The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
Winning the Next War: Overcoming the U.S. Air Force’s Capacity, Capability, and Readiness Crisis
English Summary
The Mitchell Institute argues that the U.S. Air Force has entered a severe force-generation crisis, describing it as the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history at a time of rising peer threats. The report’s core reasoning is that deterrence and warfighting credibility depend on balancing three linked factors: sufficient force size, modern combat capability, and day-to-day readiness, and that current shortfalls across all three create unacceptable operational risk. It recommends a dual fiscal shift: increase top-line Air Force funding and reallocate internal spending from RDT&E toward procurement and operations and maintenance to rebuild near-term combat readiness. Strategically, the paper warns that failing to act now will raise the probability of major U.S. losses in a future high-end conflict and weaken U.S. deterrence posture.
中文摘要
研究認為，美國空軍已陷入嚴重的兵力生成危機，並指出，在面臨日益嚴峻的同儕威脅之際，美國空軍正處於其歷史上兵力最老、規模最小、戰備最差的時期。報告的核心論點是，威懾和作戰可信度取決於三個相互關聯的因素之間的平衡：充足的兵力規模、現代化的作戰能力和日常戰備狀態。目前這三個面向均不足，造成了不可接受的作戰風險。報告建議採取雙重財政改革：增加空軍總預算，並將部分內部支出從研發、測試與評估（RDT&E）重新分配到採購和作戰維護，以重建近期戰備能力。從戰略層面來看，該報告警告稱，如果現在不採取行動，將增加美國在未來高端衝突中遭受重大損失的可能性，並削弱美國的威懾態勢。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The built environment workforce, comprising 15.3 million workers across 95 occupations, is foundational to modern infrastructure and economic stability. While highly paid, the workforce suffers from significant demographic imbalances, being disproportionately white and male, and often lacking clear career progression pathways. To prevent project delays and cost overruns, policy must mandate that capital asset owners treat labor market forecasting as core to project planning. Strategic interventions are required to strengthen career pipelines through robust apprenticeships, improve retention, and actively recruit younger and more diverse workers.
-
5.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.