When Newt Gingrich was asked about his views on defense spending back in the mid-1990s, at a time when people still cared about the federal deficit, he said, “I’m a hawk — but I’m a cheap hawk.”

It was such a good line that I borrowed it for a book title the following year. And it is time we collectively return to it.

There are voices clamoring for very big increases in defense spending. These views are understandable, given the return of an angry and revanchist Russia, the rise of China, ongoing provocations from a nuclear-minded Iran and a nuclear-capable North Korea, and other security challenges. But neither presidential candidate has gone so far as to specify what kind of defense buildup, small or large, they might favor.

To break the logjam and obtain the kind of increases in defense spending that the global environment now requires, we need to be specific. Sweeping calls for the U.S. defense budget — now at about $850 billion — to return to Cold War levels when measured against GDP are unrealistic and unneeded, especially with federal deficits so big ($1.8 billion in 2024, CBO has just reported).

One major unmet defense need is in force structure, and specifically our force postures in potential combat zones around the world. We need to beef them up — not across the board, but in concrete and specific ways. The overarching concept behind these modest buildups should be to ensure that, working with local allies, we can help prevent rapid, successful aggression in four places at once. This idea is similar to the recent argument of the independent bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy.

The nation’s last two national defense strategies came out in a remarkably similar place. Both emphasized the importance of great-power competition and the........

© The Hill