US Military Strains Under Global Commitments, Experts Warn

According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, the United States military, despite possessing advanced weaponry and one of the largest defense budgets globally, is confronting an issue that increased defense spending alone cannot resolve: the disparity between the breadth of Washington’s military commitments and the nation’s true capacity to maintain long-term combat readiness.

An analysis by Barry Posen, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published in the American journal ‘Foreign Affairs,’ indicates that the sustained military presence of the United States across various global regions, prolonged conflicts, and the increasing consumption of advanced weaponry have placed significant strain on its armed forces. The author contends the core problem is not a lack of military technology, but rather the strategic expectation that the US military must simultaneously operate in multiple theaters, deter adversaries, defend allies, and prepare for potential conflicts with major powers.

This situation raises a fundamental question about American global power: can Washington maintain all its military commitments with its current resources, or will the expansion of military activities ultimately weaken its ability to confront more significant threats?

Signs of Erosion in the US Military Structure

One prominent example Posen cites to illustrate this issue is the return of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group to the United States on October 8th, following a 320-day deployment at sea. According to the article, this extended mission was marred by problems including supply shortages, disruptions in sanitary facilities, water contamination, and a noticeable decline in troop morale. The author also references eight sailors who died by suicide during this period.

The significance of this event extends beyond the difficulties faced by a single carrier or mission. Sustained long deployments can reduce the time available for equipment maintenance, increase psychological and operational pressure on military personnel, and impact unit readiness for subsequent missions. Posen also points to similar concerns regarding extended deployments of other carrier strike groups, the movement of forces and equipment from the Indo-Pacific region to the Middle East, and a depletion of U.S. advanced ammunition stockpiles.

Taken together, these instances demonstrate that maintaining a vast military presence comes at a cost, even for a nation with America’s economic and technological capabilities. Every prolonged mission consumes resources that are also needed for maintenance, training, personnel preparation, and addressing future crises.

Strategic Paradox: An Army Designed for Short Wars Engaged in Long Crises

Part of the current difficulties stem from a paradox between the design of the U.S. military and how it is being employed. Posen writes that U.S. defense planners, since the Cold War era, have organized the armed forces to counter major threats and even manage two significant conflicts simultaneously. Consequently, a substantial portion of the nation’s military power is concentrated on advanced weaponry designed for delivering heavy, precise strikes in the initial phases of a conflict.

However, this model is predicated on the assumption of a relatively swift end to hostilities. In contrast, the experience of protracted wars has shown that initial superiority in firepower does not necessarily lead to a rapid conclusion of hostilities. In such scenarios, the U.S. military must sustain troop deployments for extended periods, replenish expended ammunition, repair equipment, and simultaneously maintain the capacity to respond to new crises. This is precisely where the military’s structural limitations become apparent.

For instance, the author notes the cost of each F-35 fighter jet at approximately $100 million, explaining that mass production and rapid replacement of such advanced equipment are not easily achieved. Therefore, the more these weapons are used in ongoing conflicts, the more difficult it becomes to maintain necessary reserves for potential future confrontations.

From this perspective, America’s challenge is not solely the destructive power of its weaponry, but also its ability to sustain operations after initial reserves are depleted and to bear the costs of a war of attrition.

Conflict with Iran and the Challenge of Swift Conflict Resolution

The Foreign Affairs article delves into the U.S. conflict with Iran to explain these limitations. Posen suggests that Washington likely assumed it could quickly defeat the Islamic Republic. However, America’s adversaries in recent decades have adopted different methods to counter its military superiority. According to the author’s analysis, regional rivals are not necessarily seeking to build armies comparable to those of major powers; instead, they may focus on their capacity to absorb blows, sustain resistance, and maintain a level of military activity under difficult conditions.

This approach does not nullify America’s weapons superiority in itself, but it can thwart one of the primary objectives of Washington’s military strategy: the swift resolution of conflicts through superior firepower. If a war, contrary to American expectations, becomes protracted, ammunition consumption will increase, pressure on deployed forces will intensify, and resources allocated to other regions will be redirected to the Middle East. Consequently, America’s response capability in other areas may also be affected.

This issue is particularly crucial for Washington, as the simultaneity of crises can transform resource limitations into a strategic problem. An army with high capability for a specific conflict cannot necessarily maintain the same level of performance across multiple fronts for an indefinite period.

Why Increased Military Budgets Are Insufficient

In response to concerns about military readiness, Washington is pursuing increased defense spending and expanded military capabilities. According to the article, the proposed base defense budget for fiscal year 2027 could increase by over 25 percent, reaching approximately $1.1 trillion. The Pentagon is also seeking an additional $350 billion beyond the base budget.

U.S. defense officials are also seeking to recruit over 40,000 new military personnel. However, Posen believes that a limited increase in troop numbers is insufficient to address readiness issues, and acquiring more advanced equipment cannot negate the effects of constant deployments and repeated conflicts. The reason is straightforward: greater budgets can facilitate the procurement of weapons and development of capacities, but building equipment, training specialized personnel, repairing aging systems, and increasing ammunition production capacity require time. Increased spending alone cannot immediately overcome these temporal and operational constraints.

Posen also points to a decline in the full mission capability rate for F-35 fighter jets, from 38 percent in 2021 to 25 percent. This statistic, cited in the article, serves as an example of the difficulty in maintaining equipment readiness under conditions of continuous use.

Therefore, increasing the military budget without reforming the model of force employment may equate to spending more to maintain a structure that continues to operate beyond its sustainable capacity.

Limitations of American Power and the Necessity of Revising Global Commitments

The author’s primary recommendation is to reduce some military activities and re-prioritize U.S. global commitments. In his view, Washington should preserve the capacity to counter major threats but reduce missions that disperse military resources.

Europe is a central focus of this proposal. Posen argues that major European nations possess the economic and technological resources necessary to assume greater responsibility for their continent’s defense. Consequently, the United States could redeploy some forces from Europe and transfer more responsibility to its European allies. This suggestion reflects a significant reality in the author’s analysis: Washington cannot simultaneously bear the responsibility for defending Europe, deterring China, and managing protracted conflicts in the Middle East without incurring costs.

Indeed, the broader U.S. military commitments become, the greater the need to divide resources among different regions. This diffusion can diminish the ability to focus on the most critical threats and increase the cost of maintaining readiness for large-scale conflicts.

Conclusion

The Foreign Affairs analysis presents a picture of an army that, despite its advanced technology and substantial budget, faces challenges in maintaining operational readiness under the pressure of continuous activity. The core issue is not an absolute inability of the U.S. military to fight, but rather its limitations in simultaneously sustaining multiple missions, rapidly replacing expended weaponry, and maintaining readiness for unforeseen crises.

These limitations can complicate Washington’s strategic calculations. The more the United States becomes entangled in prolonged conflicts, the greater the likelihood of increased costs, equipment wear and tear, and reduced military flexibility. In such circumstances, even a highly advanced military must prioritize among its various commitments.

The article’s ultimate message is that American military power cannot be measured solely by defense budgets and advanced weaponry; the ability to maintain readiness and sustain operations in the long term is also a decisive factor. If Washington fails to strike a balance between global ambitions and its military’s actual capacity, attempts to maintain dominance in all regions may lead to the erosion of the very power America seeks to defend.