The United States cannot deter or defeat China in a war over Taiwan if U.S. naval and air forces are spread thinly across Europe, the Middle East, and China. The U.S. can deter Russia by maintaining Army deployments in Eastern Europe and nuclear strike preeminence. The U.S. can deter Iran by responding to acts of Iranian terrorism with decisive force. The U.S. cannot deter China unless an abundant Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps presence is fixed in the Pacific and in healthy readiness to deploy to the Pacific at short notice.
These sentiments broadly align with Elbridge Colby’s philosophy on the future of U.S. military posturing. And Colby bears note amid the apparent Senate Republican hold on his confirmation as undersecretary of defense for policy. As I’ve argued previously, Colby is an extremely strong choice for this most important Defense Department role. He has been proven correct on the inability of the U.S. to deploy maximal military force in all scenarios.
Unfortunately, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) have both released statements and statements via proxies indicating they don’t want Colby at the Pentagon. These senators are specifically concerned with Colby’s call for the U.S. to divert military assets away from the Middle East and Europe and into the Pacific. Cotton also appears resistant to Colby’s skepticism that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities would best serve U.S. national security.
The Senate’s slowdown on Colby has seen influential MAGA voices such as Vice President JD Vance and Charlie Kirk post on social media, pushing for Colby’s confirmation. On Tuesday, Donald Trump Jr. penned an op-ed in Human Events to that same effect. But Cotton and company also have influential allies in their corner.
As reported by Semafor last week, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations CEO William Daroff recently sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee suggesting “questions [for Colby] that reflect serious concerns raised by our member organizations.” Daroff’s questions make clear that his key concern centers on Colby’s skepticism against using force in the near future to attack Iran’s nuclear program and on Colby’s belief that the U.S. needs to redeploy military assets from the Middle East to the Pacific.
What to make of all this?
For a start, I would argue that Daroff’s contentions are plainly at odds with the U.S. national interest. The size and scale of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s might is beyond question. The PLA’s rampant capability buildup includes superb air defense cruisers, long-range missiles of potent form and tactical diversity, and the world’s first sixth-generation fighter aircraft. Assessed alongside PLA naval and air activity proximate to Taiwan, in the approaches to Taiwan, and in the South China Sea, it is clear China is preparing to fight and defeat the U.S. in a war over the island. If America wants to avoid that outcome, very hard choices are required.
While the U.S. should retain ground forces in the Baltic States and Poland, it is obviously in Western Europe’s interest that the U.S. maintain a maximal military presence across Europe. That allows Western Europe to skimp on defense spending and French President Emmanuel Macron to define “strategic autonomy” at the expense of the U.S. Air Force. It is also obviously in Israel’s interest that the U.S. maintains a maximal military presence in the Middle East.
The problem for America is that, amid China’s great military power and ambition, it is manifestly not in America’s interest to maintain a maximalist air and naval presence in Europe and the Middle East. Indeed, doing so risks China either starting the most consequential war of the 21st century in its belief that American military power is stretched too thin or, worse, starting and winning that war amid a U.S. military that is stretched too thin.
This is not to say European, Israeli, and Saudi security concerns are unimportant to Colby. I know firsthand that this is not the case. Others also recognize as much. For example, Daroff’s letter was disavowed by the Zionist Organization of America, which claimed it had not been consulted about the matter. That organization rightly referenced Colby’s positive support for providing Israel with the armaments and capabilities it needs to defend itself and support for robust Israeli action in the face of threats such as that from Iran.
Regardless, the balancing beam of U.S. national security interest plainly falls in favor of Colby’s arguments. Colby’s contentions offer a recipe for deterrence and defeat of the most powerful adversarial imperium that the U.S. has ever confronted. In contrast, Daroff’s contentions are a recipe for short-term maximal Israeli security in the Middle East, alongside the risk of a U.S.-enjoined war with Iran that would lead to regional chaos and numerous American deaths. Oh, and then America’s catastrophic defeat against China amid the depletion of military capabilities in the Middle East.
While the specter of a second, Iranian-induced Holocaust means that the U.S. must keep military options against Iran on the table, even a messy diplomatic solution should be the first preference for resolving Iran’s nuclear threat. This diplomatic interest takes on added import for another reason. Namely, that while it is highly unlikely that Israel would be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear program without direct U.S. military support, it is unlikely even that the U.S. military would be able to destroy that program without ground force deployments. And who wants that?
Moreover, the pretense that America can do everything maximally everywhere comes from the same facile failure of Congress to judge national security policy more prudently. It explains why too many in the Senate and House still pretend that the Littoral Class Combat ship is anything other than a floating death trap that might as well have “Dear PLA, I am underpowered, underarmed, and crewed by 65 Americans. Sink me at your pleasure” painted on its hull (local cronyism). Or why Lockheed Martin has escaped major punishment for utterly failing to produce functioning F-35 fighter jets on budget (financial donations). Or why the Navy has spent years throwing finite supplies of its most capable anti-air missiles at Houthi missiles instead of relying on far cheaper laser defense systems (failure of leadership).
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The bottom line is clear. Colby deserves expedient confirmation. If Trump wants his nominee in office, he should start using the bully pulpit to see it happen.
Only China benefits from delay.