A bipartisan US Congressional Commission has issued a stark assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, warning that the American military is lacking in readiness for a large-scale conflict even though the likelihood of a major war is at its highest level in eight decades. The nearly 100-page report, which reveals a crisis of confidence in US national security, concludes that the nation’s armed forces lack the requisite military capabilities to engage in a protracted, high-intensity conflict. This raises serious concerns about America’s preparedness to confront potential global threats.
Pentagon Under Fire for Lack of Preparedness
The damning report takes aim at multiple branches of government, lambasting the Pentagon for its sluggish response, Congress for its partisan approach, and successive administrations for their complacency in addressing threats from China, Russia, and Middle Eastern nations. Drawing a sobering parallel to the Cold War era, the commission states, “The last time the country was prepared for such a struggle was during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.,” highlighting the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of America’s defense strategy and capabilities.
Every four years, the US Congress convenes a group of external experts to review the country’s national defense strategy so that independent analysts can assess US national security. Eight experts selected by Congress communicated with American legislators, US allies, State Department representatives, and Pentagon leaders, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense.
The report indicates that the American military lacks the capabilities and capacity necessary to be confident that they can deter and prevail in combat operations.
According to the commission, cooperation between Russia, China, and other states increases the likelihood of multi-front conflict, and the US would find it difficult to counter such a war.
For more than a year, former politicians, military officials, and commission policy experts examined how successfully the American military is carrying out the 2022 National Defense Strategy. The panel discovered considerable differences between the Department of Defense’s objectives to deter or dominate in a major conflict and reality. One reason they arrived at this conclusion was the current status of the US defense sector in comparison to China’s.
The report states that in a conflict with China, the US will exhaust most of its ammunition stockpiles within three to four weeks. Certain crucial armaments, such as anti-ship missiles, will be depleted in only a few days. According to the report, refilling these munitions will take several years once they have been used.
Additionally, the document notes that the growing cooperation between major powers makes it almost inevitable that China and Russia will coordinate their actions against the United States in the event of an armed conflict with either country.
Eroding Defense Industrial Base
The country’s military preparedness is depicted in a dim light in the Congressional report, which cautions of the possibility of multi-front conflicts involving Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. It implies that these nations may establish economic and military alliances, which would strain the resources of the US and its allies. The commission emphasizes the American armed forces’ grievous deficiencies, which include outdated infrastructure, inadequate weaponry, and insufficient equipment. Funding new ships, maintenance, and ammunition procurement is particularly challenging, significantly damaging naval capabilities.
The report also recognizes the irony of underfunding domestic submarine manufacturing while selling submarines to Australia, leaving an aging fleet vulnerable. Similar funding obstacles confront nuclear modernization initiatives. In an interview with The New York Times, Senator Roger Wicker disclosed a startling $180 billion backlog in fundamental military maintenance. Nevertheless, the report’s emphasis on quantitative measures of military power has been criticized for failing to address the more profound systemic issues within the American military machinery.
By focusing primarily on quantitative measurements of military force, the congressional inquiry disregarded the root reasons for the crisis in the American military machine.
A recent National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) evaluation revealed a concerning decline in the US defense-industrial base. Using a comprehensive scoring system across eight vital indicators, the NDIA’s assessment yielded an overall rating of 69 out of 100, marking the first time in three years that the score has fallen below the critical threshold of 70. This unsatisfactory grade signifies a failing status and has raised serious alarms within the defense community. The evaluation encompassed various aspects, including demand, production costs, innovation, supply chain integrity, competition, industrial security, regulatory compliance, and production capacity, particularly surge readiness for high-intensity conflicts. Notably, five of these indicators were deemed unsatisfactory, with significant deterioration observed in supply chains, production capacity, and rapid scalability. While marginal improvements were noted in industrial security, innovation, and production costs, these areas still failed to meet the minimum acceptable standard. Retired General Herbert Carlisle, NDIA’s President and CEO, emphasized the gravity of these findings, characterizing the assessment as a critical warning signal for all stakeholders invested in national security.
Tara Dougherty, CEO of Govini, a company involved in the report’s preparation, underscored the urgent need for the Department of Defense to coordinate with advanced technology firms in the US commercial sector during a recent press conference that focused on national security threats in relation to innovation. Dougherty cautioned that the failure to establish these partnerships would inevitably result in increased military-technical challenges and a heightened level of competition from China. In a global security landscape that is becoming increasingly intricate, her remarks emphasize the increasing significance of utilizing state-of-the-art civilian technologies to preserve America’s military advantage.
The situation is particularly dire with the American defense industry’s production capacities and mobilization capabilities. In 2019, the NDIA rated their level at 80 points, in 2020 at 52 points, and at the end of last year at a dismal 20 points.
The Pentagon’s Office of Industrial Policy (INDPOL) report, “Industrial Capabilities,” identified monopolization of the defense-industrial complex as the primary issue. Although around 30,000 companies carry out Pentagon contracts, two-thirds of military orders are placed with just six corporations: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems. All others are subcontractors. Lack of competition in the home market negatively impacts product quality, resulting in longer delivery times and higher costs.
The growing concentration of the military industry, essentially a series of hostile takeovers by defense giants of small and medium-sized firms, has resulted in the loss of major defense sector capability.
No competition means no quality. Only delivery times and costs of military products increase. The report’s authors speak very cautiously about corruption and hostile takeovers in the American defense industry. They note, for example, that mergers and acquisitions in the defense industry have become more frequent, leading to “maximum consolidation of assets in a very limited number of defense companies.” Eighty percent of the armored vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps are produced at one plant. Large-caliber gun barrels are cast only by a single Pentagon arsenal, which has long enjoyed the monopoly of being the sole producer of gun barrels, leading to “a complete loss of the capability to produce them at the level of the world’s best standards.”
Over recent decades, the “over-consolidation of the missile production sector” has only benefited the owners of the “big six” corporations. The number of companies capable of producing modern missile technology is narrowing each year. Today, only two US defense companies can produce solid-fuel rocket engines. The situation is worse in military shipbuilding. One shipyard – Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipbuilding- can only build nuclear aircraft carriers. Nuclear submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, San Antonio-class amphibious transports, and America-class amphibious assault ships can all be manufactured by one shipyard: Ingalls Shipbuilding.
Critical reliance on a “single supplier” has resulted in a shortage of production capacity and skilled labor. Furthermore, in the next years, a serious scarcity of professionals in areas such as metal construction assembly, welding, and casting is foreseen, endangering the “long-term demands of the Navy.” The entrenched Pentagon planners have refused to update antiquated combat equipment, resting on their laurels as Cold War winners, instead opting for the sluggish upgrading of what is already in place. According to the INDPOL assessment, this has resulted in a generation of scientists and engineers with little expertise in inventing, designing, and producing new, technologically advanced combat systems and equipment.
The increased concentration of defense companies in a limited number of geographic clusters has exacerbated the “alarming gap between the US Armed Forces and the broader civilian population,” writes Doug Berenson, head of the American defense consulting firm Avascent.
More than three-quarters of the value of major Pentagon contracts is with firms in just 15 states, including California, Florida, Texas, Virginia, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, and others. More than 60 percent of active-duty armed forces stationed in the US are located in these states.
Doug Berenson notes that neither the Pentagon nor Congress is “eager” to change the situation, and the growing concentration of the US defense-industrial base appears to be a symptom of a broader trend – the isolation of the Department of Defense from broader segments of American society.
The concentration of military orders in the hands of a limited number of monopolists has led to the geographic and human contraction of the American defense industry over the past decades. Since 1979, the US defense-industrial sector has lost 7.1 million people or 36 percent of its workforce.
Potential Political Motivations for Report Findings
Jane Harman, the former Democratic congresswoman from California and chair of the commission, has provided a critical viewpoint on the most recent report from the US Congressional Commission. According to Harman, the report’s stark assessment of the American military’s unpreparedness for large-scale conflict may be politically motivated. She suggests that it may be an attempt by Democrats to divert public attention from critical domestic issues, such as the ongoing crisis at the southern border and economic concerns, and to influence the impending presidential election.
Nevertheless, Harman’s interpretation, while emphasizing the potential political implications, does not diminish the report’s sobering conclusion regarding the current military capabilities of the United States. The assessment continues to indicate that the nation faces substantial obstacles in its capacity to participate in significant conflicts with global powers like China or Russia, which raises critical inquiries regarding national defense strategy and preparedness.