A new Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll finds that 63% of Americans support continued aid to Ukraine in its war against the Russian invasion, while 53% overall say it’s been “worth the cost.” Some 45% say it has not been worth the cost.
The new numbers represent a slight dip — 65% supported aid in November last year (down from 72% in July 2022). The biggest decline is coming from Republicans — no surprise there. According to the poll, 50% of Americans who identify as Republican support continued arms aid to Ukraine, a drop of 18 points since July last year, and a full 30 points from the beginning of the war in February 2022.
Meanwhile, Democratic support has remained steady at 77%, down just two points from July 2022.
On the issue of whether the support is “worth the cost,” the numbers are partisan mirror opposites. For Republicans, 38% say U.S. weapons support has been worth it, while 61% say no. For Democrats, 69% say yes, 29% say no.
Interestingly, strong majorities still say NATO (and consequently, U.S. troops) should get directly involved if a NATO country is attacked. According to the poll, roughly 64% say they would favor sending U.S. troops to fight if Russia attacked a NATO ally like Germany; while 57% said they would support the same if Russia attacked allies like Latvia or Lithuania.
As an alliance, by the way, NATO still enjoys a healthy support from both parties, with 77% saying the U.S. should maintain its support and commitment, only down from 81% last July.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
Ukraine, Kiev - October 12, 2022 3 soldiers of the foreign legion in Ukraine pay homage to one of their killed in action. A small flag with the name of the dead soldier is planted in the main square. (Jose Hernandez Camera 51/Shutterstock)
Ukraine, Kiev - October 12, 2022 3 soldiers of the foreign legion in Ukraine pay homage to one of their killed in action. A small flag with the name of the dead soldier is planted in the main square. (Jose Hernandez Camera 51/Shutterstock)
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard arrives for a service at St. John's Church on Inauguration Day of Donald Trump's second presidential term in Washington, U.S. January 20, 2025. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
The confirmation prospects for Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, look slightly better after this weekend.
In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) revealed that former Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) will introduce Gabbard at her hearing on Thursday. Burr, a former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is highly regarded by incumbent Senate Republicans and has some credibility across the aisle as well (he was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial).
His assistance will be critical for Gabbard, who must first win the support of the Senate Intelligence Committee before advancing to a full senate vote. Committee members Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) are reportedly undecided on whether they will support her. Losing support from either would put Gabbard’s nomination in serious peril.
Gabbard received additional support on Sunday from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), one of the party’s most pro-war voices, who is also chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “It’s fine for people to have policy differences and ask questions about those differences. But I hope no one would impugn Ms. Gabbard’s patriotism or her integrity,” Cotton said Sunday, referencing Gabbard’s military service background.
“You know, Hillary Clinton has basically called her a traitor in the past,” he added. “This is a woman who served more than 20 years in our nation’s army.”
Gabbard has also alienated the national security establishment with less publicized views, including her openness to a more cooperative relationship with China and her caution against going to war with Iran.
Regardless of how Gabbard explains this record, most if not all Democrats will vote against her, making Republicans key to her survival. The Intelligence Committee is 9-8 in favor of the GOP. If she loses one Republican, her nomination may not advance to the Senate floor. That is why some Trump-aligned members are now imploring Chairman Cotton to make it an open roll call vote, to pressure the Republicans who may be on the fence, according to Politico this morning.
Supporters say the opposition from the Washington foreign policy and intelligence community reflects her threat to the status quo, and that she is one of the few voices of reform and restraint that Trump has nominated to top positions in his new administration.
“Sadly, if Gabbard is voted down,” wrote Jacobin correspondent Branko Marcetic, recently for RS, “her most likely replacement would not be someone with more consistent anti-war views than her — it would be someone with much more hawkish bonefides and much less likely to buck the system.”
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Yousef Masoud / SOPA Images/Sipa via Reuters Connect
The ceasefire in Gaza is not yet a week old, and Washington is already sending private U.S. security contractors to help operate checkpoints, a decision that one former military officer told RS is a “bad, bad idea.”
This will be the first time since 2003 that American security contractors have been in the strip. At that time, three private American contractors were killed by a roadside bomb while providing security for a diplomatic mission in Gaza.
Axios reports that two U.S. security companies will operate as part of a multi-national group, as laid out in the Gaza cease-fire deal, and Israel and Hamas have already approved them, as required by the deal.
The contractors will be inspecting vehicles that are moving into northern Gaza via the Netzarium corridor to ensure that no heavy weapons enter that part of the territory.
Israel had previously considered using security companies to distribute aid to Palestinians in Gaza last year as the Knesset was discussing banning the United Nations relief organization, UNRWA.
The Qatari government will likely fund the security forces. An Egyptian security company has also been selected for the mission. Safe Reach Solutions is one of the American companies providing security assistance and is credited with drawing up the plan. The other company, UG Solutions, is known for employing former soldiers from American and foreign special forces, according to Axios.
As part of the deal, these contractors will likely remain in Gaza during the first phase of the cease-fire, which is expected to last six weeks. Critics are already raising alarms about the potential safety issues.
“This is a bad, bad idea. This is a cauldron of angry people who are quite hostile towards Americans because most of the bombs that have fallen on Gazans have been U.S. provided,” said Lt Col. (retired) Daniel L. Davis.
“Gaza has been turned into a moonscape by Israeli Defense Forces actions, and thus any operation inside the Strip going forward should be IDF, not American,” Davis added. “The chances that angry Palestinians may target and kill Americans are uncomfortably high, in my view. Nothing good will come of this.”
Responsible Statecraft will today begin regularly republishing, with permission, The Bunker, a weekly newsletter written by long-time Pentagon correspondent Mark Thompson and produced by the Project on Government Oversight, where this latest edition originally appeared.
MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK
Assuming you’re not the Pentagon
Five years ago, The Bunker splurged and bought himself a state-of-the-art, 65-inch 4K OLED (don’t ask) television for $4,000. You know, to watch Defense Department briefings on C-SPAN, and things like that. My son just bought a bigger, better set made by the same company for less than $2,000. How come this never happens when the Pentagon goes shopping?
Basically, because the Pentagon is a risk-averse bureaucracy — except when it comes to taking risks promising higher-tech weapons. Then, all bets are off. It is in the Pentagon’s peculiar DNA to reach — and pay for — the stars yet settle for Pluto. It is a chronic condition, and one that won’t be cured until its civilian overlords slice open its corpulent procurement process and cut out the metastasizing tumor that has eluded decades of fist-pounding congressional chemotherapy and bloviating blue-ribbon radiation(PDF).
This is hardly a new problem, as a pair of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) scholars noted last month. Some argue that the skyrocketing cost of new weapons “is a result of the incredible complexity required to deliver the exquisite performance of modern weapons systems,” Gregory C. Allen and Isaac Goldston said. “Yet, a 2009 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) study found high complexity technology areas like the automotive industry and integrated circuits achieved extraordinary performance improvements with practically zero cost growth.” They cite a shrinking defense industry, too many cost-plus contracts, and the Pentagon’s requirements process(PDF) as key drivers of this costly insanity.
“Our traditional defense industrial base, built on fossilized systems and entrenched processes, is ill-equipped to respond to modern threats,” Michael Bloomberg, chair of the Defense Innovation Board, and retired Marine Commandant David Berger, wrote January 14 in the Washington Post. But they refreshingly refrained from the traditional fix: “Throwing new money at an old problem is not the answer.” Money now being spent on costly legacy weapons, they argue, should be diverted into cheap next-generation arms.
Easier said than done. In 1979, defense industrialist Norman Augustine famously said that the cost of fighter aircraft had increased 10-fold every 20 years since 1910. “In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft,” he predicted. “The aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy [three and a half] days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”
The Defense Department’s new uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA)(PDF) program is supposed to harness new ways to develop cheaper weapons. But early returns are not encouraging. The Pentagon wants the CCA to be 10% the cost of the piloted fighter it will accompany (not replace!) into battle. That would give it a price tag of about $30 million. But “the initial goal of the Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Program (LCAAT), a direct ancestor of CCA, was to create a vehicle with a unit cost of $3 million,” the CSIS paper says. “In other words, the projected price point of a ‘low-cost’ autonomous fighter aircraft has jumped an order of magnitude” — there’s that 10-fold increase again — “in the last eight years.”
Augustine, in a puckish 2015 essay(PDF) on his now-infamous fighter-plane financial forecast, conceded things aren’t getting better. That led him to conclude with his newest (and truest) maxim: “If you send money to the management of a project that is in trouble, they will remember you the next time they need money.”
80 PERCENT 2.0
Stop The Bunker if you’ve heard this one before
On January 13, the Navy rolled out its plan to have 80% of its fleet ready for war by 2027, well above recent readiness rates as ships have languished while waiting for repairs. “These are stretch goals, but I am confident we're going to work hard to get after them,” Admiral Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, said when she set the target. “And if we don't make exactly 80%, we’re going to be further along the road than we would be if I hadn't set such an ambitious goal.”
Let’s face it: 80% is a good number. Rates a “B” in class, and it means you got four of every five answers right. Not necessarily honor-roll status, but not too shabby. Yet it’s tougher to achieve when you’re talking about having four of every five complex warships ready to sail.
Let’s hope the Navy has more luck with its ships than the Air Force had with its planes. Back in 2018, then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis ordered the services to boost the readiness rate of their key fighters to that same 80% level, well above the usual 40-to-50% rates.
Unlike the Navy, the Air Force failed to meet that goal in 2019. So it junked it in 2020, after Mattis left the Pentagon and his 80% target evaporated. The three Air Force fighters Mattis wanted ready 80% of the time were the F-16 (69% ready in 2023), the F-22 (52% ready in 2023), and the F-35A (51% ready in 2023). Meanwhile, the Navy’s F-18 continues to hit that 80% mark. A toast if they can do it with their ships, too.
“F-35 ‘ER UP!”
A modern-war contradiction
Last year, the Pentagon certified its F-35 fighter to carry nuclear bombs. Last week, F-35 builder Lockheed approved flying those bombs to their targets using synthetic fuel. There’s something bemusing about brandishing the world’s most devastating weapons in an environmentally-friendly way.
Lockheed said the F-35 can now be powered by a 50-50 mixture of regular jet fuel and “synthetic aviation turbine fuel” brewed from waste oils, agricultural residues, “other non-fossil-based sources,” as well as coal and natural gas. “The new fuel sources will improve readiness by reducing reliance on the extended supply chain,” Lockheed said. Given that the F-35A was ready to fly only 51% of the time in 2023, anything that can fuel improvement will be a welcome change.
A top Navy admiral says the service should be “embarrassed” that it hasn’t been able to deploy lasers across the fleet given that it has been exploring the technology since the Reagan administration, Justin Katz at Breaking Defense reported January 15.
Just before leaving the Pentagon as President Biden’s defense secretary, Lloyd Austin told his White House overseers that next year’s defense budget should be $55 billion more than the $877 billion originally proposed, formally topping $1 trillion in 2028, Bloomberg’s Tony Capaccio reported January 13.
With Trump fund-raiser John Phelan tapped to become Navy secretary — the official who names Navy ships(PDF) — there’s already talk about naming a new aircraft carrier the USS Donald J. Trump, Richard Thomas said January 14 at Naval Technology.
Thanks for coming aboard The Bunker this week. Feel free to forward this on to fellow ne’er-do-wells so they can subscribe here.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.