(This is the fifth in a series of AI-generated analyses of the right-wing manifesto “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise.“)

Section 2 of the conservative manifesto “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership,” Common Defense, offers a conservative perspective on the state of the U.S. military and proposes significant reforms. We begin with an examination of Chapter 4: Department of Defense.

Military ‘Wokeness’: A Contested Issue

The document defines “wokeness” as initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the military. It argues that these efforts undermine military effectiveness by:

  • Prioritizing social agendas over warfighting capabilities.
  • Weakening unit cohesion and morale.
  • Diverting resources from readiness.

However, the document doesn’t provide concrete evidence for these claims. There’s ongoing debate about the impact of DEI programs on military effectiveness. Whether social policies are harming the military is a complex issue. There have been concerns that issues like gender integration could hurt unit cohesion, but studies have shown mixed results. It’s important to note that the military itself has embraced diversity efforts in recent years. In 2021, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that diversity is “absolutely essential” to military readiness.

Focus on China and Increased Spending

The document prioritizes China as the primary threat and proposes significant increases in defense spending. Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments:

  • China’s Military Buildup: The document highlights China’s rapid military modernization, including nuclear weapons expansion. It argues for a “denial defense” to prevent China from seizing Taiwan or other strategic territories.
  • Need for Modernization: The author believes the U.S. military lags in key areas like technology and needs more resources to compete with China.
  • Burden-Sharing: The document calls for increased defense spending by U.S. allies to lessen the burden on American taxpayers.

These arguments raise important questions:

  • Cost of Increased Spending: The financial feasibility of a significant spending increase is a major concern. Would it come at the expense of other essential programs?
  • Focus on China: While China is a major power, should other threats like terrorism and regional conflicts be neglected?
  • Effectiveness of “Denial Defense”: Can a purely defensive strategy deter China or would a more nuanced approach be necessary?

But again, the need for increased military spending is another complex issue. The US already spends more on its military than any other country in the world, and some argue that this spending is wasteful or inefficient. Others argue that the US needs to spend more to counter growing threats from China and Russia.

Critique of the Acquisition Process

The document criticizes the slow and inefficient process of acquiring new military equipment. It proposes reforms to:

  • Streamline decision-making to speed up the procurement process.
  • Encourage innovation and collaboration with the private sector.
  • Replenish depleted stockpiles of weapons and ammunition.

These are valid concerns. Delays and bureaucratic hurdles can hinder military readiness. However, the document doesn’t address potential drawbacks of faster acquisition, such as overlooking potential flaws in new technologies.

Conclusion

Project 2025’s chapter on the Department of Defense presents a conservative viewpoint on military reform. The document raises important questions about “wokeness” and defense spending, but its arguments lack nuance and require further evidence. It offers a valuable critique of the acquisition process but doesn’t fully explore the potential consequences of proposed solutions. A comprehensive assessment of the U.S. military requires considering diverse perspectives and conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis before implementing major reforms.

Scary Quotes

“Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for service members should be ended.”

“Reinstate service members to active duty who were discharged for not receiving the COVID vaccine, restore their appropriate rank, and provide back pay.” (In other words, hire back soldiers who refused direct orders.)

About the Author

Christopher Miller, who, after a brief stint as acting secretary of defense under Donald Trump, wrote a memoir in which he asserted that our military is “bloated and wasteful” and argued that we could “cut our defense budget in half and it would still be nearly twice as big as China’s,” according to The Nation.  You can read the entire article here.

Read the Entire Series

Reject Project 2025

Read the Entire Document Here (If You Dare)

2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Leave a comment