And chair, eddie junior. A conversation on the u. S. Military readiness and the Global Threats we face. Defense Program Senior research fellow, served two decades in the marine corps. Assessing u. S. Military strength, a pretty major undertaking. How does the Heritage Foundation try to do that . Guest we gather all publicly available information we can come across, official testimony from the pentagon, acquisition reports on major programs, general news reporting from the defense reporting community, our own personal contacts in the services and the pentagon and on capitol hill, and we gather all that all year long, go through a several month analysis and writing process, compare last years information to this years information, and then basically issue a report card on the military, and this year on a scale of one to five, we would give it a three, or in the words we use, we call it marginal, and we feel that the u. S. Military writ large is marginally able to meet the demands of u. S. National security requirements, meaning they can handle one major conflict in one part of the world, but not much more than that. We think it needs to be more than that, because the u. S. Has global interests and global responsibilities. Host the u. S. Military budget is increased under the trump administration. Had that made an impact . Guest it actually has. Weve seen that mostly in readiness. Things like building new ships and airplanes, these are multiyear efforts, and it takes a while to expand or grow the size of the military. The same thing on man power, the number of people that you have in there as well. But readiness, where you get people you have with the equipment they have into the field to train and fly and shoot and drive and all those sorts of things, to be competent incident in what theyre doing, that has really improved over the last two or three years. So if we were going to have one high point in this years report card, its increased readiness of the force we currently have. Host its the 2021 index of u. S. Military strength. You can find it at heritage. Org. Thats what were going to talk about in this 45 minutes of the washington journal. Phone lines split up this way. If you want to join this conversation this morning with dakota wood, democrats can demall at 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 2027488002. Zpive retired members of the military, special line for you, doment to hear from you, 2027488003 is that number. The report, to want dive into it, mr. Wood. One of the key topics, assessing the Global Operating environment. Thats the threats were facing in the world, where are they coming from . Guest its actual two parts youre talking about. The world, is it easier or difficult for the American Military to do what we were called upon to do. In that we look at our friends and allies, where we have forces at. Do they know how to work in a particular area. The threat section is really, to your point, and we look at russia, china, iran, north korea, and then kind of the general destabilizing influence of terrorism in key parts of the world. And we assess the threat environment in general as high, not the highest category of four on our score of one to five, but in that high category, because the main competitors, like china and russia, have really made serious investments in their military capabilities, expanding their reach, more of a power projection, really improve the capability of the forces with longer range, guide munitions, a lot more attention to training for readiness, combat, competencies, iran has expanded its portfolio of missiles to 3,000 Ballistic Missiles. Certainly youve seen the headlines with china and what theyve been doing in the South China Sea. Its a worrisome environment from a threats perspective. From the ally and partner perspective, they have been making some progress, especially in the last year or two, and among nato members, making more investments in their own defense. But theyre still falling far short of where they need to be. Host encourage viewers to go to heritage. Org, open up this very easy to navigate index, because you can follow along with some of the easy to read charts that were going to go through for our visual learners. Were showing them the capability of the threats around the world, you talked about russia and china as being rated as formidable threats. On the lower end of the threat scale, are those that you consider to be capable threats, middle east terrorism falls into that, as well as afghanistan and pakistan terrorism. Explain that y thats on the lower level of capability. Guest right, in those tables, we try to use zrip active words. What is a two or four mean . So using our language to convey a sense, is it something you really need to be concerned about, or is this something, you know, that generates a sense of urgency . So when we look at threats, its a combination of intense and capability. You cant measure intents the way you look at observed behavior. How has a country been behaving, and as its been behaving more or less aggressively, what are the tools that it has . When you look at terror groups, they dont possess submarines and combat aircraft fleets and large land forces with Ballistic Missiles and those sorts of things, right . But they do pose an on the ground immediate threat, especially in a politically destabilizing way. So you could have a terror group like al qaeda or Islamic State or alshabab that is very aggressive in its rhetoric, but their capability is limited to small arms, manufactured bombs, maybe some smaller gauge rockets. So we give them a lower score on the capability side even if their activities have been very aggressive. Host heres a part that have report that those called the active and retired Military Lines would happen most interested or most respond to, talking about the capabilities, the readiness and capacity of the military branches in this country. And just taking a look at the comparison between the army and the navy, the army rated very high when it comes to readiness, weak when it comes to its capacity. You can see the comparison to the navy here. Weak when it comes to capacity, readiness more on the marginal level. Explain the differences to that and why you chose those rankings. Guest on capacity, its very important to understand our scoring. We think the u. S. Military needs to be able to handle two major problems. So if you got tied up in the asia pacific region, you know, some kind of a problem or a conflict with china, its not that you can leave the middle east or europe when youve got iran and russia, so you have to have a sufficiently large capability that you can address u. S. Interests in multiple regions, and thats why we think theres capacity is so critical. When we look at the u. S. Navy, we look at the army, they just dont have the numbers of units. It doesnt mean that the individuals, say soldiers, or anything like that, extraordinarily competent incident people. We just dont have enough of them. The army has paid a lot of attention to the readiness of its forces, sending its brigade combat teams to its National Training centers, really making the shift from Counter Terrorism sorts of focus operations to readying itself if it had to go into a largescale conventional conflict against a major opponent like a russia or a china, Something Like that. So their readiness is almost off the charts. I mean, them spent a lot of time getting their units back up to speed. Whereas the navy has had some really problematic maintenance areas, you know, keeping ships out at sea, doing a quick turn to shipyards and all the back log maintenance that occurred over many years. So when you look at those scores, the force we have today, not the one five years from now, if it was called upon to go to war, the forces are too small for the task that we think they would have, and they really need to do a lot more focus on modernizing their equipment, which is a lot of money from congress thats needed, and then spending time and attention to make those forces competent and proficient. So thats kind of explaining some of the scoring metology we used in those charts. Host if you agree or disagree, take it one dakota wood directly, defense programs Senior Research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. That line for active and retired military, again, 2027488003. Mr. Wood, thats where were going to start, ed from jacksonville, florida, retired military. Go ahead, ed. Caller good morning. I was just wondering if your report looked at the reserve component included in your report. Guest we addressed the criticality of reserve forces, especially in that introduction chapter, if haup to download it at heritage. Org military. Theres so much complexity in the political establishment of our National Guard and our reserve forces. A lot of variability in different units across the country, depending on what their particular focus might be and whether youre talking individual Ready Reserve or actually selected units. So what we do is we look at the active component in these scores, and we use those active combat units as kind of a bellwether. There are representative components of the total force. So our active units would be those probably first thrown into the breach. We have to make sure theyre there, but they cant do anything over a sustained period without the reserve forces. The ones we score in those tables are the active component elements. Host one of the topline conclusions from the report, it notes that americas leadership remains in question, and its security interests are under significant pressure. Challenges continue to grow, longstanding allies are not what they once were, and the u. S. Is increasingly bedeviled by debt that can strain its ability to sustain its forces commensurate with its interests, that from the 2021 index of u. S. Military strength. Focus on longstanding allies are not what they once were. Guest when you think about nato, nato members and the forces they used to have, at the end of the cold war, west germany alone had 5,000 main battle tanks, pretty sufficient navy, very competent air force. Today the combined germany, 20, 30 years later, has fewer than 300 tanks. So 5,000 for west german, only 300, actually fewer than that today. Two years ago, they had no operationally deployable submarines. They had to contract out to civilian dops get their military pilots sufficient time and helicopter cockpits to maintain certifications. So its an example. The british military, the totality, the size of the british military, air power, navy, royal marines, and the army, the total of that is smaller than the United States marine corps alone. They only have 17 surface ships in their navy. China has added that number of ships to its navy just in the last two years or so. So when we look at the investments of our partners and our friends, they have really fallen short for about 20 to 25 years. Theres a lot of ground to make up. And we talk about the importance of allies. If youre going to go to war, you want people helping you out, and you want to be there to help people. But theyre not doing what they should be doing, its a greater burden on the United States, which increased our costs and necessarily increased our risks. Host chris in massachusetts is next, line for democrats. Good morning. Caller hi, quick question. Unlike iran and russia, United States is in jury without an invitation from the internationally recognized government. But the United States is in syria without congressional approval. The United States is in syria without United NationsSecurity Council authorization. In fact, the United States is there as an occupying force, and it appears to be looking after the interests of the emirates, the saudis and israelis. Do you have any commonets that any comments on my observations . Guest sure, talking policy decision, right . So policy, the use of military force is different than the condition of military forces. So the policy debate that has gone on in washington, Congress Continues to fund the Defense Department. They havent forbidden the use of military forces. So almost by default we have the u. S. Congress, representative branch of the American People going along with this use of military power. When those forces were introduced in syria, it was absolute chaos. You had a lot of civilians who ere being massacred by the recognized government under Bashar Alassad, use of chlorine gas. It was just mayhem. So there was an international effort, at least by coalition partners, to try to introduce forces, keep back some of the wars parties, support the civilians that were really under assault, and really a lot of freedom fighters, if you wanted to call them that, that were a representative form of government. Things have consolidated a bit in the last year or two, especially because russia and iran came in to help support the assad regime. But i dont think anybody is saying that Bashar Alassad and his military are advocates of peace, stability, helping out their own population. So from my understanding of the role of u. S. Forces, its so combat the remnants of the Islamic State to try to provide some kind of a peaceful enclave to try to facilitate the support of humanitarian assistance thats flowing into that region, things that the Syrian Government wouldnt be supporting. So i think that there are sometimes situations in which, if you cant get consensus among the international community, the right thing to do is go in, use military force for the right reasons, and then see how the situation evolves. Host our sarasota, florida, steven, republican, good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I was wondering, it seems like some of the news, some programs seem to be a form of propaganda to help other countries and why we dont see or havent heard much in the last several years, other than maybe some of the conservative channels, i watch both conservative and liberal channels, and i hear things like the russians targeting americans, and sort of like propaganda, nothing they dont talk about any of the good things thats going on in our military. I was always wondering why are we being used to hurt ourselves or why is our left, some of the socialist not socialist, but some of the networks that are almost antiamerican. It seems strange to me that were hurting ourselves. Guest well, i think the past year has pointed out the differences of opinion across the United States. Well see what the Electoral College decides on who the next president is. It does appear to be remaining in joe bidens favor on that. But even with that said, 74 Million People or so voted for the current president. Obviously more voted for the contender. So its just an example that people hold very strongly held views. There are differences of opinion on the role of the United States in the world and how it executes that role. Is it primarily economic and diplomatic . Is it primarily military . Is it a mixture of all of those sorts of things . And i think what weve seen in the news Media Establishment writ large is really kind of picking sides on that, that there is a political philosophy that pervades across of the reporting based on either the journalist involved or the Editorial Board or whoever is writing the checks for a particular news outlet, and we see this kind of preference for viewpoints coming through that. So i think a really educated consumer of information, as you appear to be, taking in multiple different streams, left leaning, right leaning, whats going on on the web, looking at international reporting. You know, what are the germans and brits and japanese and australians writing about . I think its really the only way to get a holistic view of whats going on in the world. And then you throw your voice in as youve done on this particular program. Host coming back to the issue of assessing u. S. Military strength, and the trump administration, one person said america has been told that we are the strongest. You seem to have a more negative position on that. Guest well, strength is relative. So fern for person, unit for unit, we would dominate, i believe, on any battlefield. We just have really good people, good leadership, kind of the american model where we punish initiative down to the lower ranks, as opposed to other models, which are much more authoritarian. They dont have the kind of free play where personal initiative really comes up. And they dont, frankly, have the experience. The last time china went to war with anybody was against vietnam in 1979, i believe, and they didnt fare too well. That doesnt mean you dont recognize your shortfalls and try to improve your situation, which is what china is doing. So where we have a negative view on these things is, if you had to go more than one place at one time, we just dont have the capacity. The military skills we have are great, but were using equipment that is 30 and 40 years old. The average age of an air force Fighter Aircraft that we see flying around on the news is 30 years old. More than half of the navy ships are greater than 20 years old. Mat reason core still uses ones purchased in the 197 owes. Its a comparison thing. Where would you put a u. S. Force on a map against an opposing force if thats all they have to be concerned about, were pretty sure that they would win in that conflict. But if it was more than that, if you had to be more than one place, oldie quiment and too small capacity to handle those sorts of challenges. Host we have a space. What can you say about assessing the strength of the space force . Guest it was an easy move to take individuals in the u. S. Air force who focus on Space Operations and carve them out into a separate service, but we still have 20,000 or more spaceoriented Service Personnel in the army and the navy that are not part of that space force. So its a great first step. We think its needed because of the unique nature of space, Space Operations and the different sorts of platforms you can put up there for various reasons, but it needs to continue to expand. And thats just in the military service. You still have the Intelligence Community that are huge consumers of space and space products that arent part of that space force. So we think that the initiative is good, theyve been very aggressive in trying to get their feet under them and develop an sandeist culture, which will take time. But the efforts l effort needs to continue and it needs to be a much more comprehensive. Host its the index of military strength, the yearly index put out by the Heritage Foundation. Dakota wood is the Senior Research fellow there, served two decades in the marine corps, taking your phone calls this morning as we talk about that report. Up next, woodbridge, virginia, independent. Good morning. Caller good morning, sir. Thank you for taking my call. Ive been trying to get a hold of cspan for the last seven months. Host well, youre on now, lynn. Whats your question or comment for dakota wood . Caller i have a comment. Civilian n ordinary citizen. And i just have a comment about our military system. I am so proud and impressed of what our President Trump has one for the last four years. Even though that im a very citizen, but i watch the correct news, and even you can feel it, you know it, that we are in much safer place for the last four years than for a long, long time. That is just my simple comment. Host are we in a safer place . Guest i think were more realistic. So in that sense, yes, we are. But during that period of time, the world doesnt stand still. So you do have a china that has dramatically expanded its capabilities and improved its skill levels. I mean, theyve gotten more serious about a power projection sort of force, to secure its commercial routes from china proper through the South China Sea into the indian ocean, the middle east. So its a much different china. While we have gotten better in terms of our focus, less Counter Terrorism, counter insurgency, in places like afghanistan and iraq, and much more on this Great Power Competition that people will talk about, our adversaries, our competitors, have also made improvements. So the first step in dealing with any kind of problem is recognizing that you have a problem. Now its what am i going to do about that . So weve talked about improvements and readiness, very important. The military services have really matured their requirements. You know, what they believe they would need to prevail in a larger scale conventional conflict. So thats great. Were much better off there. Where we still fall short is the funding for the programs needed to give the forces what they need. And defense spending, twhile does increase in real dollars, it does not keep pace with the ravages of inflation or the premature wearing out of equipment that has occurred in these continuing operations for the last nearly 20 years. The price of outfitting the average soldier has increased 16 times the rate of inflation since the vietnam war. Its five times the rate of inflation, more expensive to buy an armored vehicle, a tank, for example, in that time period as well. I think the realities of these numbers just have not been shared with the american public, so it seems odd that 700 billion isnt enough, but it falls far short of what we had to spend, lets say during the cold war, when you had a global contest against one competitor, and today we still have a global contest with four major competitors in very different parts of the world. Our government just has not done a good job at conveying that reality, and so people find it kind of shocking that our military is falling short in terms of what it has in zperms capabilities. Host dave is in seattle, a democrat. Good morning. Youre on with dakota wood. Caller hello, yes. I had a couple of things to say. When i was in the army a number of years ago, i was in an infantry unit, and it seemed like we did a lot of training. It wasnt individual enough. We didnt learn other peoples jobs well enough. In combat, you can lose a squad leader or machine gun or n no time at all. The other people in the squad didnt know anything about a squad leader or machine gunner or working the radio. But it seemed like everything was for show. Lets go out and put a good show on, and the officers would say, gee, look at that practice attack, thats just wonderful. Thats not real combat, i didnt think. There was a deficiency in our training. And also, my dad, he worked for a shipyard for a number of years, and they used to make destroyer escorts, lot of them. That was nothing. I dont think the shipyards even is in seattle anymore. But you dont hear anything about making ships or anything. Host dave, lets take up the two subjects. Dakota wood . Guest were talking about professionalism of the force. Spent 20 years, u. S. Marine, really, really well led. Other offices or units that i was in, you kind of scratch your head, and we thought we were going to get something a bit better, and thats just human nature, differences between companies, sports teams, family members. Its people being people. So when we talk about small unit leadership, small unit training, whether its individual or aggregated up to larger size units, its incumbent upon that service, the operating forces, various levels of command to try to figure out what it is they should be doing, and do you have quality people who are held accountable for how well theyre training their forces. And that will vary from year year, unit to unit, person to person. On average, we have really good people trying to do the right things for the right reasons. But you can always find shortfalls where something has gone wrong. You have the skipper of a ship thats relieved of command because the higher command structure has lost confidence or something really bizarre happens in the operating space. So there will be those instances because were talking about human beings. But i think were lot better postured today than we were perhaps in past years. As far as the industrial capacity, this is a 30year problem. Sort the end of the cold war, no soviet union, no major competitor, china wasnt a Global Economic power that it is technology today. Technology didnt enable other countries to become an aspiring Nuclear Power with longrange Ballistic Missiles. The u. S. Military shrank dramatic until the 1990s. We went from 770,000 soldiers to now today of 480,000. 550 ships in the yeave. Today, fewer than 300. I think its 298 or so. The air force is 2 3 the size in some cases one half the size behalf it was than we had in the early 1990s. So if you dont have as big of force, you will dont need as Many Companies making as many things. And if you dont have business, you go out of business. So our Defense Industrial base in terms of major manufacturers have shrunk in number. Their ability to produce rcraft and ships and tanks have dramatically reduced. Theres only one company in one city in the country in ohio, general dynamics, that makes tanks. So if you need a dramatic expansion of tanks, where are you going to get that from . Again, its a problem thats evolved over 30 years. There wasnt a compelling case to spend taxpayer money if you thought you need a small military. What we have today, when i talked about this capacity issue, is the need to rebuild, to be able to deal with the world as it is today, where military power actually enables and strengthens diplomacy and economic relationships, and were just falling far short of that. Host how many aircraft carriers do we have right now . Guest Congress Wants us to have somewhere between 12 and 13. I think its a mandated minimum of 11. Weve got nine that are out and about. Most of those are in shipyards, just under standard maintenance. Theres lot made about the United States having, lets say, 11 carriers, and any other country might just have one or two. What doesnt come across in that argument is that for your navy, you only have a small percentage of it that is actually available for deployment. Lets say we had 300 ships. 100 would be available on any given day. Of that 100, you might have 60 that are in the western pacific. Theyre going up against the totality of a chinese navy, the plan, of 350 ships. So youre starting off in a peacetime footing of a 61 disadvantage. Russia, iran, in the persian gulf, north korea with its missile boats, china in the South China Sea, all of their military power is applied and focused on their very near waters, whereas the United States has to sail across 5,000 or 8,000 miles of ocean. It takes three weeks to get that military power where it needs to be, and you have to sustain those operations over time. To do that, the u. S. Just has to have more stuff that is able to be projected and sustained at a longer range of time. And thats why you see these investments, like the carrier that has very modern systems and is better able to do what we would want an aircraft to be able to do. Host lancaster, california, glen, republican, good morning. Caller god bless our troops. The hard working men, and god bless the hardest working president of the United States weve ever had. Heres one thing. What about joe biden . Is that a threat to our military . Him working behind our back with china and barack obama sending planes of foreign money iran, who is one of the biggest threats because theyre a state sponsor of terrorism. And nancy pelosi attacking our president right after we were attacked by iran by not letting im do his job through congress , not letting him have the military capability through ongress in the war powers act, she has this fake russia collusion. Host got your point, glen. Dakota wood, expectations for a Biden Administration . Guest well, theyre going inherent the world that is today, just like donald trump inherited the world that was at the end of the Obama Presidency and obama inherited the one at the end of the george w. Bush presidency. So a lot of things are said on campaign trails. We were talking to enthusiastic crowds, trying to generate support, and you will say this is what i would do, or this is where the person im trying to unseat has really fallen short and made major mistakes. And what every president finds when they come into office is that the reality is far different than the cases that they were making on the campaign trail. Its easier to do some things, but usually its far more difficult to do things that they have promised that they would do when they come into office. And politics is always a part of governoring. We dont want a unit authoritarian autocratic system like exists in beijing or moscow or pyongyang, and so if were going to have different parties competing, youre going to see some heated rhetoric, right . Youre going see people trying to undermine each other. I just havent too many instances where it was lets all pull together to get a particular job done, although thats what every person running for office says we need. You get into office, theres power politicking, there is vying for position and influence and trying to show your way would be better than somebody elses way. I know the caller was talking about a lot of the reporting thats come out in a very Heated Campaign season. I would rather not get into the divisive politics thats really permeated the general election area. I like to focus on our u. S. Military forces and how those forces in any administration or congress should be supporting them, because to the callers point, we have great men and women in the military. And if were going to send them potentially into harms way to secure a Vital National interest, they have to have the resources, the equipment, the training and the leadership to be successful in combat, right . So one would hope that politics stops at the waters edge, but that just doesnt happen. You know, theres a different point of view about how the u. S. Should engage with nato and russia, north korea and china, sfrearg Administration Team to Administration Team. So while biden is putting his Team Together and announcing various individuals, they do have certain political philosophies. And how they go about tchearg out will be transparent to the American People. Congress can either support that or try to push back, and certainly the American Voter can make their voices known on shows like this and at the ballot box when you come around for the next election cycle. Host there was a report noting that president elect joe bidens choice for secretary of defense still in flux. What would be your thoughts on michelle as secretary of defense, if she is, in fact, picked . Guest well, i think she and some of the others that had mentioned, jay johnson and some others, have much more of an internationalist multinational sort of perspective. Put a lot of stock in organizations like nato, which has been dramatically successful over its run, but its also the case that its kind of gotten lazy. Nato member countries have not been contributing to this collective security arrangement in meaningful capabilities as they should. Japan is still in. Theyre starting to wake up to the reality of a very aggressive, expansionist sort of china. I think michele fournay or whoever is nominated is going to deal with the reality of the world in terms of the behavior of competitors, what types of things might the United States do that shapes that behavior, that says, look, its not just diplomacy were bringing to the table, but if you dont come to an agreement that seats both of our interests, especially the United States, which is where President Trump has put the focus, we have the military power to back up protecting our interests as well. How do you do that with a limited stpwhugget how do you do that with a set of allies that have underinvested in their capabilities . And how do you do that with leaders like Vladimir Putin and ping and kim jong un who have been extraordinarily aggressive, manipulative, engaging in information warfare, improving their own military capabilities . So i think, again, its easier write things in academia and to write things from a think tank perspective and what the United States should do, its far different to be in an Actual Office where youre making decisions, going to congress, talking about funding, running major programs in the acquisition world, and dealing with the realities that i just described with competitors and partners. Well just have to see how the aspirations and how the academic talk meets up with the reality of this world that she or somebody else would actual have the to deal with. Host less than 10 minutes left with dakota wood of the Heritage Foundation. Were talking in this segment about the 2021 index of u. S. Military strength. Its put out each year by the Heritage Foundation, heritage. Org, taking your phone calls. Alan has been waiting from indiana, democrat. Good morning. Caller good morning. I hope all are scombl safe this day. Big fan of washington journal. Love your show. Greatest one on tv. Thank you. Before i get cut off, one, i kind of agree that we need wing tips and pumps on the ground rather than boots on the ground. And our state department has suffered budget cuts and a lot of Unfilled Positions have been going there. But i think thats the biggest case case of waste, fraud, mismanagement at the federal government. I believe there was an audit done of the military a couple of years ago, and it said over 20year period, about 12 trillion was lost and unaccounted for, had no where to go. If we have a problem with readiness, i think its more with the training that were lacking. On the subject of aircraft carriers, we have 14 aircraft carriers, the gerald ford was commissioned right after Trump Took Office back in 2017, and theyre building a 15th one now. And all the rest of the world, there are five aircraft carriers. Russia has one, china has two. One of them uses just trained pie throts land on an aircraft carrier. Brazil has one. Host alan, you bring up a couple of topics, and were running out of time, so i want to give dakota wood a chance to respond to one or both. Guest when i think we look at things like the state department, its interesting people talk about the importance of diplomacy, which i agree with. All of my military colleagues agree that. The department of defense agrees with that. You would much rather resolve things diplomatically than put a young man or woman in an american uniform in harms way, in firing rounds at people, receiving rounds in return. So diplomacy is an essential component. I find it interesting then that over a series of administrations we have failed to properly fund the state departments to expand its capabilities. Congress allocating money for it. I mean, if its so important, and we believe it is, why arent we seeing the funding . Its not the Defense Department takes money away from states or somehow manipulates the federal government in any way, shape or form. So what we need to see is movement and action behind the rhetoric that would enable our diplomatic core to be as big and professional as it needs to be and to be empowered to go out and do the things that the caller is talking about. Every military leader that i have served under, around, over, what have you, with, would talk about the importance of our diplomatic brethren doing the things that they do in capitaling all over the world. Its just a challenge when you go into a securitycompromised area like iraq, syria, someplace else, and you dont have the ability to get the ng tip crowd on the ground until the boot wearing crowd actually provides a safe and secure environment for those kind of diplomatic negotiations to go alofpblgt id be looking forward to whichever administration is in office after january 20 to putting much more combasoice diplomacy. But again, that has to be backed up with both economic initiatives, fair trade relationships that benefit the United States, as well as the competent military of sufficient size that is able to do the things we want it to do. Host new york, this is ross, independent. Good morning. Caller good morning, sir. Accomplish tour hear from you. I just had a question. I believe, as you know, i guess you can concur with the first statement, the u. S. Spends more than the next 11 countries combined on the military, is that true . Guest on dollar per dollar, it is. Whats not brought up in that is if your partners arent spending anything, then you are spending dramatically more than anything else combined. So if england, russia, france, spain, japan, south korea were actually investing what they should be investing, then that gap would narrow quite a bit. The other part that doesnt come across in that kind of a comparison is purchasing power parity. Its more expensive to build something in the United States or to provide or pay benefits for a u. S. Service member than it is in china. In china, no Environmental Compliance regulation, no regulatory control mechanisms that u. S. Companies have to deal with, pay standards, living standards, you know, wages and those sorts of things, healthcare, theyre all at much, much lower levels. So if you look what the a dollar buys in the United States and what a dollar would buy in the equivalent economy of china, youre going see a massive disparity. In these comparisons, you have to talk about a level playing field. Host i get the sense ross had a followup, and we only have about a minute or two left. Go ahead. Caller now we have this sparkling defense that spends more money than 11 countries combined. Currently, were defending a country that has d plus infrastructure, roads and bridges were built in 1950, and now all of the stuff is crumbling. Our Education System is down to 50 hoth in the world because we spend local property taxes on education, and they have a brt Education System than we do. The question is, why are we spending so much money on defense when were defending the countries that are falling apart . Guest as a percentage of the federal budget, the Defense Budget is the smallest it has been since prior to the 1930s, for about 3. 2 of g. D. P. Throughout the cold war, it was roughly 5 , 5. 5 am again, as a percentage, its very, very small. Most of the spending from the federal government, taxpayer money and debt, goes to social entitlement programs. So if we want to dedicate money to infrastructure, it has to come from somewhere else. The world is a messy place. Weve got interest globally, if you want jobs at home, you have to be able to sell goods and services to markets abroad. You have to get access to those markets, raw materials. Military power is a part of that. As ive described here in the last, well, during the show, the military is small relative to what the task we assign to what the tasking assignment is worldwide. It is doing this for the smallest percentage of the federal budget, especially as a component of the Gross Domestic Product than at any time in our personal history. We need to look at other places where the government is spending money and see if that is being widely spent or not with respect to the purposes of the federal government differing from state and local level. The dakota wood, at Heritage Foundation, that is heritage. Org. That is where you can find the 2021 index of military strength, but we have been talking ab cspans washington journal. Even day were taking your calls live on the air. Coming up wednesday morning, the drbtor of the National Institute for allergies and infectious diseases, dr. Anthony fauci and then Scott Mccartney talks about Airline Travel during the issues and also affecting native americans and alaska natives and their role in campaign 2020. Watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 eastern wednesday morning. Be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls and Facebook Messages and tweets. On wednesday, Washington Post columnist george will discusses the impact to have trump presidency. Live coverage starts at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, online cspan. Org or listen online on the cspan radio app. U. S. Will lookhe like in a Biden Administration. Americas role in the middle st and impact of troop withdrawals ordered by President Trump. In runs about 10 minutes