President Donald Trump appears to have forgotten all about his robust plans to ‘rebuild’ America’s defences. Or at least that is the impression that Senator John McCain gave at a Brussels conference recently when he dropped the following bombshell: the apprentice-president had had not requested a single meeting with him to discuss plans to boost military forces. Whilst on the campaign trail, Trump had derided McCain — who is Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — for having been shot down and held captive for five-and-a-half years during the Vietnam War. That the President has not even sought consultation with one of the country’s top defence experts is another slap in the face not just for the Senator but also for America’s armed forces. Furthermore, it also smacks of the hubris that has thus far characterised this White House. Yet here’s the thing. Even if this year’s defence spending is increased to $640 billion — as recommended by both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees — this is in no way fills the massive gaps in terms of both preparedness and procurement that have accrued over the last decade. That the military is in such bad shape seems ludicrous given the trillions of dollars spent during the last 16 years of uninterrupted warfare. Several factors account for these vast shortfalls. First, is the budget process itself which is intrinsically linked to resolution procedures. In practical terms, this mandates planning on a yearly basis — regardless of whether certain projects demand long-term attention. This, in effect, freezes new starts.The waste is enormous. Second, is the impact of the Budget Control Act (BCA). This places caps on both defence and non-defence discretionary spending. And cuts are incurred equally across both whenever excesses are incurred. Third and most insidious, is the uncontrollable internal cost growth for everything from precision weapons to people to pencils. In real terms, this translates to about 5-7 percent a year, placing it above the rate of inflation. This increase amounts to $30-45 billion per annum in additional spending. This barely covers the cost of keeping up. It extends neither to meeting existing shortfalls nor adding capacity. Even at $640 billion, this will not cover a return to previous levels of readiness and procurement. If this continues, a return to the so-called post-Vietnam “hollow force” — when the military was unprepared, unready and ill-equipped to do its job — will not be far around the corner.The Pentagon’s Defence Business Board has warned of the impact of this but sadly, no one is listening. As technology advances it brings with its both greater capability and higher costs. Aircraft carriers, without air wings, cost just under $15 billion each. The cost of the F-35 A is about $100 million. And its flying costs per hour for maintenance are about $80,000. These will go down. But over the life span of the aircraft, the costs are still enormous. The Trump plan is to increase both Army and Marine ground forces. It also envisages upping Naval and Air Force capacity. In addition, the country must upgrade its nuclear arsenal. To achieve all this as well as having a prepared defence force — the price tag comes in at more than $8 billion per annum. Unless uncontrollable internal costs and budget procedures are brought to heel these could skyrocket to around one trillion dollars a year. This would see the US effectively spend itself into oblivion. The Trump plan comes at a price tag of more than $8 billion per annum. Unless uncontrollable internal costs and budget procedures are brought to heel these could skyrocket to around one trillion dollars a year. This would see the US effectively spend itself into oblivion What, then, is to be done? Firstly, the US must recognise that 20th century concepts of defence are largely no longer relevant today. Neither China nor Russia is on any kind of war footing. Their objectives are purely to secure respective geo-political gains. Hence, the US response must be to come up with a counter strategy that is not reliant on military force alone. Secondly, Washington must be cognisant of the power of asymmetric threats such has cyber warfare (including hacking), propaganda (including the dissemination of disinformation) as well as the intrusion into internal politics by stealth. Increasing the size of the military has no bearing on filling these strategic black holes. Thirdly, uncontrollable internal cost growths at the Pentagon must be checked. To sum up, the choice remains between a smaller, prepared and well-trained and well-equipped military force or a larger but ‘hollow’ defence. The answer is not rocket science. But, sadly, no one at the White House appears to have got that memo. And nor will they unless and until the input of key Congress members for defence is actively sought. The writer is UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a Senior Advisor at Washington D.C.’s Atlantic Council and chairman of two private companies. His next book due out this year is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Loses Wars It Starts that argues failure to know and to understand the circumstances in which force is used guarantees failure. The writer can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman