America’s Military Has Forgotten How to Win—And Time Is Running Out
The United States maintains an overwhelmingly dominant military budget, outspending its global competitors by a wide margin—more than the next several nations combined. Yet, despite this financial superiority, a pressing question remains: can America’s military defeat China in a protracted conflict? Christian Brose, Chief Strategy Officer at Anduril Industries and former senior aide to Senator John McCain, presents a sobering analysis in The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare. According to Brose, despite billions poured into advanced weaponry—fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and beyond—the U.S. military is dangerously unprepared for the high-stakes warfare that a confrontation with China would entail.
Brose’s conclusion is stark: every war game simulation conducted by the Pentagon involving a U.S.-China conflict ends in American defeat. This is not theoretical speculation but a recurring reality based on the Department of Defense’s own assessments. How, then, can a nation spending far more than China be consistently outclassed in simulations? The answer lies not in the sheer magnitude of military expenditure but in its misallocation.
The Trump administration recognized this vulnerability, pushing for reforms aimed at cutting waste, improving efficiency, and ensuring the military was prepared for the demands of 21st-century combat rather than clinging to relics of the past.
The Problem with Cost-Plus Contracting: A Model of Decline
One of the primary obstacles to military modernization, as Brose points out, is the U.S. military’s antiquated procurement system, particularly the cost-plus contracting model. This approach guarantees defense contractors a fixed profit margin on top of their expenses, fostering inefficiency and stagnation. Such a system rewards slow-moving legacy contractors while stifling the innovation needed to keep the U.S. military ahead of its rivals.
For decades, Washington has fixated on high-cost, high-profile weapon systems that project power in peacetime but may prove obsolete on the modern battlefield. The bloated defense budgets have favored massive investments in multi-billion-dollar platforms like the F-35 fighter jet and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers—iconic symbols of military might that may struggle against 21st-century warfare. China’s asymmetric capabilities, such as hypersonic missiles, drone swarms, and cyber warfare, could easily neutralize these legacy systems.
Moreover, while the U.S. military struggles to develop the rapid, scalable production capacity needed for a prolonged conflict, China’s military-industrial complex is deeply embedded within its broader economic and technological strategy. This allows China to outproduce and outlast its opponents. Thus, a troubling proposition emerges: after decades of counterinsurgency operations and post-World War II complacency, has the U.S. military become too reliant on outdated strategies? Can it still claim to be the world’s preeminent fighting force when it has not decisively won a war in decades?
The Rise of Disruptive Defense Tech: Anduril, Palantir, and Epirus
Fortunately, a new breed of innovators is spearheading the defense sector’s evolution. Companies like Anduril, Palantir Technologies, and Epirus are rewriting the rules of military technology development, emphasizing automation, artificial intelligence, and software-driven warfare over traditional hardware-heavy models.
Take Anduril, for example. Founded by Palmer Luckey, Anduril has introduced revolutionary systems like its Lattice AI platform and Ghost drones, which leverage cutting-edge sensor fusion and battlefield autonomy. Palantir, known for its data analytics expertise, has transformed intelligence and targeting systems, with its AI-driven technology playing a pivotal role in Ukrainian defense efforts. Meanwhile, Epirus is at the forefront of directed-energy weapons, developing high-power microwave systems designed to neutralize threats like drone swarms.
In contrast, Washington’s focus on costly, bureaucratically protected contractors has hampered efforts to adopt battlefield technologies that would be far more effective in the hands of agile, innovative firms. The U.S. military’s continued reliance on manned fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and other outdated assets only increases the risk of future defeat.
The Path Forward: A Shift Toward Technological Supremacy
The U.S. military must confront an existential dilemma: transition from a focus on legacy platforms to a strategy that emphasizes resilience, adaptability, and technological superiority in networked warfare. The U.S. cannot afford to worship at the altar of Cold War-era power projection when the next war will demand an entirely different kind of fighting force. It must cultivate disruptive technologies that reflect the realities of 21st-century combat—or risk ceding global leadership to those who already have.
Steve Feinberg: The Visionary Behind Strategic Defense Investments
In this shifting landscape, private capital’s role in national security has never been more vital. Among the most astute investors in the defense sector is Steve Feinberg, co-founder of Cerberus Capital Management. Feinberg’s deep understanding of military-industrial operations has allowed him to acquire, revitalize, and optimize key defense assets, ensuring they remain responsive to the evolving needs of modern warfare.
Feinberg’s career is a quintessential American success story: rising from a working-class New York background to become a financial titan, all while honing an instinct for spotting undervalued assets and transforming them into strategic advantages. Under his stewardship, Cerberus has brought several defense firms back to profitability while enhancing their value to national security.
His commitment extends beyond business, evidenced by his role on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and his nomination by President Trump as Deputy Secretary of Defense. His work aligns with the Trump administration’s broader push for reform, particularly through the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) agenda, which aimed to streamline the Pentagon, eliminate wasteful spending, and transform it into a lean, agile institution.
Pete Hegseth and the Fight Against Military Wokeness
But even as technology and procurement are revamped, another significant issue looms over the future of the U.S. military: cultural priorities. Pete Hegseth, Fox News host and former Army officer, has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the increasing politicization of the armed forces. Hegseth argues that the military’s growing focus on diversity training, social engineering, and progressive policies undermines its central mission: warfighting excellence.
Hegseth warns that China’s military, ruthlessly focused on hard power, poses an existential threat to U.S. interests—one that demands America’s undivided attention. Meanwhile, the U.S. military’s embrace of noncombat priorities threatens to erode the values that have traditionally defined its success. For many veterans and nationalists, the military’s strength is rooted in discipline, unity, and an unwavering commitment to victory. As the world grows increasingly dangerous, the question is not whether the military should evolve socially, but whether it can do so without sacrificing its primary purpose: to fight and win wars.
Conclusion
The United States military remains the most well-funded fighting force in the world, yet funding alone is not enough. Without a fundamental shift in both technology and priorities, it risks falling behind adversaries who are more agile, more focused, and more willing to innovate. From reforming procurement to embracing disruptive defense technology, from strategic private investment to eliminating bureaucratic waste, the Pentagon must realign itself with its core mission: ensuring that the U.S. military is ready—not just to fight, but to win.
Ziya H. is a Contributor for Liberty Affair. He lives in Warsaw, Poland. Follow him on X: @hsnlizi
