The Department of War...Now What?

For decades, America has operated under the outdated belief that we must maintain a massive standing military capable of fighting a “two-front war.” That Cold War-era assumption no longer fits the realities of modern conflict. The wars we fight today are faster, smaller, and increasingly technological — fought with cyber tools, drones, and intelligence networks rather than millions of boots on the ground. Yet, Washington continues to fund a defense structure built for the 1940s instead of the 2040s.

To meet today’s threats, we need to right-size the active-duty military, streamline bloated command structures, and strengthen the National Guard as the first line of domestic and regional defense. The Guard has proven time and again — from disaster response to overseas deployments — that it can deliver at a fraction of the cost.

Downsizing active forces while expanding specialized Guard and Reserve capabilities would preserve readiness, reduce waste, and finally align our defense posture with reality. This approach, at the end of the day, reinforces the idea that America doesn’t need a larger military . . . it needs a smarter one.

Before World War I, the United States had no permanent standing divisions. When America entered the war, the backbone of the American Expeditionary Force in France came from state-based National Guard units — citizen-soldiers who trained at home, answered the call, and fought with distinction abroad. Back then, the idea of mixing soldiers from across the country made sense. In 1917, most Americans lived, worked, and died within a few miles of where they were born. A nationalized force was the only way to knit together a country that was still regional in character.

But in 2025, America is different. Our people are mobile, interconnected, and integrated across every state line. We no longer need to dissolve state-based identities to create national unity — we already have it. The logic that justified massive, permanently garrisoned active-duty divisions a century ago simply doesn’t apply today. It’s time to revisit how we structure the force, strengthen the National Guard’s role, and modernize our defense posture for the world we live in, not the one we left behind.

At the Battle of Kursk in 1943, more than two million soldiers clashed in the largest tank engagement in human history — a brutal test of industrial-age warfare where victory depended on manpower, steel, and attrition. By contrast, the “Battle of Kursk 2025” — the ongoing struggle between Russia and Ukraine over that same ground — involves tens of thousands, not millions. The scale has shrunk, but the lethality has multiplied. Precision-guided munitions, drones, satellite intelligence, and long-range fires now dominate the battlefield. The age of mass mobilization is over.

Modern warfare doesn’t reward size — it rewards speed, data, and adaptability. In 1991, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Storm with fewer than 700,000 troops, defeating one of the world’s largest standing armies in just 43 days. Two decades later, America’s campaign against ISIS relied on even fewer boots on the ground, instead leveraging special operations forces, intelligence sharing, and drone strikes to dismantle a terrorist caliphate the size of Britain. The same lessons are being played out in Ukraine, where small, mobile units using inexpensive drones are destroying billion-dollar armored columns.

Warfare today is more lethal, more dispersed, and far less manpower-intensive than the conflicts that shaped 20th-century defense planning. We simply don’t need millions under arms to project power or defend freedom. America’s advantage lies not in the size of its military, but in the precision, technology, and readiness of those who serve. It’s time our defense posture reflected that reality.

Today’s National Guard motto — “one weekend a month, two weeks a year” — is a relic of a different era. It might have worked when the Guard’s primary mission was disaster response and homeland defense, but it no longer prepares soldiers for the speed, complexity, and technological sophistication of modern warfare. I propose a new standard: one weekend a month and three months a year. Those three months would be spent training and deploying as full, cohesive units — not as individual augmentees scattered across commands. This would mirror the Israeli reserve system, which produces one of the most combat-ready citizen forces in the world.

By expanding readiness in this way, we could dramatically improve proficiency and interoperability without the crushing cost of maintaining a massive active-duty force. The Guard’s strength has always been its dual identity — citizen and soldier — and this model would harness both, creating a force that is modern, agile, and always ready when the nation calls.

This shift wouldn’t just make the Guard more capable — it would make America’s defense spending more efficient. A trained, ready, and well-equipped National Guard soldier costs a fraction of what it takes to sustain an active-duty service member. Yet time and again, Guardsmen have proven their ability to perform at the same standard when called up — whether responding to natural disasters at home, deploying to Afghanistan, or providing critical support in Europe. By reallocating resources from redundant active-duty overhead into sustained Guard readiness, we could save billions annually while expanding the pool of combat-ready personnel. It’s a smarter, leaner model for national defense — one rooted in accountability, efficiency, and the conservative belief that government should deliver strength, not size.

The active-duty force should be restructured around the core mission of combat and command — not bureaucracy. That means maintaining only those active units that fight and those that make fighting possible: Special Forces, front-line combat arms, and critical air and space assets. Headquarters staffs and logistics functions should be trimmed to the essential, with the rest transitioned to the National Guard and Reserve.

The goal isn’t to weaken the active force — it’s to sharpen it. Active-duty formations would serve as lean, highly capable cadre units, designed to integrate seamlessly with activated Guard elements in the event of large-scale mobilization — whether that’s a major regional conflict or a global contingency. In practice, this model would cut the active force by nearly half while increasing America’s surge capacity through a trained, equipped, and ready National Guard.

This approach would align resources with readiness, reduce duplication, and restore a principle Washington too often forgets: national defense is about capability, not headcount.

This vision aligns squarely with President Trump’s mandate to rebuild American strength through efficiency, not excess — and with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s reform agenda to refocus the Pentagon on warfighting, not bureaucracy. Hegseth understands what too many career bureaucrats have forgotten: the measure of military power isn’t how many people wear the uniform, but how quickly and decisively America can project lethal force when it’s needed. Under his leadership, the Department of War is cutting redundant headquarters staffs, streamlining procurement, and prioritizing combat readiness over political posturing. That’s exactly the kind of reform the nation needs — a lean, lethal, and accountable military, anchored by an empowered National Guard and built for 21st-century conflict.

Readiness: Units that train together for months — not weekends — fight better together. Cohesion, confidence, and capability can’t be built in a classroom or a drill hall; they’re earned through shared time in the field and the repetition of real-world training. A Guard that trains as it fights will win as it fights.

Cohesion: The National Guard is unique because it’s rooted in community. These are citizen-soldiers who live where they serve — men and women who see each other in church, at work, and at their kids’ ballgames. That shared identity builds trust that can’t be faked, and trust is the most important weapon in combat.

Savings: This isn’t just smart defense policy — it’s smart fiscal policy. Cutting the active-duty force in half while empowering the Guard would save tens of billions each year, dollars that can be reinvested in advanced training, next-generation technology, and care for our veterans. It’s the definition of conservative efficiency: more capability for less cost.

America doesn’t need a bigger military — it needs a better one. A force that’s leaner, stronger, and more connected to the people it serves. Downsizing the active component while supercharging the Guard isn’t a step back — it’s a strategic leap forward. It’s how we preserve readiness, restore accountability, and rebuild American strength on our terms.

That’s the America First Defense Doctrine under President Trump and Secretary Pete Hegseth — a fighting force that’s not built for global policing or nation-building, but for one purpose only: to defend the homeland, deter our enemies, and win when America must fight.