Busy in fixing this problem. We are going to do so, of course, not just by saying this is a blank check, as long as you put military in it. A warning from heritage not just that this is a blank check, but to spend as we have allocated on the right things for American Military wellness to protect the government. The one person in congress you can find who is so eloquent about this happens to be with us today. Congressman Mike Gallagher is, in fact, the man of the hour. He has served since 2017, seven years prior and the u. S. Marine corps including two deployments to iraq. He served as the Central CommandAssessment Team in the middle east and has worked with multiple agencies within the intelligence agency. Congressman gallagher serves on the Permanent Select Committee of intelligence and the transportation and Infrastructure Committee from 20192021. He served as cochair of the Cyberspace Commission with strategic approaches to defense against evolving Cyber Threats to the United States. One logistical note, after congressman gallaghers remarks, we will have a conversation with the editor of the index and her executive Vice President and you will of course have opportunities to ask questions. Please join me in welcoming congressman gallagher. [applause] congress and gallagher thank you kevin, congressman gallagher thank you for inviting me here today, congratulations on the publication of the 2023 military strength which is an incredible accomplishment. You should be very proud. Although, i have to say that i dont know what was more depressing. Watching my Green Bay Packers lose to the new york jets who i didnt even know where a professional Football Team until i was there on sunday, or reading this years military index which, for the first time in the history of the heritage index, downgraded the overall rating of the u. S. Military. I thought to myself, it sure would be nice if we didnt have to spend all this money on military strength in pursuit of peace. But here is the problem. We have tried everything else. And none of it seems to work. For example, at the height of utopianism that characterized the civil war period, the senate actually attempted to outlaw war by ratifying a pack on january 15, 1929. The only no vote was wisconsin senator john blame who as the author of the 21st amendment must have understood that outlawing war would work about as well as outline alcohol. He subsequently lost his senate seat. He was censured by the wisconsin state legislature. While secretary kellogg won the nobel peace prize. But just a few years later, japan, germany, austria, italy violated the treaty, eventually leading to world war ii. In fact, today, war remains outlawed. And yet war persists. Because these same utopian administration has gone farther, deluding itself into thinking that integrated deterrence succeeded. In ukraine. Barely one month into the war. Anonymous pentagon officials bravely bragged to the western postthat integrated deterrence comes out smelling pretty good from this. The tens of thousands of dead ukrainians, millions more displaced should not smell, look, or feel good. A profile luading included boasting that we are literally define the laws of bureaucratic physics by how fast we are going in ukraine. Now, i am a marine, not a physicist, but newtons first law of motion states that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an sternal force. And on february 20 4, 2022, deterrence failed in ukraine because, as putin put his invasion plans into motion, President Biden repeatedly signaled that he would not put American Power in putins way. The president primitively pulled american troops out of ukraine. Facing threats of nuclear escalation. Eventually after we went back and forth Armed Services committee, the secretary actually admitted that integrated deterrence failed in ukraine and that pushed short of the commitment of u. S. Military forces into ukraine proper, putin was not deterred. This was an inadvertent admission about the supremacy of hard power in matters of deterrence, one that has profound implications for how we deter a war with china over taiwan. For when it comes to taiwan, time is not on our side. We had entered the window of maximum danger, a reference to phil davidson, assessing that china may make a move on taiwan within the next five years. A hard power within the davidson window is dangerous. And yet the Biden Administration insists on doing just that. The Defense Budget would force the navy to bottom out at 280 ships in the air force to cut over 1000 airplanes by 2027, just in time for the hundredth anniversary to target them for having the capability to take taiwan. Most of the Transformative Technology invested in with the 9. 5 increase in the research and Development Budget from weapons to domain commandandcontrol may not be fielded until the 20 30s, if at all. Making matters worse, we are running low on the munitions that are essential to both ukraine and taiwan. Two months into the war, we have already sent ukraine a quarter of our entire stockpile. In more than seven years. Admittedly, some people think im too pessimistic and think that the 59yearold xi jinping who this week is securing a third term as general secretary of the Chinese Communist party will abandon his lifelong ambition of taking taiwan. But look at what he has just recently gotten away with. Hong kong. Genocide. Covering up the coronavirus pandemic that killed at least 6 Million People globally. Furthermore, skyrocketing household debt. The demographic buzz saw dealing with more retirees than any society in Human History all get worse in the 20 30s. Why would he wait . We must not gamble the fate of the free world on xis restraint, nor on our own utopian delusion that somehow we have evolved beyond war of territorial expansion. We must put american hard power in his path before it is too late. Longterm investments to rebuild American Military in general and maritime superiority in particular are critical. The reality is we will not be able to build the navy the nation the and the next five years. But what we can do, it is in the davidson window. However, build the antinavy. I mean forces and weapons designed to target the chinese navy, denied in control of the area surrounding taiwan and prevent amphibious forces from gaining on the island. The first step in building this antinavy does not actually require us to decide any laws of physics, bureaucrat or otherwise. So technically, it is rocket science. Now that we are no longer bound by the inf treaty, we can serve in three concentric rings across the pacific. The first island chain, the Second Island chain, and the outer edges including alaska, hawaii, and australia. In the first, we need shorter ranged antiair defense missiles , strike missiles, longrange antimissiles. These weapons will be operated by army and marine corps standing forces, especially in the Southern Japanese and northern Philippine Islands and wherever possible, they should be containerized so as to confuse chinese targets. In the second ring, we need extended range maritime strike, hocks and other intermediate range missiles. And in the third rate, we need longerranged intermediate missiles with advanced, energetic materials in places like alaska and australia. The point is that the rocket, chinas antinavy has fielded low cost to keep american ships out and target American Forces concentrated in a few fixed locations. We have used the same logic against them. Building an antinavy that can sink ships and on taiwans beaches. The second step in building the antinavy is to stockpile munitions before the shooting starts. That is one of the big lessons of ukraine. At current production rates it will take at least two years to boost production to 4000 missiles annually. In many cases, Chinese Government is the sole source for the primary provider for the materials used in our missiles. To fix this, the pentagon should stop buying critical munitions and start maxing out its capacity of active production lines through multiyear contracts, drawing on the lessons of operation warp speed. We can also modernize the defense production act and use it to provide direct project financing, automatic fast tracking, and investments in Defense Workforce training. Consider that when i first deployed to iraq in 2007, most were still riding around in highly vulnerable humvees and when i returned in 2008, as if by magic, suddenly we all had. But of course it wasnt magic, it was because the secretary was building them as his highest acquisition priority. The next secretary of defense must similarly make rebuilding our Industrial Base a personal crusade. The third and final step in building this antinavy is deterring all of the talk about arming taiwan to the teeth into reality. We start with moving taiwan to the front of the military line and clearing the backlog of 14 billion of items that have been approved but not delivered to taiwan. Going even further by providing direct Financial Assistance to taiwan, and by getting the pentagon the authority to directly provide what it already enjoys with ukraine. For example, rather than demilitarized in hundreds of harpoon missiles or putting them into deep storage, the pentagon could utilize the authority and make any modern or necessary certification and send these missiles along with their associated launchers to taiwan. We should also learn from the first two taiwan crises where president eisenhower dramatically increased power on and around the island. This means decreasing the size and frequency of american activeduty and National Guard rotations on taiwan and giving them the tools they need to help put chinese amphibious ships on the bottom of the taiwan strait. We can complete these steps within the davidson window. We could pay for it by reducing the size of the civilian workforce, the joint staff, the office of secretary of defense, the overall number of general officers, and the fastgrowing bureaucracy. We can recycle valuable assets that contribute nothing to war fighting like golf courses. We could resurrect the 2015 defense study of Business Practices which identified a path to saving 125 billion over five years, more than enough to build both the antinavy and the navy the nation needs. In other words, we dont lack options, we lack leadership. We lack leadership in the pentagon capable of bending the bureaucracy to their will. In service of a Defense Strategy that prioritizes hard power. And we lack leadership in the white house that understands the paradox at the heart of deterrence. That to avoid war, you must convince your adversaries that you are both capable and willing to wage war. If we ignore hard lessons about hard power, if we continue down this utopian path, or if we allow the fear of escalation to dominate our decisions, we will feedxis appetite for conquest and we will invite war itself. By choosing instead to put the antinavy in his path, we can deter war in the short term and buy time to build a navy that defeats communism over the longterm. Thank you and im happy to entertain some questions. [applause] if you can identify yourself and any organizations you are affiliated with. Microphone. Congressman, i am a soldier no longer young. I recently celebrated with my family two then yes. One, i celebrated my 80th birthday, and i told my family of eight grandsons and granddaughters that i was not doing that handoff very well. We are in for tough times. You give me the second then yet wien yet viniette that there is hope in the antinavy that you speak of. Now there is hope in doing the kinds of preparation. So my question to you, ive addressed future leaders and ive been pretty hard on them. What can i tell my grandsons and granddaughters that gives us the kind of hope that you just articulated and also, for new lieutenants in the army and also the marine corps . Thank you very much. Thank you for your question, thank you for your service. I am told that old soldiers never die, they just stay away. Or at least he got his commission to west point. I would say a few things. Something has happened in the last six years that ive never encountered in my time in congress. Now i have parents coming up to me whose kids are considering the military enlisting or going to the Service Academy and they are saying is this a good idea . There is a new glitch in the matrix that is very, very troubling. Absolutely. The best decision i ever made in my life was joining the United States marine corps. A phenomenal experience for every young man and woman who wants to serve this great country of ours. Absolutely do it. The perceived polymerization of the military, i believe we are going to have a very productive agenda if republicans take control of the house, one that is squarely focused on rebuilding our excellence and focus when it comes to matters of work. I think you are going to see a change and i think the American People are going to support that change. In my mind, all of this comes down to basic love of country. In other words, how do you convince young men and women to fight and die for a country that in some parts of the country we are teaching them is evil or racist or a neocolonial health scape that must consul he apologize for its past and be afraid of its shadows . In other words, we need to have confidence that our values are indeed superior to the values if that term is even the right 1 that the Chinese Communist party is putting out there. The final thing i would say is i believe we do face an existential threat from the Chinese Communist party, so we are going to meet everybody. Those that choose to serve, the private sector, we need everybody to get on team america. We are not destined, necessarily to win this competition. We have to work hard not only to prevent world war iii, but to win the longterm competition. Please, dont lose faith in the basic goodness of this country. It may not be perfect, but it happens to be the best experiment in Human History. So let us not screw it up. Let us not be the generation to screw up whole thing. [applause] by the way, the hard questions go to this panel. I west point grad in one of our that we have currently in mclean. It was mentioned that 17 congressman did not nominate any future cadets, and my question is do you think it is a lack of interest in the young men or women, or is it Something Else in congress . For people to know, each congressman was allowed to have five cadets at one time. If someone dropped out, you could replace them the following year. I just was amazed that 17 congressman did not nominate anybody. Well, we thank you for that, thank you for your service. Im always indebted to army officers. Without knowing the specifics of the 17 cases, quite honestly it would shock me if the explanation were there wasnt interest within the Congressional District of 750,000 people to have five or so young kids apply for the service. That would shock me. I dont know what the issue is. Notwithstanding some of the controversies weve had over curriculum at academies and some of the backandforth with others, i would say the best part of my job is getting to nominate young kids to go to the Service Academy. This kind of gets to your question. I think it is the quality of Young Americans that are applying. I mean, it is so competitive, i dont think i could get in if i were a heisel kid applying today. It is so powerful to see the parents reactions. I stole this idea from a colleague of mine but ive used it for the last six years. When we get a notification from the Service Academy a little bit ahead of when the family does, i will call the school and tell the principal to get the kid out of class. They have a spotless record, theyve never been in trouble, so for the first time in their lives they think they are getting suspended. And then i am on the phone or i am there in person and i say you dont know me, i am a member of congress and wanted to be the first to congratulate you on getting into west point or Naval Academy and i look forward to you serving this country. The kids will cry, the parents will cry. I had my tear ducts removed a few years ago. But it is such a great opportunity for kids. I have to look into those cases. It is a matter of members of congress not getting out there and promoting. Im with the Washington Times and before any boos, i was also a soldier once and fought in iraq myself. Are there any marines . Ive heard several problems with the military in the last couple of years. Some specifics if you end up taking one or both houses of on capitol hill nick couple months . Next month . The caveat, i dont speak for who will be the chairman of the committee. Mike rogers is phenomenal. I think the northstar for all of our efforts has to be more fighting in my speech. War fighting says the military had two purposes. I am paraphrasing, that is what it says. That has to guide all of our efforts. If that contributes to our war fighting ability, i would go further and say some of the controversies weve had over the growing diversity of equity inclusion, bureaucracy and the military are a problem that we will address in the next congress. I do think we are going to need to rebalance our ratio and identify some areas that at least require study of the joint staff. A great book recently talked about the way in which our Acquisition Workforce is one of the 75,000 people, i mentioned the civilian workforce which is 813,000 at last count. I do think those are areas where republicans could be more responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars. At the same time we are arguing for a bigger increase in defense investment, but here is the other thing we need. We are in charge of the house. I cant speak for the senate. They spend plenty of time speaking for themselves. We need it all to add up to a coherent strategy. What is our plan, in simple terms . Not in a highlyacronymed jargon or highly bureaucratic language to defend taiwan from a looming chinese invasion . If we cant articulate that it is going to be hard for us to consider ourselves proponents of defense spending and make a case that this is a sound investment of their money. We need to force them to articulate this in simple and direct language. Those are just a few ideas. And happy to elaborate more. Congressman, the u. S. And canada. Thank you very much for sharing your views. Im curious about one thing. One of that the u. S. Has is france. About working with mostly and strongest ally. I would like to hear you elaborate a bit on working with allies and partners, which i think will be extremely important as we share the same values. First of all, thank you for your countrys friendship with hours and contributions to both of our securities. It is certainly appreciated in a bipartisan fashion on capitol hill. Lets start with europe. Some of the rhetoric weve seen from nato members in general and western European Countries in particular, about investing more in defense, contribute in more to ukraine. The United States cant do all of us this this by ourselves. I will go further and say i think what they are trying to do with his routine process for coordinated with all of the members that made promises is a good effort, and it deserves bipartisan support. But we need to make sure people actually deliver. The fundamental problem we have in terms of our rhetoric surrounding nato is that we u. S. Politicians are assessed with the input and not the output. What do we constantly hear about nato . 2 of gdp. That is important. Want every member to meet the promise but i am more interested in what that 2 buys. And if it doesnt buy things that work together, if we dont have a coherent, integrated plan for defending against russian aggression, then that money is wasted. We should also look for every opportunity to identify new partners. We just got a couple more nato allies, which is a good thing. The ukrainians have proven how important it is and how powerful it is when you have friends that are willing to fight. That, for those who are concerned that we are overextended in the world and they want to entrench, well, maybe you can find efficiency if you are willing to work with and through allies and partners on the ground. That is a lesson i learned from my time in iraq and in some cases, and afghanistan. When it comes to allies and partners, my concern with this administration, much like the Obama Administration before it has gotten the basic Alliance Structure wrong. There is a historic level of cooperation underway between israel and the arab gulf states. Weve never seen this happen before, we should harness it. It is the foundation for regional stability. Put differently, if you want us to do less in the middle east, the only responsible way to reduce american posture is by working more aggressively with that emerging alliance. In this alliance built in opposition to iran. Iran is the long pole in the tent. We made the mistake over multiple administrations of prioritizing peace. We have an opportunity in the middle east to build upon the Abraham Accords and bring in some countries into that framework. Not only for saudi arabia, but in other regions, indonesia, for example, which leads to the indo pacific. If we wanted to integrate diplomacy into military deterrence in the indo pacific, what would we be doing . At the top of the list, we would be spending a lot more time and Energy Building a relationship with philippines and japan. We would be spending you would get a lot of bang for your buck. These islands we tend to neglect, weve seen this play out, the dangers of taking your eye off the ball and allowing the chinese to fill the vacuum. Why havent we come up with an agreement . That is low hanging fruit in the indo pacific. They are willing to host expanded u. S. Military to harden all of our infrastructure. Theres so many opportunities. In the final thing is i do think the heart of the free world is and i dont mean this as an insult to anyone who is not inside, but are inside partners are our closest allies. I think that was a great achievement, ive praise the pentagon officials who are responsible for that. Heres the problem. It gets to the main message that i hope you take away from my speech. The problem is Australian Nuclear subs until midtolate 2030. But that doesnt solve the shortterm problems. Why are we harnessing august to fuel technology in the last two years . I mentioned intermediaterange missiles. There are many ways we can build upon our closest alliances. Another problem we have, we still have these arcane rules which prevent us from calabro lighting collaborating technologically. There is so much more we can do to get more defense at less cost. Thank you very much for being here today. That was an excellent opening speech. Please join me in welcoming. [applause] just going to join me up here on the stage to discuss a little bit more detail about the next military strength in 2023. Dakota, the first thing we talked about is a Solid Foundation of data and research. Can you describe for a little bit how we came about, what kind of data are you looking at and how do you build that foundation . All of the things that we go to our opensource. The interviews, congressional testimony, if the army wants to buy something, there is a request for that. We spent a lot of time building on the quartercentury, 36 years, some individuals with Prior Service and buying into these materials and extracting the Public Record the things that are relevant to military power. So every comment that we make in the index, every figure, every assessment is linked to some source, Something Like 2500 footnotes where anybody can go to the same material that we went to and decide for themselves, are we accurately portraying it were not . We think it is a wonderful compendium of information and anybody else would have to spend months if they knew where to go. We put all that together and it is that data that is under all of the insights and the final assessments and conclusions weve come to. Weve got a long history of doing that, whether you agree with recommendations were not. Wherever we found the data, you can find it yourself. Can you talked was a little bit about the main headline that is coming out today regarding overall military strength . How do we come to that conclusion, and what does that mean . We didnt do that with a smile on her face at all. We have a range of very strong to very weak and we specifically structured our methodology so that they are big, chunky things. How do you determine the difference between 70 and 71 on a 100 point scale . Things really have to be dramatic to cause us to improve or decline. Weve just seen this trend over time that this is in the tank. Most of the equipment that the services use, the average age of an air force fighter, u. S. Air forces 32 years old. Continental Ballistic Missiles in 1970s. These are just examples of the kinds of equipment that people were using. We specifically stated this is not an indictment of the soldier, guardian, marine, whomever. We have wonderful people that are working extraordinary hours every week with deployments that they are equipped with into the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. An aircraft off of a carrier or an air base, doesnt need any opposition, you are still using flight time in the aircraft. And over the last 20 years of sustained use, the services and their forces have just gotten progress older. They are not being modernized to replace. So the military we have is too small. The navy is half the size it was during the cold war. The marine corps in the army, perhaps two thirds. The air force, 650 pilots. It is a numbers game. What we did historically was see how much military powers actually used in korea or vietnam. If were going to commit to the defense of nato allies in europe, does that mean that you cant cover down on it japan and the philippines, or taiwan . The ability to do two things in different parts of the world is really very important. Our military is not up to that. And the readiness levels are just so low we just had the overall score for military power. You given us several headlines there. One of the ones that drew my attention in the report which was excellent is the flight hours in the air force. Can you explain why it is that we are not giving our young pilot the hours that they need in flight . Is a money issue and a perspective issue. If you only drove your car once a week and everybody was saying that is all you the need, youre probably a pretty good driver. Until you get into a dicey situation. Youre on a slippery road or heavy traffic or Something Like that, and you find out that maybe once a week isnt enough. So if you go five or six times, muscle memory, just a sense of what is going on. For too many years, piland that had the sense that flying just once or twice a week was good enough and you supplement that with this time that is good to go. Our operations of the last 20 years have been against terrorist groups and insurgents with no airpower, no antiairpower, no defense systems. So your ability to do things becomes normalized if you think what you are doing is good enough. So we go back to the old days of the cold war and you are fighting against a competent, capable opponent. Air force powers would routinely pilots would routinely fly 250, more than three and it hours per year. Some of our most capable aircraft im down there in the mid70s. If you can imagine that, 74, 75 hours per year. It is a funding thing. The cost of fuel and repair on the airplane is one aspect and then there is this other aspect of do i think im flying enough to be competent . Those things are really in question and that service in particular in that area, we think we see echoes in other areas of military training. Could you speak to the u. S. Navy . You mentioned that the fleet is about half the size it was in the cold war, but i think you told me before that we have about the same number of ships at any given time. What does that do to navy morale and recruitment and retention and overall readiness . I tried to keep things single. If i have two cars at home, if i lose one of those vehicles, then i have to do everything with one. I have doubled the load on that. It is going to wear out faster, the tires wear out faster. Fewer people making those deliveries. The same thing with navy ships as a good example of this. If you are near 600 ships near the end of the cold war and you kept 100 deployed on average each day, you have 292. So half the number of ships. You still have 100 deployed every day. Each crew on those chips is working twice as hard. You are deploying the ships twice as often. You get into a shipyard, there are more things broken that they have to repair. You can see the backlog of other ships. Other crews waiting for their rest. We have too few things, and they are still working at the same operational tempo. The system starts to break down. Ive got one more while youre thinking of your question, and that as i remembered when i worked for the Vice President , he used to talk about the Defense Department that he inherited as secretary of defense. It wasnt something that was built in a day. It was because of the Reagan Defense bill all through the 80s. A decisive impact. And i think the military spending in the 80s was over 5 of gdp, about 5. 7 . Can you talk to us about what it is going to be necessary to do over a long time in order to get us prepared . They would say they were paying a welder to do the exact same thing to keep the submarine operational under the sea takes about five years. If you wanted to expand production of a particular thing, you have to hire the workforce, train them to a level of competency before you can even start delivering new materials to your force. The congressman had spoken about the munitions for ukraine, trying to defend their own country against russia. One of the companies that made some of those missile items said they would have a replacement in two or three years. The army dramatically shrank. You can deactivate an army brigade overnight. There is this time consideration that takes years to build, years to train units, years to replace expended inventories. Minimum sustained rates meaning that you have a minimal workforce, introducing just enough to keep the company in business. If you want to expand that, there is a huge delay. This idea of insurance policy, of deterrent value, part of that is associated with the money that you put into the system. To keep the forces healthy, trained, with good, modern equipment. When we have a looming threat like china on the horizon, we have no excuse to not act today. Lets see, do we have any questions from the audience . Wait for the microphone. Thank you for coming. The nature of the military is kind of changing and in some ways is pretty demoralizing. A big part of that, as gallagher said in his intro with the personnel. A lot of great people leave the military because it is such a demoralizing and unrewarding place to be for success and that leads people who we dont want to stay in, but also people leave who are smart and kind of perpetuate neverending cycle of development instead of actually creating products that can sustain that dont work, we dont know how to use and are inoperable. So what is kind of a plan to better the personnel and our military and ensure that we have strong leaders who could go to war . Thank you for your future service. What about recruiting . The army has come up short in its recruiting goal, i know you have been looking at this issue intently as well. Retaining them over a time, and then when you leave, what do you do after that . If you join the military to fly an airplane and dont get to fly an airplane, why would you want to stay in . Go to the field and rehearsal or practice. Making those days and hours for retaining personnel. Everybody who joins suffers from ptsd. A lot of that we see in the literature and media which is completely inaccurate, why would somebody want to join . Since 1980 or so, the American Population has grown. And yet our military, i will use the army as an example, has shrunk. So you got these two trendlines are more and more people have less and less access to a smaller military. The individual person just doesnt have a reference point. Part of this, and congressman gallagher talked about it, is this National Level to have a discussion about the mobility and value and importance of military service that would fund the military subset and tank guys could go to the field and shoot rounds, but there has to be a sense of worthwhileness. Having this kind of discussion and dialogue, you produce great citizens for the country who are more citicminded, more involved in their communities. It is a cycle if you can kickstart that again. And the Heritage Foundation is put together a National Level commission to look at this idea of recruiting and volunteer service, specifically with the military. Weve got members of congress involved. It is this idea of what are the obstacles . How do we make serving in the military valued and seen as worthwhile . We really look forward to the results of that effort. You gave an excellent speech. When they talk about covid, they talk about the people who are going to have the worst outcomes are the ones with comorbidities. They are obese and they have this problem or that problem. That is what recruiting right now is. A collection of comorbidities, if you will. The current labor market is 3. 5 , the lowest in anyones memory. A small number of americans can qualify for military service. 23 percent of americans can qualify to come into the military. Some because of obesity, some because of drug use, some because of Mental Health issues. Just a decreasing propensity on the part of Young Americans to serve in the military. We have to make the case to Young Americans why they should serve. And the old arguments about college aid and things like that are not attracting young people nowadays they are just not working. We can increase enlistment bonuses. Money isnt touching this generation. We have to think about this problem much more differently than we have in the past. We look forward to the results of that commission. We have more questions, i think weve got one here. I think we have time for two more. What do you all make of the seemingly growing disconnect between the urgency on capitol hill about the china challenge, leaders and dear the also expressing a timeframe of 57 years. Ive heard even sooner, potentially, from capitol hill leadership. And the lack of urgency it seems in the opposition process. If we are really looking at that time frame, why are we stockpiling that initiative today . Why are we buying more things right now . Maybe two or three cycles before 2027, so what do you make of that disconnect . Does dod not see the challenge or is it pure, bureaucratic inefficiency . I think it is an excellent question. You know in the end that china is our biggest threat. A nuclear competitor and that we have to be ready to deter them and if necessary, fight them. How would you compare china and russia . And are we really ready . If we act now, will we be able to deter china . There is a mat in the index that talked about nato member country spending. What you find is the people in the countries that are closer to russia approach the defense spending more seriously. The further away you are geographically, or the more distracted you are with more social spending at home, the lower those levels are. The challenge with the United States is we are miles away from china, a big pacific ocean. How does that with the effect wisconsin or florida . In russia, they seem to be handling it. Ukrainians are just doing extraordinary things and we are giving them all this stuff, but how does that translate into having a ready squadron . The whole idea is this proximity to risk. And whether you believe bad things can really happen. We all know at some point, you will have an accident, somebody else will bump into you, and so you carry insurance. The military is on a National Insurance policy. Nobody wants to go to war. Integrated deterrence, diplomacy, economic relationships will keep war from ever happening. So now you are a member of congress. How do you make the case your constituents about increased defense spending . At Subsidized Health care, subsidized education, subsidized wherever it might be. So all of the spending that occurs in washington, d. C. Goes to those domestic issues. And you are saying we actually might have to go to war, this would be the level of severity. And it is hard to really put data to that. Saying that by 2027, we beat will be at war with china. That risk is high. I feel a sense of urgency to do something today to be ready for a battle that i promise you will have in five years from now. We cant make those guarantees. I think it has to seep into the public psyche. Members Like Congress and gallagher making the case on a National Stage level that bad things do happen over which we have very little control, but we can prevent russia from going into ukraine. I dont know if we could prevent iran from actually developing a new your weapon. And yet wind a nuclear weapon. And when the bad thing happens, it is too late. I think it is experience, intelligence, and some wisdom. We know we have to be ready. And im encouraged that what im seeing on capitol hill, they are understanding the threat of the chinese calmest party. Not just foreign policy, domestic policy, trade policy, all in the context of communist china. Im encouraged that there is a growing awareness and i think this is one element, one very important element to be prepared so we know the most effective way to prepare is to have things to be prepared for. He is over here in my blind spot. This quite a lot of online questions, im going to try my best to read. Those that already have been addressed. There is several here that touch on posture. Perhaps it is worthwhile maybe talking a little bit about that part that talks about threat by region, and the need for more posture changes. To kind of cage the question a little bit, there is a concern about ukraine in europe. Our military posture in europe, maybe the middle east a little bit on that. A direct question about taiwan, being incountry as opposed to approximate. And another question about north korea on the uptake. What needs to change in japan and south korea for the u. S. Military disposition . Dark out we got a quarter billion words in the index to address all of this. I dont know that we can get into all the details. In general, the posture is not what it was in the past. Career veterans will often talk about how during the cold war, the air force had 29 squadrons squadrons in europe alone. The active component today is 32 total. 32 across the air force active. In the old days he had 29 just stationing in europe. Today the u. S. Army has two brigades, a stryker Brigade Infantry brigade terminally based in europe. A far cry from the level of u. S. Presence back in the cold war. The same thing. Dramatic drawdown on the korean peninsula. Minimal footprint in japan, all Things Considered compared to the cold war. When the 1990s occurred, we brought everybody back home. We maintained a token presence abroad in these other regions. 9 11 happens. Now it is counterterrorism, counterinsurgency. Primarily in afghanistan and iraq. We focused Operational Presence there but did not build up in these locations in the world. History has a way of coming back. Russia may be performing poorly, but look at the expenditure of munitions, equipment, manpower, the casualties, people pouring into that theater. When we think about from a u. S. Perspective and our ability to support partners and allies we need more things forward postured. It takes 10 days to sail across the atlantic. Three weeks across the pacific. That time component. Once a crisis occurs it takes months to prepare, deploy. Treaty obligations, looming threats. Chinas military expansionism. The stuff russia is doing. Syria, iran. It calls for a greater level of attention and investment in u. S. Capability to buttress what our allies are also reinvesting in. I will leave it at that and direct folks to the index for a detailed discussion. Thats a good place to end. We have the index available. It is a great diagnosis. The description of where we are. We have a series of recommendations available to start to rebuild our military in a way to make us prepared to keep the peace. Thank you for those of you online he watched. Until next time, thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2022] [applause] [crowd talking]