Do more with less.

That is the theme of the 2015 National Security Strategy President Obama released last Friday.

The president’s vision for American diplomatic and military engagement naively envisages an America capable of responding to a growing list of threats with shrinking forces.

The Obama administration consistently has argued this approach is realistic. But in continuing to stretch thin the military’s resources, the 2015 National Security Strategy largely misses the mark and fails to ensure the needs of the American military will be met in coming years.

The National Security Strategy’s rosy outlook stands in stark opposition to the defense posture U.S. military officials have discussed. Just days before the release of the National Security Strategy, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the Marine who serves as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that “[a] confluence of global, political, military, social and technological developments have created security challenges more diverse and complex than those we have experienced in our lifetimes.”

Although these challenges demand more from our armed forces, Stewart concedes, “[military] resources continue to go down.” Consequently, many have advocated for increased defense investments aimed at ensuring the military can continue to provide for the common defense.

The National Security Strategy correctly argues the country will continue to “deter aggression through forward presence and engagement.” Yet despite recognizing that “our military will be smaller,” the National Security Strategy asserts that “U.S. forces will be ready to project power globally to defeat and deny aggression in multiple theaters.”

The projected power described in the National Security Strategy largely will rely on increased capabilities in cyber, space and in what is known as ISR—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. These are all critical elements of a robust national defense, but they are by no means a replacement for the capacity necessary to project power globally.

Furthermore, the strategy of increasing technological capabilities while reducing physical resources fails to account for the difficulties that surely will arise as a result of continued effects of sequestration—which inflicts half its funding reductions on defense despite the Department of Defense accounting for less than 20 percent of the federal budget—and the potential for Congress’ continued inability to pass a normal budget.

The White House rightly acknowledges new and growing threats throughout the world, yet it fails to make the necessary commitments to the U.S. military to adequately address them. Such a strategy ultimately will come at the expense of America’s ability to protect its citizens and interests around the world.