Every army is geared towards a purpose, a set of goals. In theory, every army shares one basic goal: defense of national territory (actually, some serve to defend a regime against itself or to generate coups, e.g. Praetorian Guard, but….). Moreover, every army exists to prosecute war. But, as Clausewitz and many others would tell you, wars come in many varieties, with many goals and many forms. Every army is designed to fight in a certain set of circumstances for a certain set of purposes, whether it’s intentionally or because of neglect. America’s army, unfortunately, is built towards the wrong purpose.

The Purpose of an Army

If you gave the US navy to Mongolia, complete with a contract for replacement parts, Mongolia would get rid of it. Oh, they’d probably keep a number of planes and munitions, but they’d sell the ships. Why? Because the navy is actually useless to serve Mongolia’s defensive-offensive military interests; they don’t have any ocean. At most a few small vessels might be usable on an inland waterway. Moreover, the US navy would be actually dangerous for Mongolia to own. Mongolia sits between two major powers, Russia and China; it cannot afford to be a threat to both and must be a good friend with at least one. That navy presents a threat to Russia and China both; Mongolia, however, can remove that threat, make money, and make friends with both Russia and China by selling them massive amounts of US hardware, probably including a good chunk of the air-fleet, for learning purposes as much as anything else.

The US navy, grand as it is, does not suit Mongolia’s purpose for having a military.

Now ask: “What is the purpose of the American military, as seen in its design?’

We have a significant land force, heavily trained; we have global military bases; we have a massive navy; we have a lot of offensive munitions. We have nukes.

Each of these serves a purpose. One purpose, here, is to project force against pirates and similar foes, protecting our merchant marine (albeit our failures against the Houthis suggest a weakness there). Another role, one the nukes are central to, is deterrence of assault on the homeland, as well as preparation for that defense as necessary. A third purpose, one we’ve repeatedly demonstrated, is to be able to project military force throughout the world to coerce foreign nations and conduct regime change. The suspicious mind might even point to the numerous military bases as providing ready spark-points, tempting targets designed to provide excuses for military intervention (nations we’d never be fighting in if we didn’t have a military base there to be attacked). This last purpose shows up across our military, from composition to technology.

Other nations have different military designs. To my understanding, the Chinese military is focused on homeland defense (and, probably, invading Taiwan); they have optimized their equipment, no doubt, for anticipated fracas with India and for defending their life-blood waterways.

The Proper Purpose

America’s military ought to have one purpose and one only: to defend America against foreign aggressors who threaten its people. This central purpose, of course, has secondary purposes attached: suppress piracy, defend our land borders, defend our sea borders, defend against missiles, minimize the nuclear threat.

Regime change, foreign projection of power, and the like should not be priorities or purposes for the American military. The greater our capacity for foreign war at a moment’s notice, the more tempted politicians will be to get into that war, even if (as seems to be the case with Iran) the capacity is significantly ephemeral. Moreover, by focusing on those elements, we harm the military’s capacity for its proper duties.

Further, by God’s grace, America has an excellent strategic position to start from. Unlike France, Russia, and India, we aren’t even close to bordering a peer power. Mexico and Canada simply lack the capacity, for the foreseeable future, to present a viable land-war threat, and any enemy using them as staging grounds will of necessity (because of the size of the build-up) have to give us ample warning of intent, as well as brave our naval power.

Proposal

America should have the following:

1. A strong navy, focused on protecting our waters and capable of anti-piracy action
   1. Note that ‘our waters’ could plausibly include defending the waters around Japan and Taiwan as buffer states against China.
2. A strong air force
   1. Focused on defending our navy and land (air superiority and tactical bombing) rather than strategic bombing
3. A nucleus-and-potential army
   1. I’ll explain shortly
4. A strong missile defense system
   1. Particularly against nuclear weapons but also against cruise missiles
5. Nuclear weaponry
   1. Use of nuclear weapons against population centers is immoral; I’m dubious they are moral to use at all. Ideally, an advanced anti-nuclear shield would obviate their usefulness. America is in the geographic position to dispense with them, if anybody is.
6. Technological readiness
   1. We should have the technology designed, tested, and prepared to put America’s industry to use effectively in the case of a war starting. Due to our geography, we can be assured of warning.

Navy & Air Force

Honestly, I’ve no great bones to pick here. A strong navy is America’s best defense against invasion. All I ask is that it be designed for naval dominance and shore-protection, not to support land war in another country.

Our air power serves a similar role with similar caveats. Care should here be taken to prepare for a defensive, not an offensive war, but I’m not equipped to say exactly what that means.

Nucleus-and-Potential Army

Here’s the really radical part.

We should not have a large standing army. This is an old principle of liberty, and it helps keep politicians from getting the bad idea fairy (‘Regime change!’ ‘Conquest!’ ‘Bomb them all!’) stuck in their heads. Component to this, we should conclusively leave the draft behind (it is already illegal, under the 13th Amendment, if we would only recognize the fact). If the government can’t convince people the war is worth dying for, they shouldn’t be able to get the people to die for said war.

We should instead have a two-part army. The nucleus should be formed by a relatively small core of highly trained soldiers. This core should provide the testbed for doctrine and training, and it should include the necessary high-tech, much-training-needed equipment. The proportion of grunt infantry to other types of soldiers, just considering the combatants, should be remarkably small.

The ‘potential’ in ‘nucleus and potential’ should be, mostly, in potential. The ‘potential’ is the army which American can recruit at need and by volunteering from the American population. In order to maintain a significant land force which is resistant to being used in foreign wars, a militia system of citizen-soldiers could be created, wherein men learn basic elements of military combat, including the use of artillery, with a focus on defensive operations on American soil. This program would have to be carefully regulated to avoid becoming a propaganda and indoctrination tool (and should probably be helmed locally, with coordination by the federal government rather than control).

In time of war, this potential army would be available to fill out the ranks, while the nucleus would provide a model, knowledge of training, and expertise in various specialist parts of military operations. Without the potential, of course, the nucleus would be an ineffective method of projecting force; they would simply lack the numbers, particularly in ground-pounders, required for major land operations.

In essence: minimize the standing army, but prepare the nation for a defensive war as needed.

Missile Defense

We should be prepared to stop missiles hitting America. Simple as. This would be a job, in part, for the nucleus army mentioned above.

Technological Readiness

We should maintain research and prototyping, including extensive field testing, of the devices useful in a major war. We should not produce them in significant numbers unless such a war eventuates, but we should have the designs ready, informed by data from actual production-and-operation.

This readiness should apply in doctrine as well. We should use our limited forces to test and prepare for various plausible war scenarios, much as we currently do, preparing the doctrine and training for the up-arming and training-burst at the beginning of the hypothetical major war.

Conclusion

America’s army should be aimed towards America’s purpose, not the purpose of Washington D.C. We should have an army and military optimized for defensive operations, prepared to upscale but small while in peace, highly trained and equipped not just for themselves but to equip the potential expansion. Above all, though, we should have any army which honors God: as I discuss in this article, righteousness is the best asset a nation’s military can have.

God bless.