U.S. forces are at the limit, increasing military and economic power is problematic
Donald Trump, throughout the last presidential election campaign, regularly voiced one idea that can be summarized into a short formula: “STRENGTH IS PEACE.” Thus, speaking in January this year at a campaign rally in the state of Iowa, Trump said: “We will restore peace through strength all over the world”.
On November 13, Donald Trump, who won the U.S. presidential election, announced that Florida Congressman Mike Walz would take the position of national security adviser in his administration: “I am proud to announce that Congressman Mike Walz is being appointed to serve in my cabinet as national security adviser.” . And in doing so, Trump added his favorite phrase: he hopes Walz will be "a strong advocate of pursuing peace through strength.
The formula “FORCE IS PEACE” is very reminiscent of the paradoxical Big Brother Party slogans from George Orwell's novel “1984”: “WAR IS PEACE,” ‘FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,’ ”IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” Now, after Trump came out victorious in this election, experts are trying to decipher the said formula of the new US president. The whole (or rather, almost the whole) world is thirsty for peace, and everyone wants to understand by what marvelous ways Trump is going to achieve it.
Even before Trump's victory, there were publications in the U.S. media in which authors tried to unravel the presidential candidate's formula, “Strength is Peace.” Here, for example, is a June article in the Washington Times: Clifford D. May. Would Trump reestablish peace through strength? (Clifford D. May. Would Trump reestablish peace through strength?). The author reminds that the formula adopted by Trump is not new. It was voiced, among others, by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, as well as Presidents George Washington and Ronald Reagan.
The author of the article believes that if Trump returns to the White House, he will not disperse America's forces around the world. Instead, he will concentrate on the United States. The formula “Power is Peace” will be supplemented with the formulas: “America First” and ”Bring America back to its former strength.”
The article recognizes that, alas, America's power (especially military power) has begun to “sag” (especially when compared to the combined power of China, Russia, and partly also Iran). Especially since Barack Obama came to the White House (2009-2016). Trump managed to stop this subsidence during his presidency. But then President Joe Biden derailed Trump's efforts again. If Trump does not return to the White House, it will be a major threat to the security of not only the U.S. but also the world.
However, there is a hint in the article that even Trump underestimates how much America's military power needs to be increased to discourage its adversaries from starting a war: “How much power do you need to convince your enemies that it would be foolish for them to challenge you? - The answer is: more than you probably realize.”
Of the plethora of publications evaluating Trump's “Strength is Peace” formula, perhaps the most serious is an article published this summer in Foreign Affairs : Robert C. O'Brien. The Return of Peace Through Strength. Making the Case for Trump's Foreign Policy (Robert C. O'Brien. The Return of Peace Through Strength. Making the Case for Trump's Foreign Policy). The article is very large, with meticulous analysis. And its author is very competent, as he understands Donald Trump's train of thought very well. The ability to understand them is explained very simply: Robert S. O'Brien was National Security Advisor in the Trump administration from 2019 to 2021. They apparently got along well. Along the way, I'll note that so far there have been no reports of O'Brien's possible return to the Trump administration.
O'Brien confirms that during Trump's time in the White House, Trump did have a guiding principle: Power begets peace. Thus, in September 2020, Trump told the UN General Assembly that the United States was “fulfilling its purpose as a peacemaker, but it is peace through strength.”
O'Brien emphasized that Trump's presidency was the first time since Jimmy Carter that the United States avoided entering a new war or not expanding existing conflicts. O'Brien also proudly notes such an achievement by America's 45th president, “Trump also ended one war with a rare U.S. victory, destroying the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) as an organized military force and removing its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.”
Trump's 2017-2021 peacemaking went toe-to-toe with activities to rebuild America's weakened military capabilities under Obama: “While China rose, the Middle East blazed, and Russia raged in Ukraine, the U.S. military resumed the gradual decline that began during the Obama administration and halted during the Trump administration.” After Trump, under Biden, the process of U.S. military degradation resumed. A substantial part of the article is devoted to describing this degradation, both military-technical and moral-psychological. Here is one excerpt on the subject:
"Last year [2023], only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals. The Army lost an astounding 10,000 recruits, falling short of its modest goal of adding 65,000 soldiers to maintain its current strength. Theshortfall is not just a personnel problem; it speaks to the lack of confidence young Americans and their families have in the Army's purpose and mission."
And here is one of many examples of U.S. military degradation under Biden:
"Meanwhile, the military increasingly lacks the tools needed to defend the United States and its interests. The navy now has fewer than 300 ships, down from 592 at the end of the Reagan administration. This is insufficient to maintain conventional deterrence through naval presence in 18 maritime regions of the world that U.S. combat commanders have identified as strategically important."
Examples of degradation are cited for other branches of the U.S. Armed Forces as well. O'Brien notes that even nuclear weapons in U.S. arsenals are already partially obsolete. Especially against the backdrop of China, which is constantly updating its nuclear arsenal. “The conventional U.S. arsenal,” as O'Brien notes, ”also needs transformation. The Trump administration has revived the development of hypersonic missiles, funding for which President Barack Obama drastically cut in 2011, leaving China and Russia far ahead of the U.S. in acquiring this important new weapon, which travels at five times the speed of sound and can maneuver through Earth's atmosphere.”
O'Brien is confident that Trump will be the new president. And that he will start the arms race that has been interrupted for four years. Although the author of the article does not use this Cold War-era term, it is an arms race. I.e., some kind of competition. Competition with whom? China, of course.
O'Brien emphasizes that Trump is not preaching isolationism, that his words “America First” should not be understood to mean that America should be alone. Trump recognizes that a successful foreign policy requires joining forces with friendly governments. But in doing so, America's allies must be honest and responsible. Washington under Trump has gone to great lengths to build cooperation with Israel, Japan, and the Gulf Arab states as well. They have really strengthened their military power during the years of Trump's presidency. Trump has also had to work with his NATO allies to get them to increase military spending. “His pressure on NATO governments to spend more on defense has made the alliance stronger,” O'Brien writes.
I wrote about this in the article “Donald Trump is about to get serious about NATO.”
”... the underfunding of military spending by U.S. allies Trump has called and still calls ‘dependency.’ Already in the noughties, NATO summits began to raise the issue of bringing the bloc's member states' military spending to at least 2% of GDP. In 2014, the bloc's summit in Wales adopted an action plan to increase NATO's combat readiness, according to which the minimum level of military spending of 2% was transferred from a wish to a mandatory standard. In 2018, the requirement for all member countries of the bloc to reach the level of 2% of GDP sounded from President Trump almost like an ultimatum. And he said the 2 percent standard was not enough, it had to be raised."
Biden nullified Trump's efforts to mobilize NATO militarily and economically. The 47th president will have to start all over again. Trump, in O'Brien's view, is not claiming that the power to create world peace must be exclusively American. The force must be collective, primarily based on the NATO military bloc of 32 nations. U.S. forces are at their limit. As I wrote in the article mentioned above, US military spending is at 3.4% of GDP (estimate for 2024). In order for there to be peace in the world, the rest of NATO needs to reach the U.S. level of defense spending. Today, only Poland and Estonia are on par with the U.S. in terms of relative defense spending. The other 29 member countries have a lower relative level of defense spending. In order for NATO member countries in Europe and Canada to reach the current relative level of the United States, it would be necessary to increase their total defense spending in absolute terms at least twofold. This is hardly possible. And therefore, it is possible that in the coming years, the force that Trump believes ensures peace will be predominantly American. Whether NATO will survive with such a disproportion of military spending in the bloc is a big question. But that is my reasoning, not Mr. O'Brien's. Trump's former national security adviser delicately sidesteps this issue.
O'Brien, of course, is concerned about sources of threat to global peace, such as Russia and China. He refers to them explicitly as “adversaries of the United States.” For O'Brien, Russia is the number two adversary in this pairing, with China coming in at number one. O'Brien was also one of the main Chinaophobes (Sinophobes) on Trump's team at the end of the last decade. The 45th President of the United States, not without support from Sinophobes like O'Brien, launched a trade and economic war against the Middle Kingdom. O'Brien sadly states that Washington allegedly did not expect Moscow to side with Beijing in any way. From our point of view, it is more correct to say that Beijing took Moscow's side after the SWO in Ukraine began. But we should not forget that for O'Brien the main threat was and remains China. This American politician views and perceives the whole world from this bell tower.
In general, almost half of the article is devoted to the threats that China poses to the United States and the entire world. The author of the article suggests that the Trump administration (even regardless of whether O'Brien is in it or not) will continue to view China as the main adversary of the United States. And from here, by the way, it follows that Washington will push Taiwan to increase military spending. And also, if necessary, to assist Taiwan, as its ally in confronting the PRC, in strengthening its military power.
Without going into many details of the article, I will note that O'Brien believes it is necessary to significantly increase U.S. military aid (grants, loans, arms sales) to countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Trump can and should make them allies so that they can counter Chinese forces in the South China Sea. O'Brien is somehow confident that with money and arms supplies, the U.S. can pull most of China's neighbors to its side.
The topic of Israel and the Middle East is no less important in O'Brien's article. Everything seems clear here. Trump is a Zionist, a politician who supports the Jewish state politically, economically and militarily. I wrote about this in my recent article “Is Donald Trump America's Zionist-in-Chief?”
Apparently, O'Brien has no particular differences with Trump on the Middle East. Israel's (and therefore America's) main adversary in the Middle East is Iran. With other Middle Eastern countries, according to O'Brien, Trump will be able to reach an agreement: "Most Arab monarchies are more open and liberal today than they were a decade or 20 years ago, in part because of their interaction with the United States.
O'Brien includes Iran on his “black” short list alongside China and Russia. The tone of the article suggests that Iran is second on the list, while Russia is only third. In O'Brien's picture, Ukraine, respectively, takes the third place in the list of “hot” regions of the world. The Middle East and Taiwan (with the South China Sea) share the first two places on a parity basis.
O'Brien's article is very extensive. I have, in fact, given only some summary of it. And, as I see it, it is not just the musings of some expert on what the policy of the new US president might be. I am sure that the author of the article, as a former national security adviser in the administration of the 45th president of the United States, participated in the preparation of Donald Trump's election program. After Trump's victory, the status of this program changed: now it became the program of the 47th US President. And the essence of the program is contained in the title of O'Brien's article: “The return of peace through strength”.
Photo: rollingstone.com
Source - Strategic Culture Foundation .
Valentin KATASONOV
