The Trump and Biden administrations both aimed for a small military too reliant on technology.
In her speech at the Democratic National Convention last month, Kamala Harris promised to “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” The term “lethal fighting force” was meant to convey that Ms. Harris is serious about national security. But close observers of defense policy heard something else. In recent years “lethal” has become a euphemism. It means a small force that is overly reliant on technology.
Jim Mattis, President Trump’s first defense secretary, advocated a “lethal force” repeatedly during his 2017 Senate confirmation hearing. The term then permeated the Pentagon. But lethal didn’t mean larger. Mr. Mattis wanted to buy deterrence on the cheap by increasing the quality of the armed forces, not their size. Compensation—salaries and benefits—consumes roughly two-fifths of the Pentagon budget. To avoid increasing this budgetary burden, Mr. Mattis substituted new technology and improved professional military education for manpower.
The Biden Pentagon flatters Mr. Mattis by imitating him. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Hicks are also fond of the term “lethal force.”
Both administrations have built the military for one war at a time. They set their strategies so that the U.S. can deter strategic attacks (assaults on vital resources) and direct threats against the homeland. But America is vulnerable to all other attacks. The wars in Ukraine and Israel show that it can’t deter attacks against nontreaty partners. And Iranian proxy attacks against U.S. forces abroad expose America’s inability to deter attacks against its own troops.
