images
 Joe Gould, Defense News–
WASHINGTON — Hawkish Republican lawmakers long arguing on Capitol Hill for more defense spending, more troops, more ships and more jets — and an end to sequestration — saw Donald Trump take up their standard Wednesday.
Rep. Mike Turner, the chairman of the House Armed Services AirLand Subcommittee, said it was “a great step” that both leading presidential candidates support ending sequestration on defense. Trump’s stance, he said, could rally hawkish Republicans previously reluctant to back him.
“National security is probably the most important issue facing our country, with Russia’s aggressiveness, China’s expansionism, ISIS, North Korea and Iran,” Turner, R-Ohio, said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group. “Now is the time to invest in national security, and I’m certainly glad he’s stepping to the plate.”

There may yet be some hard feelings among defense hawks over some of Trump’s recent gaffes. Trump questioned the heroism of Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., who was captured in the Vietnam War, voiced conditional support for NATO, and publicly fueded Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen soldier who spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

Turner serves as NATO’s parliamentary president and said he thought some of Trump’s comments have been “naive, and could be misinterpreted by our allies.” Yet he said he believes Trump will ultimately come around on the importance of the alliance.

“I obviously believe that NATO is our most important alliance, and it needs to be strengthened and fortified,” Turner said. “Trump certainly will see that.”
Trump’s plans include an active-duty Army of 540,000 soldiers, a Navy of 350 ships, an Air Force fleet of 1,200 fighter aircraft and a Marine Corps stocked with 36 battalions. Trump said he also will build a “state-of-the-art missile defense system” and modernize the Navy’s cruisers to provide ballistic missile defense capabilities.
Paying for any of those items will require Congress to repeal defense spending caps passed in 2011. Trump promised to urge lawmakers to undo those restrictions, but President Barack Obama has been unsuccessful over the last five years in the same plea.
Officials from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have called Trump’s buildup plans unrealistic and poorly planned. She has advocated “fully funding” the armed services but also advocated the importance of diplomacy and international allies in fighting terrorism worldwide.
House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who has championed increased defense spending in light of the myriad threats facing the US, told reporters Wednesday he had not seen the Trump plan.
“To the extent that any candidate agrees with me, they’re right,” he quipped.
California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, an Iraq veteran on Thornberry’s committee who has endorsed Trump, said Trump’s support on the national stage for boosting defense spending would help the issue in Congress.
Rep. Ryan Zinke, a former Navy SEAL on the committee, said he was “encouraged that defense is part of the discussion, as a former SEAL commander. We are at war.”
“We have to sharpen the teeth and cut the tail — the military is too heavy in the headquarters and bureaucracy, and not enough in the front — and I’m glad it’s getting attention,” said Zinke, R-Mont. “I do think if we’re going to put our troops in harm’s way, we need the right equipment, the right training, the right rules of engagement to win decisively in battle.”
The central question on Capitol Hill is how to pay for the military, and lawmakers from both parties wondered how Trump would answer it.
Told Trump’s military would include 450,000 soldiers, 350 ships, 1,200 fighter aircraft and a 36-battalion Marine Corps, the HASC’s top Democrat had a wry response.
“And an Army of unicorns, yes,” said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. “He didn’t say anything about where he would find the money, so I don’t know where the reality is.”
Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Iraq veteran, called the plan “fantasy,” as Trump’s tax plan would cost trillions of dollars in revenue and not cut entitlements.
“He’s saying these things because someone was smart enough to pass him a piece of paper, and a lot of these things are factually correct, that this is what we need,” said Gallego, D-Ariz. “However, its how do you pay for this.”
Republicans, too, were skeptical, including Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a former Air Force pilot who has said he would not vote for Trump after comments on NATO and Khizr Khan.
“The devil’s in the details, and I’d be interested in seeing his foreign policy, especially as it relates to Russia and Syria,” Kinzinger said.
Rep. Mark Sanford, a fiscally conservative member of the House Freedom Party Caucus, voiced skepticism of Trump’s ambitious plan and paraphrased former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, who said: “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”

“It would be more than shortsighted to think that we could build — as the Soviets once did — a mighty military apparatus without the economy to sustain it,” Sanford said. “Many of the proposals we hear of late certainly fit that.”

Leo Shane III contributed to this report.

Email:   jgould@defensenews.com