Political Disunity Has A Cost

Victory on the battlefield begins with politics on the home front—and it’s not 1944 in America anymore.

Allan J. Feifer | August 9, 2026

America has struggled to achieve decisive strategic outcomes against determined adversaries despite overwhelming battlefield superiority. The following three forces largely explain why.

First, politics increasingly dictates strategy, including when and—critically—how we fight. Second, institutional inertia prevents our military and defense industrial base from adapting to the speed of modern warfare. Third, declining patriotism makes it increasingly difficult to persuade Americans that national sacrifice is sometimes necessary, resulting in our military failing to achieve objectives in a politically timely manner.

These three problems build on one another, with politics the central obstacle. Without political unity, neither military reform nor industrial mobilization can occur.

Conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, coupled with China’s control over critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and its long-term ambition to dominate global trade and finance, are forcing the United States to reassess how to preserve the economic and military strength that underpins our prosperity. It’s not that our leaders fail to recognize these challenges; the problem is that they are unwilling to level with the American people.

Mobilization Begins With Political Unity

Every successful American mobilization has begun with a common understanding that the nation faced a serious threat. During World War II, the Korean War, the Reagan military buildup, and after September 11, political leaders, military leaders, industry, and the public largely coalesced around the truth that we had to act. That consensus produced emergency funding, industrial expansion, long-term procurement, workforce growth, and the public acceptance required to sustain them.

That consensus does not exist today. The United States has not declared the current strategic environment existential. Doing so would require political, military, and industrial leadership to agree on one unavoidable conclusion: if we fail to act now, we could lose the next major war—and with it, leadership of........

© American Thinker