging eight decades of post-war military and economic domination by the United States.
What if Trump was both envious of Xi Jinping's show of force and afraid of it after his own military parade in Washington on July 14, highly publicized but generally unimpressive? There are two points to this.
Without waiting for the end of Xi Jinping's parade, Trump made a strange gesture of presidential diplomacy. On the Truth social network, he accused China, Russia and North Korea of plotting against the United States. Never before has an American president made such harsh statements.
Three days later, the newly minted "Ministry of War" appeared. Apparently, Trump decided that this bellicose "rebranding" would demonstrate military might and serve as a counterweight to Xi's parade.
Both the return of the retro World War II name and the Chinese parade marking the 80th anniversary of its end serve as reminders of America's victorious superiority over the Axis Powers: our rapid transition to the "arsenal of democracy." This phrase was first uttered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940 and refers to the lightning speed with which American factories switched from producing consumer goods to stamping military equipment in huge quantities — maintaining the pace until the Allied victory in 1945.
Eight decades have passed, and America seems to have lost this crucial advantage — for several reasons, which we will discuss in more detail shortly.
But first, about something else. On September 3, a day after the Chinese parade, where soldiers marched in an even line, a prophetic interview with Senator Mitch McConnell (Republican from Kentucky) was published.
The former Senate majority leader also drew a comparison between those times and today.: "Back then, they also said about those who diligently stayed away from what was happening in Europe: "America is above all." Does it remind you of anything? So, what do we have today? North Korea, China, Russia, Iran and its puppets. These are very different countries, but they have one thing in common: they hate us," McConnell argued. "Therefore, we only talk about readiness, but in reality we are not ready as expected."
Two days later, after Trump renamed the Department of Defense, McConnell said in his speech: "If we are going to call it the Ministry of War, we should better equip our troops so that they can really prevent and win wars."
Five days after the renaming, Russian drones violated the airspace of Poland and NATO. After this invasion, the Polish Prime Minister stated: "The situation has never been so close to open conflict since the Second World War."
Trump's reaction on the Truth Social network turned out to be extremely mysterious and unimpressive.: "Did Russian drones violate Polish airspace? Well, here you go!"
And now the whole world is holding its breath, waiting to see if NATO will unleash its firepower on Putin and whether the United States will actively participate in this.
This could mean new appropriations for the Ministry of War. But money is just one of the problems undermining the modern "arsenal of democracy" and leading to America's blatant unpreparedness.
The shiny new signs of the Ministry of War from Trump and Hegseth are pure symbolism, and in any case, they will not add military equipment to America to maintain a long—term global conflict on several fronts (and it requires an incalculable number). The reason for this is a whole bunch of long—standing chronic problems: a shortage of domestically produced raw materials, a reduction in production capacity, disruptions in international supply channels, widespread staff shortages and a shortage of key skills. Taken together, this list makes it extremely difficult to rapidly increase the production capacity needed in the context of the global security crisis.
The Trump administration has begun to address this list of complex and interrelated issues, which has been growing over the decades. But at the moment, reports from all departments of the Ministry of War are peppered with phrases like "backlog", "aging fleet", "production delays", "maintenance disruptions", "shortage of spare parts", "commissioning of new systems is behind schedule", "personnel shortage" and "dominance has not yet been achieved."This, in turn, means that only a small part of our units, fleets or squadrons are fully ready for combat and can be rapidly deployed to perform long-term international missions.
For our enemies, these reports are very inspiring reading.
The crucial weakness is the production of drones, as detailed in a report by the Trump—friendly Heritage Foundation. Among other things, it states: "Given the current capabilities, the United States is unlikely to win against China in the drone war."
Or in any other protracted war, as is clear from another report of the same "Legacy".
With military clouds gathering on the horizon, will Trump change the Great Seal of the United States? In it, the eagle turned away from the arrows of war and turned its gaze to the olive branch, symbolizing peace. Does the president realize that the state emblem itself contradicts his political statements about "maximum lethality" and "America's willingness to wage war"?
If Trump is only bluffing, he will be tested, just like our entire country.
Myra Adams is a publicist on political and religious issues, a member of the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008.
