A new Heritage Foundation report finds that U.S. military capabilities continue to decline relative to what it needs to perform missions and maintain dominance over potential adversaries.
The over 400-page 2018 Index of U.S. Military Strength is the fourth annual study of American military capabilities put out by the think tank. Heritage has close ties to the Trump administration and conservative members of Congress. James Carafano, vice president of the organization’s institute for national security and foreign policy and contributor to the index advised the Trump transition team on national security and foreign policy issues.
Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner noted in the report preface that since the 2015 index, “subsequent editions have demonstrated an unsettling trend” that the U.S. military has been getting weaker for years.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters last week at a roundtable ahead of the unveiling that “I might rate threats a little more pessimistically than ya’ll do” thanks to classified briefings.
Thornberry said the index is very important. While the U.S. still has the best military in the world, he said the government is not resourcing it commensurate with what we expect of it and the moral obligation to support the service members with what they need.
The report rates U.S. equipment and capabilities from very weak to very strong and aims this against a force size required to nearly simultaneously fight a two-war or two-major regional contingency (MRC) benchmark. Heritage says the benchmark is what is needed to fight and win two MRCs with a 20 percent margin serving as a strategic reserve.
The index scores current U.S. military power as weak or marginal in all of the services. The Army and Marine Corps in particular rank as weak, meaning 38 to 74 percent capacity towards the two MRC benchmark and marginal capacity, meaning 40 to 59 percent service requirements.
Heritage ranks the Navy, Air Force, and U.S. nuclear forces somewhat higher, at marginal on most counts. However, on nuclear power the index ranks several constituent parts, like warhead security and delivery platform reliability, as strong.
The report says declining U.S. military strength is not only bad as a measure of capability to fight wars, but the perception itself is bad.
“For decades, the perception of American strength and resolve has served as a deterrent to adventurous bad actors and tyrannical dictators. Regrettably, both that perception and, as a consequence, its deterrent effect are eroding,” the index says.
The Index notes overall U.S. forces can likely face one major regional conflict plus operating in various presence and engagement activities, “but that it would be very hard-pressed to do more and certainly would be ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies.”
The report also measures security threat regions. It ranks the operating environment in Europe as generally favorable (a four on a five point scale), remaining steady related to previous years and the Middle East ranks as moderate, although at lowest rank for political stability (very poor). This is “because of increasing political instability and growing bilateral tensions with allies over the security implications of the nuclear agreement with Iran and how best to fight the Islamic State,” the report says.
Heritage ranks Asia’s operating environment as generally favorable overall as well, despite the increasing capabilities of North Korea, China, and Russia. The document says most threats are behaving aggressive against the U.S., except for China which is “testing.” However, China along with Russia rank as having the highest capability, what the report calls formidable.
The report notes that North Korea’s “alarming” number of missile tests demonstrate the commitment of the regime to developing ballistic missiles presumably with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. “These developments, combined with its increasingly hostile rhetoric toward the West over the past year, make North Korea the most volatile threat addressed in the Index.
Thornberry, following a keynote address upon the report’s release, said he was reluctant to offer advice to South Korea or Japan on whether or not they should develop nuclear weapons. Japan can make nuclear weapons, but he would not say whether they should or should not to the Japanese prime Minister.
Thornberry said he could not say it is absolutely necessary Japan develop its own nuclear weapons but they should look at the option for themselves.
He noted the alliance between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea is crucial and that the U.S. would defend Japan as if it were an American territory. The chairman also raised the option of returning American tactical nuclear weapons to the region. He also noted these kinds of discussions are all the more reason that China should put more pressure on North Korea’s aggressive missile and nuclear tests.