US faces growing threats, and we’re woefully unprepared. Here’s how to fix that.

The national security threats against the U.S. are as significant as and more complex than they were at the height of the Cold War or even World War II. We are not prepared to meet these threats today and could, in very short order, find ourselves in a war across multiple theaters with peer and near-peer adversaries that we could lose.   

This is the key finding of a commission established by Congress, which we chaired, to review the current National Defense Strategy, published in 2022. Our bipartisan, unanimous recommendations lay out the steps needed now to avoid this outcome.

Our country has lost its decades-long uncontested military dominance, especially in the Western Pacific. China’s military and industrial strength rivals and in some ways outpaces our own. Its cyber and space capabilities are designed to deter or prevent us from interfering with its aggressive actions in the Western Pacific. 

Despite losses in Ukraine, Russia has transformed itself through a full wartime mobilization and threatens NATO. China and Russia have forged a “no-limits” partnership and they have embraced rogue states Iran and North Korea. Russia receives the means to keep fighting in Ukraine; Iran and North Korea stand to gain weapons and expertise, along with diplomatic and economic protection. All four states seek to counter U.S. influence and their alignment presents a real risk that conflict in any of their three theaters would become a global war. 

All this comes when the Department of Defense is struggling to meet current demands. As Ukraine demonstrates, we’re straining to produce the weapons and equipment needed for one limited war, let alone the all-out conflict we could soon face. Our commission recommends a new approach, greater use of commercially available technology, fully embracing our allies and partners, and an increased investment in manufacturing capacity and our industrial workforce.

Change at the Defense Department, as hard as that is, will not be enough. Matching China’s strength requires a fully integrated approach involving all elements of national power: the strength of the U.S. military in true partnership with our first-class innovation base, plus a coordinated effort involving diplomacy, economic investment, cybersecurity, trade, education, industrial capacity, civic engagement and international cooperation.

This strategy was successful in the Cold War but since then our ability to execute it has atrophied. We have asked the military to do too much with too little, allowed new threats to accumulate, and allowed other elements of our government to under-prioritize their own role in national security.

There are bright spots. The Biden administration has expanded and strengthened NATO and enhanced relationships with allies and partners across the Pacific. This is critical as the U.S. cannot deter or win future wars without our allies. Strengthening them, through funding and better information sharing, cooperative industrial relationships and military exports, helps them and us. 

Our commercial sector is another enormous strategic advantage. It rapidly outpaces the Defense Department at military innovation, including AI, robotics and autonomy. Yet the Defense Department’s culture still relies on internal research and development and decades-old platforms better suited to yesterday’s wars. Ukraine is integrating new technology rapidly with older systems — on the order of weeks, not years. Russia has learned this lesson; we must as well.

Better technology means we need not match our potential adversaries platform to platform, but still the U.S. force structure is insufficient. The U.S. military is the smallest it has been in generations due to policy decisions and recruitment shortfalls. The National Defense Strategy is outdated in calling for a force able to fight in one theater and deter aggression elsewhere. We are already involved in wars in Europe and the Middle East, with a larger threat looming from China.

We recommend a Joint Force able to simultaneously defend the homeland, lead allies in deterring China, and spearhead allies and partners to keep Russia and Iran in check. This demands a worldwide presence — military, diplomatic and economic — including across the Global South, where China and Russia are gaining influence in our relative absence.

None of this is possible without the support of the American people, who are largely unaware and unprepared for the dangers we face, including that the U.S. homeland is no longer a sanctuary or immune from attack. Ultimately, the public will have to shoulder the cost of what is needed.

Our national security budgets must be broader than Defense and include the critical missions at the departments of State, Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, Education and others. We also must spend smarter, not just spend more. That includes divesting from legacy ill-suited to future warfare and quitting governing through continuing resolutions.

To overcome the threats of the Cold War, the U.S. spent at minimum 4.9 percent of GDP on defense. Today, we are at 3 percent of GDP and we spend more servicing the interest on debt than we do on defense. On a unanimous basis, our commission recommends paying for additional spending by raising revenues and reforming entitlement spending.

A new approach to national power is needed for the United States to retain its position in the world and deter and, if necessary, defeat our adversaries. Our commission recommends these changes to Congress and the White House and we urge both presidential campaigns to conduct a serious public conversation about the threats we face and how to deal with them. Urgent change and increased spending are difficult; losing a war would be far worse.

Jane Harman chairs the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. She represented California’s 36th District in the House of Representatives for nine terms. Eric Edelman is the vice chair of the Commission. He was previously ambassador to Turkey and Finland and under secretary of Defense for Policy.