This study of national security should make everyone stand up and worry
The Commission on the National Defense Strategy issued its assessment last month, saying no one should be certain of the U.S. prevailing in the next conflict.
The congressionally charted Commission on the National Defense Strategy issued its assessment last month. Basically, it said no one should be certain that the U.S. will actually prevail in the next large-scale conflict and that the weakness has many parents. David Grannis, the commission’s executive director, joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin to discuss.
Interview transcript:
Tom Temin: And before we get to some of the background and construction of the study, how would you characterize the top line findings? I would say the United States is a paper tiger, or am I overstating it?
David Grannis: Well, I think that the top line here is that the security environment facing the United States has gotten drastically worse over the past few years and that the United States is really not resourced or equipped to deal with all of the challenges we face. And so, as you said, there is a possibility of a war that could be in multiple theaters, or even a global war, and the United States is not positioned to prevail.
Tom Temin: And one of the striking facts I found in skimming through the report, and it’s a big one, is that the spending by China is around $700 billion in change, which puts it in the order of magnitude of spending little bit over $800 billion by the United States. And for years, everyone I’ve heard has been saying, ‘Well, China only spends 10% as much as the United States, and we spend 10 times more than the next 10 combined, and all of this.’ But in fact, China is outspending us, especially if you factor in how cheap their people work.
David Grannis: Right. Well, it’s very difficult to get good estimates of what China spends on its national security because they do not have an open system the way we do and don’t put all of this out into the public. But when you factor in the cost of buying, the cost of labor and all that China does in the national security realm, and not just buying missiles and ships. It really is a lot more comparable to the U.S. budget than people think. The other major difference here is that the United States, for decades, has had a global force capable of operating anywhere around the world where China really has had the luxury of focusing on its own backyard, and so it does not have a lot of the same expenses that we do.
Tom Temin: And let’s get back to the background a little bit here on this commission. Who in Congress was behind this and what was the charter that you were designed to do?
David Grannis: The charter comes from the National Defense Authorization bill. Every four years, Congress creates one of these commissions, or at least they have for the past 16 years or so, in order to take a look at the nation’s defense strategy that is put out by the Pentagon and give Congress and the executive branch an independent look. And so we are eight commissioners appointed by the bipartisan leaders of the House and the Senate, four appointed by Democrats, four appointed by Republicans, all of whom have national security careers. And they look at the strategy, they look at all the information and they provide an independent view.
Tom Temin: And what has been the reaction so far? Because I found it, personally, to be one of the more consequential statements this report in a city that produces reports by the dozen every single day.
David Grannis: Well, we’ve been quite pleased with the response. The commission has testified before the House and the Senate Armed Services Committees and got a very positive reception from both. We have been talking to the think tanks and reporters here around Washington and trying to spread the message further than that. It is a pretty dire message, but, but it is, it is gotten very positively reviewed. If I can just add one thing. What the commission has tried to do is really get beyond the inside crowd and really reach the American public because one of our major findings is that the American public does not understand, No. 1, the challenges we face, but also how it could affect their own lives. We believe that if there is a war with China or otherwise, you would be feeling the effects here at home. They have the ability to turn off the power, to turn off the water, to prevent us from running transportation systems in an effort to prevent us from being able to engage in whatever China or another country is doing.
Tom Temin: Right. Almost since World War II, when people did feel the effects of that through shortages and rationing and so forth. It seems like, from the public standpoint, the wars waged since then have been news, but not something people felt at the homefront.
David Grannis: Well, that’s right. I mean, the United States has been a sanctuary. Obviously, 9/11 demonstrated that we are not invincible. But in terms of the kind of wars that we have been fighting for the past couple of decades, they have been over there and not here. The other troubling fact is that an increasingly small percentage of Americans really feel and are part of the Armed Services, the public service that makes up part of our national security. And so it really is a small percentage of the public that we are drawing on and relying on, and that needs to be broadened as well.
Tom Temin: We are speaking with David Grannis. He’s executive director of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, and what are some of your top recommendations that Congress could do and the Defense Department could do? You name acquisition and that whole PPBE and all that complex of process that kind of ensnares the Pentagon. But there are few other things that you’ve brought up also.
David Grannis: Well, you put your finger on one of the top ones, we’ve got a Department of Defense that is used to operating over the course of years and producing a relatively small number of extremely capable assist systems that are not well suited to the kind of wars that we could be facing. And so we need to change the defense acquisition. We need to much more closely integrate with the tech sector, the commercial, private industry that really drives innovation in this country in a way that was not the case through most of the Cold War. So that’s one. We also need to stop thinking of national security and defense as synonymous. There are many parts of our government: the state department, our International Investment and Development, our labor and education systems that are part of national security and the way our government is stovepiped and that we play appropriations from one against the other. That needs to change. It needs to be in all elements of national power kind of approach here because that’s exactly what Russia and China are doing.
Tom Temin: It’s almost like we need to go back to the 1950s, in some sense, in our approach. I think it was even more recently, wasn’t it Secretary of Defense (Bob) Gates, who said, I need a bigger and better State Department in effect?
David Grannis: Well, that’s right. And back when it was the United States and the Soviet Union, we had a strategic communications. We were speaking to the world and we were really advocating for our interests. We viewed our allies as a key part of how we would deter and prepare for war and hopefully never have to get there. And increasingly, there is an isolationist trend that people can solve their own problems, and the United States can focus here. Unfortunately, the world’s not going to let us do that.
Tom Temin: And maybe the other difference in your report is that the economic structure is different given the size of the national debt and what that debt costs the government to service is way different, even from 20 years ago, and it’s threatening to crowd out so many other things. It’s the economy that ultimately supports national security, and that’s kind of threatened by debt and other factors.
David Grannis: Well, that’s exactly right. We do say in this report that our investment in national security is going to have to grow. We spend roughly 3% of our GDP right now on defense and national security, and if you look back to the Cold War, it was at least 4 1/2-5% and up. And so we need to get back to that kind of level of spending. But as you say, we can’t just put all of this on the debt. Our commission again, four members appointed by Democrats, four members appointed by Republicans in Congress unanimously agreed that in order to pay for what we’re going to need to do, we are going to need to increase revenue measures. That means taxes, and we’re going to need to reform entitlement spending because we can’t continue to try to do all of this on the national debt and to do it without tackling some of the structural elements of our economic and financial picture.
Tom Temin: Is it frustrating to you and the commissioners and the members that neither candidate seems to be saying anything rational on any topic, let alone on this essential thing to the country?
David Grannis: Well, we recognize that the candidates are talking about what the American public is focused on. There’s recent polling that says that 1 or 2% of the public believes that national security is the biggest problem we face. Now, if all of a sudden, the lights start going out and the bombs start flying and U.S. is mobilizing that number is going to change pretty significantly. And so we are trying to get the word out before the next 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, rather than wait till afterwards, so that we are prepared as a nation.
Tom Temin: And by the way, you come to this as executive director from pretty good experience on the Hill yourself and in the national security apparatus.
David Grannis: Well, I spent more than my fair share of time in Congress, in both the House and the Senate, and working over in the executive branch. And my perspective is that there are a lot of dedicated, well-meaning and very capable people on both sides of the aisle working on these problems, but we increasingly have systems. Our report focuses on the Department of Defense, systems that are just suited for another time we need to start making some pretty significant change.
Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
Tom Temin
Tom Temin is host of the Federal Drive and has been providing insight on federal technology and management issues for more than 30 years.
Follow @tteminWFED
