We’re Less Safe Than We Were

Guest Opinion by Lee McInnis 

It was late October 2001, and I was on the phone with a senior intelligence officer at US Central Command. We were preparing to send troops into Afghanistan, and it was becoming clear we weren’t ready to fight that kind of war. “Yeah, we’re really good at preparing for the last war,” my CENTCOM colleague said flatly.

We did transition incredibly fast. I worked with some of the most brilliant people in our country, and they made it happen. I wish I could give you the names so they can get the public accolades they deserve, but I can’t. It’s the nature of the intelligence business, but trust me, you should be proud of them.

It’s 2026; we’re behind again; and we should have seen it coming.

It’s been four years since Russia invaded Ukraine, and by the fourth day of that war, many of us knew modern warfare had taken an evolutionary leap. The Russians should have been in Kyiv in three days, but their advance stalled and they were taking heavy casualties. The world was shocked. How did a small, relatively weak nation like Ukraine hold off one of the largest and best-equipped armies in the world?

Let’s focus on two key points. First, after years of purging effective officers and administrators, Russia lacked the capacity to field a large army. Second, Ukraine demonstrated a brilliant grasp of asymmetric warfare. That’s how an underdog fights to win. Ukraine used cheap drones, quick strikes, and clever deceptions to tie down the heavy, conventional Russian forces. Ukraine lives because it wasn’t bogged down by massive defense industries selling complicated, expensive weapon systems. They adjusted quickly to a new war.

The Trump administration hasn't learned that lesson. We are now bogged down in a long war with Iran because the Iranians understand modern, asymmetric warfare, and this administration does not. In a nutshell: we’re shooting down $200,000 drones with $14,000,000 missiles. Our stockpiles of weapons are depleted, our troops are strained to the breaking point, and we’re no closer to winning than we were six months ago.

We need brilliant people to fix this, but former talk show host and now Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth purged them all for a number of bad reasons. “Leaders” in Congress, like Mike Rogers (R – Lockheed Martin), accept millions in campaign contributions from defense contractors and then buy expensive, legacy weapons systems that line the pockets of those contributors but don’t work on a modern battlefield. 

Congressman Rogers (R – Northrop Grumman) says we need to increase defense spending to $1.5 trillion a year, a 40% increase, not to innovate but to buy more incredibly expensive systems and to fulfill Donald Trump’s dreams. Those dreams include spending $300 billion for battleships (which the navies of the world agreed were out of date in 1960) and redesigning the Ford-class carriers to meet Trump’s aesthetic desires. That decision will reduce the carrier’s combat efficiency, potentially cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and could delay delivery so long that we fall below the “10 Carrier Line,” which is essential to maintain command of the seas. 

All of this leaves our nation dangerously exposed and less capable of defending our interests. We’re not as safe as we were 18 months ago.

We need innovative thinkers on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Mike Rogers (R – General Dynamics) never will be. He is too closely tied to the defense industries that have given him millions for his campaigns.

We deserve better leadership. We deserve better than this.

Lee McInnis is an Alabama native with 30-plus-years of experience in the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Community. During that time, he held multiple senior leadership jobs, and deployed to Iraq once and Afghanistan twice. He is the Democratic nominee for Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District seat.

For more information on McInnis and his campaign, visit https://leemcinnis4alabama.com.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.