Marco Rubio’s Plan to Rebuild and Modernize the Military is the Right One
Last Thursday in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidate and Florida Senator Marco Rubio unveiled his plan to rebuild and modernize the nation’s military. By way of disclosure, I am a Rubio supporter and fundraiser, and so my interest in writing about his plan should not in any way be considered detached or unbiased. That said, this is an excellent plan that balances necessary force structure enhancements with a clear understanding of the growing readiness crisis and the need to incorporate new technologies in a more streamlined and efficient manner.
The campaign fact sheet outlining the plan can be found here. Although I certainly urge you to read it and form your own judgments, I invite your attention to six particular aspects of the plan:
1. Rubio’s plan is a broad-based approach to increasing the nation’s defense posture, stressing capacity, capability, modernization, technology, readiness, and posture. It appears that Senator Rubio recognizes that a new era of Great Power contention is upon us, an era that the Obama administration has not (and likely will not) awakened to.
2. Under a “President Rubio,” it appears that the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” will cease to be the central operational thrust of U.S. military strategy. Not that it will be reversed, as he envisions a second aircraft carrier in the theater (and more escorts and amphibious forces), along with additional land-based air power and increased Army mobility there. What is different is that U.S. military commands in Europe and the Middle East will no longer be considered the force providers to prop up America’s interests in the Pacific. Rubio is advocating a true “three region” approach to posturing U.S. military power, with land, sea, and air forces returning to Europe to counter Russian aggression, along with a bolstered air and naval presence in the Middle East as a counter to Iran, flush with cash to fund its mischief as a result of the recent nuclear deal (which he has promised elsewhere to repudiate “on day one.”)
3. In another recognition of a new age of Great Power contention, Rubio pledges to build the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine (SSBN(X)), and the Air Force LRS-B, while modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal across the board and arresting further decline in its size. An effective triad is the “table stakes” for strategic deterrence in a future where current nuclear counter-proliferation regimes seem increasingly unlikely to contain what is essentially seven-decade-old technology.
4. As a navalist, I am heartened not only by his plans for the Navy and the Marine Corps, but by his plan’s emphasis on force structure and capability increases. I am especially happy to see the priority he is placing on undersea warfare and electronic warfare, two enablers of naval power that must continue to receive emphasis if the U.S. Navy is to continue its primacy. I realize this does not necessarily convey priority, but with Speaker Paul Ryan’s pronouncement on the size of the Navy last week, a larger Navy is fast becoming Republican dogma. Personally, I would like to see an even larger Navy, but his plan for a 323-ship fleet by 2024 is eight ships larger than the current administration’s plan for the same year (although the current plan is underfunded by some $5 billion annually across its breadth when compared to historical levels of spending on shipbuilding). The use of the phrase “at least” gives me hope.
5. The alarming decline in ground forces planned by the current administration is also reversed in this plan, with the Army and Marine Corps returning to pre-9/11 levels, again, in recognition of the continuing importance of Europe and the Middle East.
6. One area in the plan that I was happy to see — but which I believe deserves even greater emphasis — is its section on posturing the force “…for the Cyber Era.” Rubio is clearly positioning himself as the candidate of the future, and the future — not only of warfare, but of everyday economic security — is one of nearly constant cyber monitoring, intrusion, and attack. Put another way, cyber is a cross-cutting issue that should be more prominently discussed in this campaign, by all candidates. In my view, we need to consider building up a Cold War-like “civil defense” program that raises the cyber awareness of our entire citizenry in a manner that promotes local responses and education beginning at the elementary school level. As one friend put it, cyber is “the ultimate STEM issue.”
Rubio’s plan also calls for reform to both acquisition policy and personnel and benefits programs, and both are in need of great reform. I look forward to the sure-to-arise stories of how expensive this plan is and how it lets our allies off the hook for their own defense. These will be stories written by those yet to grasp the new security environment, the serious threats we face, and the strong response necessary to position us to contend with them. This plan is a great start in that direction, and I look forward to reading the detailed plans of the other candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, in order to assess the extent of their seriousness.
Bryan McGrath is the Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group LLC and the Assistant Director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower.
I appreciate the disclosure up front, but the arguments leave me unconvinced. I tried to open the link to the plan, but it seems to be behind a paywall, er, donation-wall. In particular:
1) Are you suggesting that in this new security environment there is no role for our allies to defend themselves, or that budget constraints are irrelevant?
2) Are the LRSB or SSBN(X) programs in doubt? The Pentagon just awarded the LRSB EMD contract.
3) Your second point about the “three region” approach is just a rehash of previous arguments to grow the size of the navy, and place those new assets in areas where American interests are, though it seems to ignore the Arctic region.
4) How does recognition that we are in a cyber era make him the candidate of the future? I agree with the idea that cyber should be the ultimate STEM issue, but this is hardly a revolutionary idea.
6) Reform of any antiquated system (defense acquisitions, taxes, entitlements – take your pick) will always be a campaign platform, and politics will always get in the way of successful implementation.
There are some genuinely important points made about force structure, but the partisan tone overshadows sound analysis.
Senator Rubio’s defense moderation plan goes in the right direction including his support for the full modernization of our strategic nuclear triad. In fact as a panel of experts warned at our November 10 AFA Mitchell Institute briefing on the new strategic bomber, the USAF procurement accounts will be seriously stressed by the F-35 ramp up, including the new bomber.
It is also good that Rubio supports a larger navy which is critical to force projection and maintaining a balance in both the Pacific and Middle East among other critical theaters. Just because such a proposal reflects other such recommendations hardly makes it suspect.
The country takes in $250 billon more Federal revenue each year which certainly can be directed in part to take care of that constitutional requirement–“provide for the common defense”. Rubio is on the right track.
From 1997-2000 we increased defense by $35 billion or 13% a year, cut tax rates on inheritances, capital gains and retirement accounts, reformed welfare and balanced the budget. Why can’t we do that again?