Less Than Reaganesque
The one surprise in the Mattis memo is “the explicitly stated objective of building a long-term defense plan to counter high-end threats,” said
of the American Enterprise Institute. While Carter & co. focused intently on
, she said, “the prioritization of these competitions was always a question mark for Team Trump, so it is a positive indication that
and others are wisely influencing the incoming group to take seriously other challenges in addition to terrorism.”
That said, “it’s clear this is a
first-and-always endeavor,” Eaglen said. “Next up
is in priorities is a
, personnel-wise. Lastly, if there is time and money left over, will be some select modernization of equipment. Even when additional capability is pursued, it is likely to be more a series of ‘small ball’ efforts like growing munitions stockpiles than sizeable increases in inventory of new aircraft and next-generation vehicles a la Reagan buildup.”
There’s not going to be an immediate “procurement shopping spree,”
of the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. Instead, the Mattis plan takes time to develop more advanced capabilities, particularly in the repeatedly-mentioned area of “lethality.”
What does that mean? Future adversaries may be
, Blakeley says, which force the US to make its forces more lethal to match. Greater lethality also argues against over-investing in a small number of expensive, “exquisite” superweapons that can be taken down with a few good hits. (Think of the Death Star in
Star Wars for the extreme example). The crucial “leading indicators” to watch, she said, will be whether the forthcoming budget emphasizes upgrading the lethality of existing systems —
, for instance — and whether funding is forthcoming for the high-tech experiments of Carter’s
and
— Bob Work being the principal architect of offset
.
The Mattis memo definitely has a lot in common with Carter than Trump’s rhetoric would lead one to expect, said defense industry analyst
. Candidate Trump focused on “let’s just buy more big platforms,” especially ships, Callan told me. The Mattis plan is much more focused on targeted investments in lethality, which implies investing in superior smart weapons, and the
and
that guide them, rather than new planes, ships, and tanks to carry them.
Of course, the ultimate problem is how to pay for it all. “This is not going to be open-ended growth for the Department of Defense,” warned Callan. Even the legendary Reagan buildup slowed after the first four years, in part because of concerns over rising debt. The Trump buildup could go the same way.
If you’re not careful, “these macroeconomic factors kind of cut you off at the knees,” said Callan. “If you juice this thing (defense spending) and you don’t get the GDP growth that you’re hoping for, or interest rates conspire against you… that’s going to cut off this growth and these great plans for
and
.”