OPINION:
Since coming to office on Jan. 20, President Trump has signaled his preference for peace by trying to stop wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terroristic hegemony, and intervening diplomatically to avert a nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India.
He has demonstrated a patience that enables rational deliberations between adversaries. Unfortunately, rational deliberation is in short supply in Russia and Iran.
Mr. Trump’s frustration with Russian ruler Vladimir Putin is clear. He has noted that Mr. Putin “talks nice, and then he bombs everybody. … I don’t like it.” Consequently, Mr. Trump has approved billions of dollars in U.S. weapons to be purchased by NATO allies and expeditiously distributed to Ukraine. He has given Mr. Putin 50 days to secure a peace deal with Ukraine or face 100% tariffs.
Likewise, Iran’s persistence in nuclear proliferation and hegemonic violence across the Middle East has strained the president’s patience. Last month, Mr. Trump vigorously supported Israel’s assault on Iran and capped it off by disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions with American B-2 bombers.
Nonetheless, Iran remains unrepentant. Having initially shown tolerance toward Russia and Iran, Mr. Trump sees them for what they are six months later.
The inconvenient realities of conflict in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere complicate Pentagon policymakers’ efforts to “pivot to the Indo-Pacific.” Certainly, China is a threat to U.S. national security in that region, but it’s not the only one. America cannot ignore the potential for danger and the necessity of deterring conflict in other troublesome regions of the world that are vital to our national interests.
Those who argue that China is the priority threat to the exclusion of red flags in Europe and the Middle East are mistaken. Some policymakers suggest that, given limited U.S. military power, we should redirect our assets in Europe and the Middle East to China. They are overlooking the real problem.
In the first two decades of this century, America’s military was focused on counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These wars were poorly prosecuted and sapped the U.S. military of its readiness and structure to fight conflicts of greater scale, such as those required for conventional war.
However, as the war in Ukraine and the conflict with Iran demonstrate, the American military must be able to engage the full spectrum of warfare, counterinsurgencies, regional conflicts and conventional wars.
Indeed, when the president finds it necessary to commit America’s military to one or more of these options, the response cannot be “Sorry, Mr. President, we’re not ready for that.” In the same way fire departments must address dumpster and building fires alike, the American military must be capable of addressing the entire spectrum of warfare.
The sad truth is that the Pentagon’s capability to do so is very limited because of significant downsizing and related materiel shortages. Overcompensating for China with our limited combat capability at the expense of deterring conflict in other vital regions of the world is not the solution. What must be done?
First, we must begin by rightsizing our forces. They are simply understructured and ill-equipped to meet the contingencies that could arise in Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. We must have enough forces to artfully balance our deterrence strategy for the full spectrum of warfare.
Second, we must have sufficient forward-deployed forces to project a credible deterrence. Currently, the U.S. does not have the air- and sealift to quickly get necessary forces into key theaters. A rational forward-deployed posture is required. Australia, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea should adequately fund America’s deterrence posture in the Indo-Pacific, and NATO should do the same to deter Russia. Similarly, the Gulf States can contribute more toward deterring Iran.
Third, we must rearm ourselves with state-of-the-art military equipment and rejuvenate our defense industrial base to supply the full range of combat missions. Ukraine has been a test bed for what equipment is needed and what it takes to sustain combat operations.
Finally, shortsighted policy recommendations that put most of America’s strategic eggs into one basket imperil our national security interests globally. China is a major threat. Yet a myopic focus on the Indo-Pacific at the expense of other regions where the U.S. has vital national interests is unwise and invites miscalculation.
Indeed, an unbalanced strategic deterrence will encourage aggression in neglected regions and signal to China that we are a global power in decline. We must remember that the enemy always gets a vote on when, where and how to engage us and our allies in unanticipated conflicts.
As the Roman Empire wisely practiced concerning national preparedness, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war).
• L. Scott Lingamfelter is a retired U.S. Army colonel and combat veteran (1973-2001) and former member of the Virginia House of Delegates (2002-2018). He is the author of “Desert Redleg: Artillery Warfare in the First Gulf War” (University Press of Kentucky, 2020) and “Yanks in Blue Berets: American U.N. Peacekeepers in the Middle East” (UPK, 2023). He is authoring a book on the future of warfare.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.