Is America really unprepared for major war?

Amid the flood of recent information, an article in The Economist titled "America Is Unprepared for a Major War" draws attention

The conclusion is based on the results of a bipartisan commission that has analyzed Biden's National Defense Strategy for two years.

If you approach the facts superficially, without considering the motives of the experts, authors, and possibly the sponsors, you might be left with a rather unpleasant impression that "we're all doomed and there's nothing to be done." According to this view, despite the belligerent and enthusiastic speeches from military leaders of various ranks, the U.S. appears to be in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability, where any external intervention (primarily military) could topple the "world's policeman" façade.

However, in my humble opinion, The Economist may be somewhat exaggerating the situation.

“Of course, war is not a spectacle or a leisurely march through the capitals of potential aggressors. Naturally, every effort is made to avoid it through diplomacy, economic leverage, promises, and compromises. Indeed, any hot confrontation disrupts the global order, business connections, and devastates human lives.”

But the real point of the bipartisan commission’s statement, I believe, is different: America is not currently prepared for war. And not just at this moment. The article directly references sources that outline the state described by analysts: "In 2018, the Trump administration canceled the previous requirement for the Pentagon to be prepared for two major wars simultaneously, one in Europe and one in Asia. The Biden team maintains these reduced ambitions," the source is quoted. Most bipartisan discussions are now focused not on global issues or reckless actions in Africa or Oceania, but on domestic problems.

But the real point of the bipartisan commission’s statement, I believe, is different: America is not currently prepared for war. And not just at this moment. The article directly references sources that outline the state described by analysts: "In 2018, the Trump administration canceled the previous requirement for the Pentagon to be prepared for two major wars simultaneously, one in Europe and one in Asia. The Biden team maintains these reduced ambitions," the source is quoted. Most bipartisan discussions are now focused not on global issues or reckless actions in Africa or Oceania, but on domestic problems.

Therefore, Putin's "special military operation" in Ukraine was initially perceived as another escalation by a chronic imperialist, which - at the time, according to Washington (and other capitals as well) - was expected to end with Kyiv's capitulation or new agreements, likely at Ukraine's expense. It was only the desperate resistance of the Ukrainians and their ability to significantly challenge the "second strongest army in the world" that brought world leaders to their senses, making it clear that the world could change drastically if they simply "wash their hands."

I believe that the publication in The Economist is nothing more than a smokescreen, a component of hybrid warfare, an attempt to provoke careless enthusiasts to more openly reveal their intentions.

Note that, despite the "unpreparedness" for major wars, America is enhancing its potential in Europe, preparing to relocate air defense systems closer to the Russian borders, and planning to deploy Tomahawks in Germany. Additionally, the U.S. is showing significant activity in the South Asian region, actively laying the groundwork for creating a NATO-like alliance there. To quote The Economist again: "On July 28, the Biden administration took a significant step in this direction by announcing the creation of a new “combat” headquarters in Japan to command all army, air, and naval forces in the country."

Clearly, the issues of ordinary Americans do not extend to distant and often unfamiliar corners of the globe. However, their prosperity is based on the relentless advancement of American interests precisely in those remote areas. If a presidential candidate can effectively explain this to them in simple terms, they will undoubtedly succeed. Especially since, as the commission warns, "a major war will impact the lives of every American in ways we can only imagine."

The same Trump, with his pretended "isolationism" fueled by the whims of MAGA adventurers, never tires of claiming that he will "end the war in Ukraine with one phone call." And this is not merely a play on words; it is a statement laced with hints of blackmail and military pressure on Russia.

The Democrats are not as categorical in their statements - after all, Kamala Harris has not yet been officially nominated as the candidate by the party convention. However, it is clear that the current president has done so much for Ukraine that his potential successor will carefully consider whether it is worth ending the previous administration’s policy, given the astronomical sums already spent.

Therefore, I think America is ready for a major war (or even several in different theaters). But common sense and mercantile interest continue to motivate its administration not to take a fatal step.

Especially for Espreso

About the author: Ihor Hulyk, journalist.

The editors don't always share the views expressed by blog authors.