The U.S. Senate recently approved a defense budget of $900 billion with a vote of 77 to 20. This decision coincides with an extensive analysis published by the New York Times, which questions the effectiveness of this budget and suggests that a significant portion may be misallocated.

The analysis is based on a leaked classified review from the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, which assessed U.S. military capabilities and identified a decline in the ability to engage in prolonged conflicts with major powers. This decline is attributed to evolving global threats and technological advancements.

A key factor contributing to this decline is the consolidation of over 50 weapons manufacturers into a few large corporations, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of innovation. The Pentagon's oversight of these companies has stagnated, influenced by legislators whose districts benefit from defense contracts, thereby reinforcing the monopolistic status of these firms.

The report highlights two significant examples of stagnation. The U.S. Navy's initiative to develop a fleet of smaller, more efficient warships was ultimately taken over by large contractors, resulting in the cancellation of the project after five years and $3.5 billion spent without producing any ships. Similarly, the Army's effort to procure new pistols has faced delays of over a decade, with delivery now expected in 2027, illustrating the bureaucratic hurdles in military procurement.

Despite substantial funding, the defense industry struggles to produce the necessary quantities of weapons for modern warfare. For instance, the U.S. military's recent use of Tomahawk cruise missiles in an operation against Iran highlighted production limitations, as the sole manufacturer, Raytheon, cannot keep pace with demand. Negotiations for a partnership with a Japanese firm to increase missile production fell through due to a preference for maintaining domestic control over defense manufacturing. This resistance extends to other areas, such as shipbuilding and artillery shell production, where the Pentagon has not adapted to lessons learned from ongoing conflicts, including the war in Ukraine.

While the New York Times report emphasizes the shortcomings of the U.S. military, it also notes that simulated war games are primarily designed to identify vulnerabilities rather than predict outcomes. However, the report suggests that the Pentagon's bureaucracy, in conjunction with the defense industry and Congress, hampers necessary adjustments to address these vulnerabilities.

The analysis indicates that while the U.S. Navy possesses superior firepower compared to China, the number of warships is insufficient for simultaneous engagements in multiple regions. The vulnerability of U.S. warships, particularly aircraft carriers, is a concern, especially in the face of advanced threats such as drones and cyber-attacks.

Some initiatives within the Defense Department, such as the Defense Innovations Unit, have sought to navigate bureaucratic challenges and improve military supply chains and technology. However, the effectiveness of these reforms remains uncertain due to a lack of commitment and resources.

The New York Times' examination of military spending and preparedness raises critical questions about the future of U.S. military power and the implications of current political and economic structures on national security. The potential for misallocation of defense funds could undermine the U.S.'s ability to adapt to new global challenges.