Confronting the Axis of Authoritarianism: The Need for a Robust Defense Build-Up to Empower a Multi-Theater Strategy
The MOC
By
Nathan Fiala
November 5, 2024
The United States currently faces the most severe multi-theater threat environment since World War II. Yet, the current National Defense Strategy of “Integrated Deterrence” and defense spending of just 2.9 percent of GDP are both woefully inadequate to confront the dangers of the moment.
Today’s challenges necessitate a new strategy that: (1) Establishes a Multi-Theater Force Construct to meet the threat environment on the Eurasian continent and (2) invests in America’s Defense Industrial Base to facilitate a defense buildup that provides the U.S. armed forces with the capabilities they need to deter and defeat the authoritarian regimes aligned against the United States and our allies.
Emerging Threats and the Multi-Theater Challenge
Authoritarian regimes—specifically China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—present a grave, multi-theater threat to U.S. interests and the global economic system. This Axis of Authoritarianism actively undermines the American-led global order through coordinated aggression against U.S. allies along the Eurasian Rimlands. Conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia against U.S. allies and partners could escalate into global war.
Eurasia is a supercontinent, consisting of five sub-regions: Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia. The Eurasian coastal “Rimlands” have historically served as critical “pivot points” that can sway a particular region’s political and economic alignment because of their control over local trade routes and “choke points” waterways that dominate Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC).
Historically, Eurasian hegemonic continentalist powers have sought to expand from their heartlands to gain access to essential sea routes and establish their own hegemonic regional spheres of influence on the Eurasian landmass, often coming into conflict with the maritime-focused Rimland nations.
Today, this historical phenomenon is playing out between the continentalist Axis of Authoritarianism and U.S. allies along the Rimland of the Eurasian landmass. The Axis of Authoritarianism is actively testing U.S. resolve in three theaters at once to see where America’s breaking point is.
U.S. Security Umbrella Promotes Global Economic Prosperity
American grand strategy can be distilled into two words: “market access.” The U.S. military—particularly the Navy—safeguards the global economic system, ensuring free trade and preventing aspirant hegemonic control on the Eurasian continent.
Since World War II, U.S. policy has been to ensure that no single power—or coalition of Eurasian powers—can dominate the Eurasian supercontinent and deny U.S. access to vital markets. This positions the United States as the “Offshore Keystone Power” in global affairs. For the past 80 years, the United States has provided the naval power necessary for this system, fostering global economic prosperity, even at the cost of its own market share. Historical GDP figures illustrate this trend:
1960: Global GDP was $1.3T (U.S. $531B, 40%)
1993: Global GDP was $26T (U.S. $6.86T, 26%)
2023: Global GDP is $104T (U.S. $26T, 25%)
This is not an altruistic military posture. The United States, as a “North American island” nation, must project power to secure essential SLOCs vital for national security and global trade. With 70 percent of the world covered in water and 90 percent of global trade conducted via oceans, maintaining open and free SLOCs is critical to both U.S. national security and global commerce.
The last time Washington faced a multi-theater threat on the Eurasian continent was in World War II, when the United States was spending only 3 percent of its GDP on defense. With such a low rate of defense spending the United States was unable to project adequate power onto the Eurasian landmass to secure trade routes along the Eurasian Rimlands. The Axis Powers were able to deny the U.S. access to Eurasian markets. To regain access to those markets Washington raised annual defense spending to 40 percent of GDP and over 400,000 Americans died fighting the Axis. Today, 40 percent of U.S. GDP would equal $10.5 trillion dollars, and 400,000 war deaths is the equivalent of almost one million with today’s population.
Simply put, America cannot afford a multi-theater global war, where an Axis of Authoritarian hegemonic Eurasian continentalists powers are able to establish their own spheres of influence on the Eurasian landmass and deny U.S. free access to Eurasian markets.
The Imperative for Strengthening U.S. Defense
To prevent a multi-theater global war, and maintain global market access, the United States must adopt a Multi-Theater Force Construct which is a U.S. military sized, in conjunction with U.S. allies, to adequately deter and defeat simultaneous threats posed by the Axis of Authoritarianism in the Indo-Pacific, European, and Middle Eastern Theaters.The existing Integrated Deterrence strategy is inadequate to meet the task, relying on the flawed assumption that strong alliances would negate the need for significant U.S. military support. Thus, Washington offshores its national security prerogative onto the shoulders of America’s allies.
As the “Offshore Keystone Power”, U.S. military capabilities serve as the cornerstone of deterrence for a global alliance network. America’s allies are on the front lines defending themselves, but they cannot do so without U.S. support. However, the U.S. military currently lacks the capacity and capability to effectively deter and prevail in potential multi-theater conflict. The U.S. must adopt a Multi-Theater Force Construct that prioritizes:
Protecting the homeland.
Deterring and, if necessary, defeating China.
Defeating a second aggressor, either Russia or Iran and its proxies.
Maintaining operations against a third aggressor until the first or second are neutralized.
The Case for Increased Investment in the Defense Industrial Base
A Multi-Theater Force Construct requires a substantial increase in the defense budget, representing a generational investment essential for addressing complex threats. Senator Wicker (R-AL) has called for an additional $55 billion for the FY25 defense budget, with a gradual increase to 5 percent of GDP over the next 5-7 years.
Current defense spending is only 2.9 percent of GDP —as opposed to 16.5 percent for non-discretionary entitlements and interest payments. This is the lowest defense spending level since World War II risks repeating past policy failures that emboldened our adversaries. Future investments must target a gradual increase to at least 5 percent of GDP spending levels to enhance military readiness and strengthen the defense industrial base, thus ensuring hot production lines, robust supply chains, and a stable U.S. manufacturing workforce.
This increase is critical, as the United States has chronically underinvested in its defense industrial base, particularly in the maritime industrial base that underwrites global trade security. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has seen a $1.2 trillion funding reduction, losing 50 percent of its ships, shipyards, manpower, and logistical capabilities. The Navy is now significantly smaller and older than it was in 1991, after the Reagan Cold War build-up, despite facing greater multi-theater threats and global responsibilities. The U.S. Navy is spread too thin, unable to concentrate enough force to deter and defeat one hegemonic aspirant power, let alone three. We need more defense spending to build a larger naval fleet, to project power into Eurasia to protect our allies and secure the global SLOCs, so that the $104 trillion global commerce continues to flow.
Conclusion
The United States stands at a crucial juncture. With rising global threats and an outdated military posture, it must urgently reassess its defense spending and strategic engagement. By investing in military capabilities and the industrial base, the United States can better protect its interests and those of its allies. As the threat from the Axis of Authoritarianism intensifies, action is imperative. Sustained commitment and investment in the defense industrial base are essential for America to maintain its role as the “Offshore Keystone Power” and stabilize the global economic and political system.
Nate Fiala is the Director of Defense Portfolio at the Porter Group, a government affairs consulting firm located on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Prior to joining the Porter Group Nate served as the Senior Legislative Analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.
Center for Maritime Strategy
By Nathan Fiala
The United States currently faces the most severe multi-theater threat environment since World War II. Yet, the current National Defense Strategy of “Integrated Deterrence” and defense spending of just 2.9 percent of GDP are both woefully inadequate to confront the dangers of the moment.
Today’s challenges necessitate a new strategy that: (1) Establishes a Multi-Theater Force Construct to meet the threat environment on the Eurasian continent and (2) invests in America’s Defense Industrial Base to facilitate a defense buildup that provides the U.S. armed forces with the capabilities they need to deter and defeat the authoritarian regimes aligned against the United States and our allies.
Emerging Threats and the Multi-Theater Challenge
Authoritarian regimes—specifically China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—present a grave, multi-theater threat to U.S. interests and the global economic system. This Axis of Authoritarianism actively undermines the American-led global order through coordinated aggression against U.S. allies along the Eurasian Rimlands. Conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia against U.S. allies and partners could escalate into global war.
Eurasia is a supercontinent, consisting of five sub-regions: Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia. The Eurasian coastal “Rimlands” have historically served as critical “pivot points” that can sway a particular region’s political and economic alignment because of their control over local trade routes and “choke points” waterways that dominate Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC).
Historically, Eurasian hegemonic continentalist powers have sought to expand from their heartlands to gain access to essential sea routes and establish their own hegemonic regional spheres of influence on the Eurasian landmass, often coming into conflict with the maritime-focused Rimland nations.
Today, this historical phenomenon is playing out between the continentalist Axis of Authoritarianism and U.S. allies along the Rimland of the Eurasian landmass. The Axis of Authoritarianism is actively testing U.S. resolve in three theaters at once to see where America’s breaking point is.
U.S. Security Umbrella Promotes Global Economic Prosperity
American grand strategy can be distilled into two words: “market access.” The U.S. military—particularly the Navy—safeguards the global economic system, ensuring free trade and preventing aspirant hegemonic control on the Eurasian continent.
Since World War II, U.S. policy has been to ensure that no single power—or coalition of Eurasian powers—can dominate the Eurasian supercontinent and deny U.S. access to vital markets. This positions the United States as the “Offshore Keystone Power” in global affairs. For the past 80 years, the United States has provided the naval power necessary for this system, fostering global economic prosperity, even at the cost of its own market share. Historical GDP figures illustrate this trend:
This is not an altruistic military posture. The United States, as a “North American island” nation, must project power to secure essential SLOCs vital for national security and global trade. With 70 percent of the world covered in water and 90 percent of global trade conducted via oceans, maintaining open and free SLOCs is critical to both U.S. national security and global commerce.
The last time Washington faced a multi-theater threat on the Eurasian continent was in World War II, when the United States was spending only 3 percent of its GDP on defense. With such a low rate of defense spending the United States was unable to project adequate power onto the Eurasian landmass to secure trade routes along the Eurasian Rimlands. The Axis Powers were able to deny the U.S. access to Eurasian markets. To regain access to those markets Washington raised annual defense spending to 40 percent of GDP and over 400,000 Americans died fighting the Axis. Today, 40 percent of U.S. GDP would equal $10.5 trillion dollars, and 400,000 war deaths is the equivalent of almost one million with today’s population.
Simply put, America cannot afford a multi-theater global war, where an Axis of Authoritarian hegemonic Eurasian continentalists powers are able to establish their own spheres of influence on the Eurasian landmass and deny U.S. free access to Eurasian markets.
The Imperative for Strengthening U.S. Defense
To prevent a multi-theater global war, and maintain global market access, the United States must adopt a Multi-Theater Force Construct which is a U.S. military sized, in conjunction with U.S. allies, to adequately deter and defeat simultaneous threats posed by the Axis of Authoritarianism in the Indo-Pacific, European, and Middle Eastern Theaters. The existing Integrated Deterrence strategy is inadequate to meet the task, relying on the flawed assumption that strong alliances would negate the need for significant U.S. military support. Thus, Washington offshores its national security prerogative onto the shoulders of America’s allies.
As the “Offshore Keystone Power”, U.S. military capabilities serve as the cornerstone of deterrence for a global alliance network. America’s allies are on the front lines defending themselves, but they cannot do so without U.S. support. However, the U.S. military currently lacks the capacity and capability to effectively deter and prevail in potential multi-theater conflict. The U.S. must adopt a Multi-Theater Force Construct that prioritizes:
The Case for Increased Investment in the Defense Industrial Base
A Multi-Theater Force Construct requires a substantial increase in the defense budget, representing a generational investment essential for addressing complex threats. Senator Wicker (R-AL) has called for an additional $55 billion for the FY25 defense budget, with a gradual increase to 5 percent of GDP over the next 5-7 years.
Current defense spending is only 2.9 percent of GDP —as opposed to 16.5 percent for non-discretionary entitlements and interest payments. This is the lowest defense spending level since World War II risks repeating past policy failures that emboldened our adversaries. Future investments must target a gradual increase to at least 5 percent of GDP spending levels to enhance military readiness and strengthen the defense industrial base, thus ensuring hot production lines, robust supply chains, and a stable U.S. manufacturing workforce.
This increase is critical, as the United States has chronically underinvested in its defense industrial base, particularly in the maritime industrial base that underwrites global trade security. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has seen a $1.2 trillion funding reduction, losing 50 percent of its ships, shipyards, manpower, and logistical capabilities. The Navy is now significantly smaller and older than it was in 1991, after the Reagan Cold War build-up, despite facing greater multi-theater threats and global responsibilities. The U.S. Navy is spread too thin, unable to concentrate enough force to deter and defeat one hegemonic aspirant power, let alone three. We need more defense spending to build a larger naval fleet, to project power into Eurasia to protect our allies and secure the global SLOCs, so that the $104 trillion global commerce continues to flow.
Conclusion
The United States stands at a crucial juncture. With rising global threats and an outdated military posture, it must urgently reassess its defense spending and strategic engagement. By investing in military capabilities and the industrial base, the United States can better protect its interests and those of its allies. As the threat from the Axis of Authoritarianism intensifies, action is imperative. Sustained commitment and investment in the defense industrial base are essential for America to maintain its role as the “Offshore Keystone Power” and stabilize the global economic and political system.
Nate Fiala is the Director of Defense Portfolio at the Porter Group, a government affairs consulting firm located on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Prior to joining the Porter Group Nate served as the Senior Legislative Analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.