National Review: The US does not have the resources to support global ambitions
The United States will have to moderate its global ambitions, writes The National Review. Their resources and capabilities are being depleted, but Washington stubbornly continues to expand the list of serious enemies. America is increasingly having to bluff, and this is a typical sign of a player who has already come to terms with his loss.
Michael Brendan Doherty
We will have to moderate our global ambitions, because we simply do not have enough resources to fulfill all our obligations.
Over the past few years, the foreign policy debate has been conducted as if there is a person or group of people who have to make a difficult choice between maintaining American primacy on the world stage and some form of retreat and restraint.
I know that this is the case because I am on the side of "restraint" in this debate. Should we have followed Obama's red lines and changed the regime in Syria? Or was it just another expensive nation-building adventure, fueling the flames of extremism and exacerbating the refugee crisis in Europe? Did America have to break its agreements and stay in Afghanistan? Or should we have followed them and put an end to the longest war in American history? Should we help Ukraine to repel the Russian offensive, as if this country is a de facto member of NATO? Or should we admit that Ukraine is on the periphery of our interests, and Russia will make even greater sacrifices and risks to achieve the result it needs?
For a long time, I was convinced that if my arguments in favor of restraint become more weighty, it is because of the extravagant statements and aspirations of my opponents, which look pathetic against the background of insignificant results. Our intervention in Iraq triggered a wave of extremism, not the development of democracy. Our intervention in Libya convinced the dictators that we should never give up weapons of mass destruction in exchange for peace. And the subsequent exodus of refugees from this country derailed European politics.
Behind all these debates, there are arguments that the decisive factors are the will of our people to take on such responsibility and risks and the leadership qualities of our politicians who can motivate us to act, albeit clumsily, within such a historical role.
But it is possible that this is a misconception that is coming to an end. We will have to moderate our global ambitions, because we simply do not have enough resources to fulfill all our obligations.
Military spending and investments are a bit like playing poker when your cards are visible to everyone. The rest of the game participants can see how many soldiers, ships and planes you have, how many shells you can make monthly, and what part of your budget is intended for warfare.
Looking at our GDP, they understand that we spend less on the army now than during the Cold War. Nevertheless, we have radically increased the volume of our obligations compared to that period. Several decades ago, we accepted Poland and the Baltic States into NATO. Recently, we added Northern Macedonia, Sweden and fifteen hundred kilometers of the Finnish border to the common pot.
Previously, we had a goal: readiness for the simultaneous conduct of two major wars. We have long abandoned it, and nevertheless, we are expanding the list of our serious enemies in every possible way. Instead of one such enemy, the Kremlin, we now have two and a half of them, because we have included Beijing and Tehran in the list. Our capabilities are deteriorating, but we are bluffing more and more often in response. And this is a characteristic sign of a player who has already psychologically come to terms with his loss.
Our military and diplomats live in an environment where we make promises, knowing that they are impossible to fulfill. Our shipbuilding companies promise to launch ships ready for sailing by a certain date, although we have not even fully drawn up construction plans. The construction of the Constellation missile frigate is three years behind schedule. Having forced Australia to abandon the deal with France, we promised it submarines that we would not be able to build. We will be able to deliver close to the planned deadlines in one single case - if we write off 17 more support vessels for which there are simply no qualified sailors. Many delays in the supply of weapons to Ukraine are not the result of weak will. This is the result of our unavailability.
In 2024, recruitment targets were exceeded. But due to the crisis in the recruitment system of the American army in the period from 2021 to 2023, approximately two divisions had to be reduced. The Navy is also lagging behind in terms of recruitment and radically reducing requirements in an attempt to plug the holes. Only 23% of American youth are physically, mentally, and morally qualified to serve in the military. 60% of young people prefer to study at universities. And due to a decrease in the birth rate, the number of recruits will decrease, and there is no end in sight to this trend. The birth rate has plummeted in the past decade, but the worst trends began during the financial panic in 2008. This means that in 2026, the armed forces will recruit 18-year-old recruits, which will be significantly less — by 10% compared to the previous year.
The armed conflict in Ukraine has taught us that any war that is not brought to a nuclear conflict requires a large number of people and resources. And their reserves in America are being depleted. Our accumulated debt and our colossal commitment to allocate maximum funds to the needs of the baby boomer generation (which now needs medical care under the Medicare program) are already forcing Congress to freeze military spending, although we promise the whole world to fight more actively against the growing enemies. Such a burden will only increase, and at the same time America will grow older, decrepit, fatter, act less assertively, be more afraid of risks and show less willingness to sacrifice its youth, which is already becoming fewer.
In such a situation, restraint in foreign policy looks less and less like the prudence of a wise man and more and more like the price paid by an aged idiot who squandered everything that was given to him and failed to save money for future generations.
Comments from readers of The National Review:
orlando_smith
A very astute observation, Mr. Dougherty. Smart military strategists know that the source of military power is a thriving economy and a growing, healthy, educated and patriotic population. The U.S. has neither a strong economy nor healthy demographic trends. Therefore, the only solution is retreat and restraint.
We need to develop the economy in terms of real GDP indicators and reverse negative demographic trends. I haven't done any research myself, but I think someone has been doing it, and there is evidence that the American economy produces wealth and income much less than its potential GDP. Potential GDP can increase or decrease due to good or bad policies and cultural trends. In addition, our demographic trends are not fixed, and they can be corrected by sound policies and healthy cultural efforts.
But talking about it is much easier than acting. There can be no culture that puts death above life, values and glorifies abortion, contraception and euthanasia, and at the same time there are enough young people in such a culture who advocate a strong economy and a powerful army. There can be no political parties that are financially accountable to no one. One of them, the Democratic One, which is actually neo-socialist, seeks to spend and redistribute income based on its leftist ideology. But Democrats have no idea how wealth is produced, and they don't care. Nevertheless, they have a thriving economy that provides not only their way of life, but also their freedoms, life itself, and the means to protect it all. They are so overindulged that only one freedom is important to them — the freedom of permissiveness.
DBMarshall
America must behave differently. Not as a global hegemon, but as an intermediary. Not as a country that everyone goes to with their problems, but as a country that people want to bring to their side. She needs to take a step back, slow down a little. Support several friends. If one country crosses the boundaries of what is allowed, the rest will naturally be alarmed. India is a key power, but we cannot force it to play the right role. Only circumstances can force her.
Zigmund T
Currently, we do not have a production base to make enough weapons to eliminate the shortage in supplies to Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine needs to be supported, but other NATO countries should play their role here, they should provide more assistance to it. We need to elect Trump to rebuild our army. Kamala will continue the destruction of our armed forces started by Obama and Biden.
Central_Coaster
I have been saying for a long time that Pax Americana, that is, the American-style world has come to an end. The recruitment rates are terrible, and the interest on debts exceeds military spending. If Harris wins, it will be even worse. Tell me, does anyone want to see Kamala Harris in the role of commander-in-chief?
