Tom Temin: And before discussing the context and construction of the study, how would you characterize the main conclusions? I would say that the United States is a paper tiger, or am I exaggerating?

David Grannis: Well, I think the bottom line here is that the security environment facing the United States has deteriorated significantly over the past few years and the United States really doesn’t have the resources or equipment necessary to face all the challenges we face. So, as you said, there is a possibility of a war that could take place in multiple theaters, or even a world war, and the United States is not in a position to prevail.

Tom Temin: And one of the striking facts that I found in going through the report, and it’s an important fact, is that China’s spending is about $700 billion in currency, which puts it in the order of magnitude of the country’s spending of just over $800 billion. UNITED STATES. And for years, everyone I’ve heard has said, “Well, China only spends 10% more than the United States, and we spend 10 times more than the next 10 combined, and all that.” » But in reality, China spends more than us, especially when you take into account the low cost of labor for its population.

David Grannis: RIGHT. Well, it’s very difficult to get good estimates of what China spends on its national security because they don’t have an open system like ours and don’t make all of that public. But if you take into account the purchase cost, the labor cost and everything that China does in the field of national security, not just the purchase of missiles and ships. It is actually much more comparable to the American budget than one might think. The other major difference here is that the United States has for decades had a global force capable of operating anywhere in the world, where China has really had the luxury of focusing on its home turf, and it does not So he doesn’t have much power. same expenses as us.

Tom Temin: And let’s come back a little to the context of this commission. Who in Congress was behind this and what was the charter you were designed for?

David Grannis: The charter comes from the national defense authorization bill. Every four years, Congress creates one of these commissions, or at least it has for about 16 years, to examine the national defense strategy presented by the Pentagon and to give Congress and the executive branch a look independent. So we are eight commissioners appointed by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate, four appointed by Democrats, four appointed by Republicans, all of whom have careers in national security. And they look at the strategy, they look at all the information and provide an independent point of view.

Tom Temin: And what has the reaction been so far? Because I found, personally, that to be one of the most important statements in this report in a city that produces dozens of reports every day.

David Grannis: Well, we were very pleased with the response. The commission testified before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and received very positive reception from both. We talked to think tanks and journalists here around Washington and tried to get the message out further. It’s a pretty dire message, but it received very positive reviews. If I can just add one thing. What the commission tried to do is go beyond the inner circle and actually reach the American public, because one of our main conclusions is that the American public doesn’t understand, in the first place , the challenges we face, but also how it could affect their own lives. We think if there was a war with China or something, you would feel the effects here at home. They have the ability to cut off power, cut off water, prevent us from operating transportation systems in an effort to prevent us from participating in anything that China or any other country does.

Tom Temin: RIGHT. Almost since World War II when people felt the effects through shortages, rationing, etc. It seems that, from the public’s perspective, the wars fought since then are news, but not something people feel on the home front.

David Grannis: Well, it’s true. I mean, the United States has been a sanctuary. Clearly, the attacks of September 11 demonstrated that we are not invincible. But when it comes to the type of wars we’ve fought over the last two decades, they’ve been fought over there, not here. The other troubling fact is that an increasingly small percentage of Americans actually feel and belong in the armed forces, the public service that constitutes part of our national security. So it’s really a small percentage of the audience that we rely on and rely on, and that needs to be expanded as well.

Tom Temin: We speak with David Grannis. He’s executive director of the Commission on National Defense Strategy, and what are some of your key recommendations that Congress and the Department of Defense could make? You name acquisition and all this PPBE and all this complex process that ensnares the Pentagon. But you also mentioned a few other points.

David Grannis: Well you have hit the nail on the head on one of the best, we have a Department of Defense that is used to running over years and producing a relatively small number of extremely capable support systems that are not well suitable for this type of system. wars we might face. So we need to change defense acquisition. We need to integrate much more closely with the technology sector, with the commercial and private industry that really drives innovation in this country, in a way that wasn’t the case during most of the Cold War. So this is one. We must also stop viewing national security and defense as synonymous. Many parts of our government: the State Department, our international investment and development, our labor and education systems are part of national security and the way our government is siled and we play each other’s credits against others. This must change. This must apply to all elements of national power, because that is exactly what Russia and China are doing.

Tom Temin: It’s almost like we have to go back to the 1950s, in a sense, in our approach. I think it was even more recently, wasn’t it Secretary of Defense (Bob) Gates, who said, I actually need a bigger and better State Department?

David Grannis: Well, it’s true. And back when it was the United States and the Soviet Union, we had strategic communication. We were talking to the world and we were really advocating for ourselves. We saw our allies as a key part of how we could 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 on that. Unfortunately, the world won’t 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 the cost of servicing that debt to the government is very different, even compared to it 20 years ago, and threatens to oust so many others. things. It’s the economy that ultimately supports national security, and it’s somewhat threatened by debt and other factors.

David Grannis: Well, that’s exactly true. We say in this report that our investment in national security will need to increase. We currently spend about 3% of our GDP on defense and national security, and if you look at the Cold War, it was at least 4 1/2 to 5% and up. So we have to get back to that kind of spending. But as you say, we can’t blame all of this on debt. Again, our commission, made up of four Democratic-appointed members and four Republican-appointed members of Congress, unanimously agreed that to pay for what we’re going to have to do, we’re going to have to increase revenue measures. That means taxes, and we’re going to have to reform social spending because we can’t continue to try to do all this on the national debt and do it without addressing some of the structural elements of our economic and financial situation.

Tom Temin: Is it frustrating for you, the commissioners and the deputies that neither candidate seems to say anything rational on any subject, let alone on this essential thing for the country?

David Grannis: Well, we recognize that the candidates are talking about what the American public is focused on. According to a recent poll, 1 or 2 percent of the population 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 the United States mobilizes, that number is going to change quite significantly. That’s why we’re trying to get the message out before the next 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, rather than waiting until after, so we’re ready as a nation.

Tom Temin: By the way, you come to this position as executive director with some pretty good experience on the Hill and in the national security apparatus.

David Grannis: Well, I’ve spent more than my fair share of time in Congress, the House and Senate, and working in the executive branch. And my view is that there are a lot of dedicated, well-meaning, very competent people on both sides of the aisle working on these issues, but we have more and more systems. Our report focuses on the Department of Defense, systems that will simply be adapted to another era where we need to start making some pretty significant changes.