Sure A Not

A significant federal protection act was recently passed by the US Congress, and Biden signed it. The act has four major rules:

US$ 61 billion for support to Ukraine ( including$ 13 billion to restock US military items that were previously donated ).
1. $ 6 billion is allocated to Israel, Gaza, and$ 9 billion goes to charitable assistance for Gazans and other people.
2. $ 8 billion for&nbsp, support to Taiwan&nbsp, and another Indo- Pacific friends
3. A strategy to compel the Chinese firm ByteDance to stop operations within 270 days, sell TikTok, or otherwise cease operations

For two reasons, I’m actually quite surprised this act passed. First, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, had stalled Ukraine assistance for quite some time, &nbsp, under pressure&nbsp, from the MAGA activity.

Second, it appeared as though the Senate would shop the TikTok divestment’s passage. However, all of a sudden, both hurdles appeared to vanish, and the bill was passed. The most probable reason, from what I can tell, is that&nbsp, Congressional leaders&nbsp, saw&nbsp, knowledge briefings&nbsp, that made them realize that A. ) TikTok serves the CCP and B indefinitely as both advertising and malware. Putin’s regional ambitions extend far beyond Ukraine to Europe.

Although I do n’t agree with absolutely everything in this bill, the fact that it passed is a very good sign. It indicates that our officials are carefully and unreluctably acknowledging the enormity of the threat America and its supporters face abroad.

The support to Ukraine demonstrates that despite Russian propaganda that has subverted the MAGA action, there is still a nonpartisan bulk that is willing to stand up to Putin.

The Taiwan support, though far too little for my desire, shows that the US is starting to realize the risk of an Eastern battle. The TikTok divestment clause suggests that the US is not entirely comfortable with the idea that its mass media would become a tool of angry authoritarian governments, despite the fact that it will undoubtedly face legal challenges.

That is everything about development. But it’s only a glimpse of improvement, because America’s key national surveillance dilemmas remain unanswered. Instead of being a quick fixation that allows us to forget about safety and return to debating cultural wars, this bill needs to be the start of a more serious approach toward regional security.

What should be America’s leading five objectives, in my opinion, are:

1. Construct the US military and industrial base

The most crucial point is this. The Allies won World War 2&nbsp, because of United production ability, thanks to decades of withdrawal, anti- production policy, and offshoring, that capacity essentially no longer exists. The threat posed by the removal of the Arsenal of Democracy to the rest of the world is difficult to overstate.

We have n’t yet developed the capability to produce large numbers of drones, which are increasingly important in modern warfare, and the US is currently essentially incapable of producing large numbers of naval ships, missiles, or artillery shells.

The manufacturing problem is especially acute, and individuals are starting to wake up. China’s Shipyards Are Available for a Protracted War, according to a February content in the WSJ. America is not.

These are similar content from&nbsp, Business Insider&nbsp, and&nbsp, the US Naval Institute, to identify just a couple. The Navy itself still seems to be in harm control/spin style,   delaying briefings&nbsp, in order to avoid having to talk about its manufacturing problems, despite the media’s beginnings to gain a sense of necessity.

The US is silently having to enlist much smaller friends like Japan and South Korea, who still have their shipping prowess, to help out. But due to their small size, they can just make a minimal change.

Similar issues exist for the military, including; however; missiles, artillery shell, and other types of equipment. And that’s not even getting into the matter of how many components and parts of what we, do, and build are sourced from China ( it’s a lot ).

This has to modify, and quickly. By “fast,” I mean “within the following three years,” no “within the next ten times.” How can it be changed, then?

Second, we have to&nbsp, ensure continuous funding&nbsp, for protection. Prior to now, funding that is allocated and given to the military ca n’t actually be used. Which implies that there is annually a significant Congressional debate over whether or not we will really spend the money we promised to spend.

Defense appropriations often get used as&nbsp, a political bargaining chip&nbsp, in budget battles by ( sometimes ) Democrats and (especially ) Republicans. In consequence, defense contractors ca n’t rely on them to receive their money, which increases production and risks significantly.

Congress needs to alter the way the defense budget is allocated, so funding can be effectively disbursed year after year without need for consistent, repeat unilateral Congressional action.

Next, and on a relevant word, we need to implement&nbsp, protracted procurement&nbsp, for defence contractors. We currently require a lot more startups and existing ones to undertake to safeguard manufacturing over the next few years. The likelihood of making that responsibility is also great if we only pay them annually, though. So we need to&nbsp, committed to several years of repayment, in advance.

Second, we must eliminate obstacles to mill construction. Environmental review ( NEPA and similar state laws like CEQA ) should be significantly reduced for defense manufacturing, and other stringent rules should be relaxed for defense manufacturing in particular.

These should not be the only ways we take. There are a lot of  and other  ideas out there, including investing in vocational training for defense manufacturing, leveraging public-private partnerships, reviving several bottlenecks through the Defense Production Act, and so on.

I do n’t currently have the time or the expertise to evaluate each of these, but I intend to look at several of them in-depth in the future. But the important information is that we’ll probably need to do a bunch of different items, all at the same time, in order to actually largely regain the Arsenal of Democracy by the early part of this century.

In addition to revitalizing defense manufacturing, the US needs to resurrect human manufacturing in areas that could be used for defense in the event of a conflict with China. We should try to encourage the development of a domestic shipbuilding industry, preferably through regulatory reform, rather than by putting money where it’s needed ( since that money could be better used for naval shipbuilding ), because civilian commercial shipbuilding is completely different from naval shipbuilding, and the US does very little of that.

We need to make sure not to export production of “foundational” or” trailing- edge” chips to China, these are older chips never covered by export controls, which China is now readily produce in massive volume, which are used a lot by the defense.

And we need a business helicopter business. China is currently the world leader in corporate robots, while the US has essentially nowhere to go. We need business plan below, there needs to be an Inflation Reduction Act for robots, and we need regulatory modifications, like designating areas where users can perform commercial drones beyond physical range.

This is not a comprehensive list of the things the US needs to do in order to once again become the Arsenal of Democracy, but it should suffice to provide a general overview.

2. Make Europe understand that they have to take the lead on Ukraine

In the most recent US national security bill, the aid to Ukraine was very good. It will bring order back to the situation on the battlefield, which has turned into a frantic battle of positions. And it demonstrates America’s ongoing commitment to the transatlantic alliance.

However, it’s not a permanent solution. More than half of House Republicans, 112 to 101, voted against the bill’s provision relating to Ukraine aid. Despite Trump himself&nbsp, softening on the bill, it’s clear that a large chunk of the GOP now views Ukraine as a culture war issue, on which the true MAGA position is to oppose Ukraine aid.

Some GOP legislators are correct in saying that their fellow citizens are being influenced by Russian propaganda. This means that no matter who wins the election, Ukraine ca n’t count on similar follow-ups to this aid bill in 2025 and beyond because it’s always possible that the MAGA faction will be able to block it, just as it came very close to doing so this time.

Second, and more importantly, the US is facing a much bigger challenge: China. Russia’s manufacturing capacities are utterly inexhaustible, and they are roughly as large as those of the US, China, and all of its allies combined.

Japan, South Korea, Australia, and hoped-to-be-India have all been US allies in the Indo-Pacific, but they are far beyond capable of defeating the Chinese juggernaut on their own.

The US needs to focus the vast majority of its resources in the Indo- Pacific if it wants to have any chance of deterring a major war. That will result in less money for Ukraine.

Fortunately, Europe is another major ally that can stop Russia.

Together, the non- US countries of NATO have four times the population of Russia, and&nbsp, ten times&nbsp, its productive capacity. China is currently actively supporting Russia with arms and supplies, which means it is actually engaged in a proxy war with Europe. Europe can outshine Russia if it finds the political will to do so, even with Russia receiving a limited amount of Chinese aid.

As it became clear that US aid to Ukraine had become more reliable, some European leaders — especially French President Emmanuel Macron — started taking the lead, providing a bunch of&nbsp, ammunition and talking tough about possible&nbsp, direct intervention&nbsp, in the war.

But much more than just extra shells and wistful wists will be required. Ukraine requires a lot of air defense and drones to defend itself from Russian assaults. If Europe can provide these things, Ukraine may be able to&nbsp, resist until the Russians give up&nbsp, and come to the bargaining table.

Therefore, the US needs to make it clear to Europeans that future US support will be patchy at best. France, Germany, and the UK must unite to commit the necessary funds to long-term support for Ukraine.

3. Add liberal messages to the information ecosystem.

An important milestone was reached by the TikTok divestment bill. Some still harbor free speech concerns, and no doubt TikTok’s lawyers will claim in court that a forced change of ownership is robbing them of their constitutional rights.

However, Zephyr Teachout convincingly contends that one of the most essential characteristics of a democracy is the ability to ensnare foreign media ownership:

Concerns about the First Amendment are inevitable in any attempt to restrict a communication platform, but constitutional claims made on behalf of foreign governments are incredibly weak. In 2011, for example, a federal court rejected a challenge to the federal laws prohibiting foreign nationals from making campaign contributions. Then, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the nation has a compelling interest in limiting foreign citizens ‘ participation in such activities,” thereby preventing foreign influence over the US political process.”

A hostile foreign superpower with a well–documented interest in influencing domestic politics in the United States and other countries would have to resolve one particular issue when imposing a TikTok divestiture.

The basic premise of democratic self- government is the idea that people collectively make the rules of their community and collectively direct their laws…Could American corporations or individuals wreak just as much havoc on public discourse as the Chinese government? Yes. That is, however, a part of the democratic bargain. Members of&nbsp, this&nbsp, political community must have unique rights to shape the institutions that coerce and constrain their behavior—rights not afforded to people, corporations, or governments outside the community… We should …affirm the historic norm that countries have the right to protect their communications, politics, and private data from foreign governmental control.

The defenders of liberal democracy are still at a disadvantage in the global war of ideas, even if this logic holds up in court and the ban is implemented. While liberal-minded countries like China and Russia have large, well-funded propaganda departments, liberalism’s supporters are largely volunteers who spend their free time working.

That’s why the US government should step in, and — in partnership with private citizens where possible — make the case for liberalism to the American people and to the people of the world.

The US Department of War’s” Do n’t Be a Sucker,” a 1940s movie that helped to rally people’s support for the desegregation of the military, is my favorite historical example of this.

[embedded content]

This is propaganda, but it’s not the kind of propaganda that forces people to consume it. It’s just a liberal government that explains the definition of liberal citizenship.

Private citizens can and should, of course, be a part of this as well. Left- leaning outlets like the New York Times and MSNBC could try to push back on the anti- American narratives that have taken hold among extreme progressives and leftists, and help restore some Rooseveltian patriotism.

Elon Musk and Twitter and X, who are on the conservative side, may at least temporarily be associated with the group that opposes Ukraine’s aid and wants to appease China, but he might turn around in the future.

And Fox News and the Murdochs could do a lot more to persuade the conservative world that America and our system of alliances are worth protecting from Xi Jinping.

4. Make more effort to win Indonesia over and solidify the alliance with India.

Even China alone would be too powerful for the US to handle a one-on-one conflict, as China, Russia, and Iran represent a far greater threat than the US can handle.

Thus, US national security relies on having strong allies. Under Biden, we did a respectable job of reviving our Cold War era ties with developed democracies in Europe and Asia.

These are typically small, sagging nations with frequent, independent economic problems. The US needs a bigger gang if it’s going to counter China.

India is, of course, by far the most significant future ally. In a recent Carnegie Endowment report, it is highlighted how far India is ahead of other emerging powers in terms of population and projected economic growth:

Fortunately, India is also by far the emerging powers ‘ most pro-American country:

In fact, as I mentioned in a post last year, there is a growing political and cultural tension between India and the US:

I do n’t expect India to be willing or able to ride to Taiwan’s rescue in the event of a Chinese invasion later this decade. However, as its economy, military prowess, and friendship with other US allies like Japan expand, India will become a more and more effective ally on a variety of fronts.

So US leaders must continue to push very hard for greater integration with India, including through investment, trade, diplomatic coordination, military exercises, multilateral alliances, regional pacts, and other things.

And America needs to commit to continuing to take large numbers of Indian immigrants, to deepen the grassroots linkages between our societies ( as well as getting America some needed talent ). The first step is to close the gap between countries for green cards, a relic of the 1965 immigration system that treats large nations, or at least weaken those gaps.

India is the most significant emerging US ally, but Indonesia is another significant” swing state” in the Indo-Pacific that we have n’t sufficiently fought for.

Indonesia is a very populous nation with a lot of natural resources and latent manufacturing potential. Because it controls the trade routes between China and the rest of the world, it also has an incredibly crucial geographic location for any Asian conflict. Even as Indonesia gets closer to the Chinese orbit, the US seems oddly determined to ignore it.

The problem has only gotten worse since then, with the election of a new President, Prabowo Subianto, who appears to be&nbsp, more pro- China than his predecessor. In addition, China defeated Japan in a bid to construct high-speed rail in Indonesia, which appears to be a success, unlike most of China’s Belt and Road projects.

Indonesia is concerned about China’s claims to some of its waters, but it continues to cooperate militarily with the US. But the US and its Asian allies need to step up their efforts to court Indonesia economically, offering infrastructure investment and development ( perhaps with American financing and Japanese construction ), FDI in Indonesian manufacturing and other industries, and trade opportunities.

The US is unable to continue to treat this crucial nation as the “biggest invisible thing on Earth.”

5. Disengage from the Middle East as much as possible

Even with Europe’s assistance, the US will struggle to counter both China and Russia at the same time. It will be&nbsp, impossible&nbsp, to do these things while simultaneously checking Iran in the Middle East and supporting Israel’s war in Gaza.

The Houthi pirates ‘ campaign has done little to reduce America’s stock of hard-to-replace missiles and has so far failed. Israel’s aid is more expensive than other budget items, and it is not really necessary for its defense. And helping Israel prosecute its&nbsp, fairly brutal campaign&nbsp, in Gaza weakens America’s moral standing in the world, especially in the eyes of majority- Muslim Asian countries like&nbsp, Indonesia and Malaysia.

In a post last year, I argued that despite Hamas ‘ horrific attack on Israel on October 7, the US should continue to cooperate with the region and concentrate its efforts on Asia.

Since then, my assessment has not changed. Asia is a place where the US is both badly needed, and in a position to do a lot of good, by helping democratic nations remain independent of an expansionist superpower. Middle East: a violent region with little to offer and little hope of resolving is an increasingly irrelevant quagmire.

The days are long gone when the US was strong enough to defend the entire world at once. Now the US has a choice of whether to stretch itself to the breaking point in the hopes that it can somehow bluff its way through all the conflicts at once, or to refocus its hard power on the points of maximum leverage in the defense of global liberal democracy. That seems like a simple choice.

In light of the most recent breakthrough in national security legislation, I believe the US needs to do the following five things: 1 ) strengthen its own security and 2 ) strengthen the security of its allies. They are all difficult tasks that will require both sustained political will and delicate, skilled management. But I think that everything is within the purview of possibility.

This article was originally published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack, and is republished with kind permission. Read the&nbsp, original&nbsp, and become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading