After the wall fell and the Soviet Union crumbled, we took what’s called a procurement holiday. That means we didn’t replace equipment that was reaching the end of its life. The next decade, we spent our defense dollars on the war and did little in the way of modernizing the force. We purchased body armor and UAVs and MRAPs to help our troops. These were sound investments. But we also skipped another generation of modernization.

Now—and I say this without hyperbole—we have planes that are falling out of the sky, nuclear missiles that have been on alert since Vince Lombardi coached the Packers, and tanks that were purchased by Donald Rumsfeld—when he was President Ford’s Secretary of Defense. Eventually, these decisions will catch up to us. I’m most concerned that we will lose our ability to deter conflict. If we allow our military edge to fade, if we allow our enemies to choose when and where to engage us, it would be a tremendous failure of our own making.

My parents’ generation, the greatest generation, gave us the gift of peace and security. It was a hard-fought and hard-won peace.It is my sincere hope that we can give the same gift to our children and grandchildren. I have thirty living grandchildren who are filled with potential. I’d love nothing more than for them to inherit a peaceful and prosperous America, like the one my parents passed on to me. Only without the drop drills and the fear of nuclear attack that I experienced as a young man. This is what Vinson talked about when he spoke of the moral obligation we have to our Armed Forces.

President Obama has said that the pathway to peace runs through the Pacific Rim. Given recent tensions, there is wisdom in paying closer attention to the Far East. But hastily shifting away from the Middle East may come with a heavy consequence.

I am concerned that habitually changing our defense strategy projects uncertainty to actors like Iran. It is worth asking—does the regime in Tehran look forward to our exit from the Persian Gulf with the same enthusiasm that the Taliban looks forward to our departure from Afghanistan? Does this embolden them to increase their export of violence? Does pivoting to Asia help dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons? What message are we sending to our allies in the region? I am concerned that we are losing our ability to shape the peace to our satisfaction.

It is worth remembering that we still have men and women in combat, working to reclaim the peace that they inherited from their parents and grandparents. As we shift towards the Pacific—if that is the strategy we settle on—will U.S. forces in Afghanistan still be our top priority? After ten years of fighting, we’re reaching an important turning point. We know that to successfully refocus on Asia, we must first get Afghanistan right.

Though we are anticipating a 2014 transition from combat to training missions in Afghanistan, we will still have Americans close to danger for the foreseeable future. This is one of those places where statecraft and military power intersect. To ensure that the transition is successful, it is imperative that we secure a bilateral security agreement with the Karzai government. Sound logistical support is critical in any combat theater, but the utility of a first-rate military is questionable if they do not have, for example, freedom of movement throughout the countryside.

A bilateral security agreement would seek to accomplish needed requirements like granting that freedom of movement and ensuring that U.S. forces accused of crimes are held accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rather than Afghanistan’s judicial system. I know that the Obama administration is working to achieve this goal. It is my sincere hope they succeed.

But this returns us to the utility of our hegemony. Losing the peace in Afghanistan would only encourage the wolves to circle a little closer. We cannot allow that to happen, not when we are experiencing the unique and dangerous combination of defense cuts, rising powers, new threats and economic turmoil.

We talk about the purpose of the common defense, in the way that the Founders intended. The Constitution was a generational document. It was intended to last much longer than its authors. And that line, to provide for the common defense, was their moral charge to pass along peace and security from one generation to the next. That is the responsibility of power. That is the purpose of our hegemony, and that is the duty that comes with the heavy mantle of international leadership.

That leadership presents challenges. It always has, and always will. But this is America. And solving problems is what we do best. We have survived a revolution, a civil war, a great depression, two world wars and a cold war. We’ll survive these fiscal woes, and we’ll come out of it like we come out of every mess—restored, revived and brighter than ever before.

Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. This article is adapted from an address he delivered on April 10, 2013, upon being presented with the Center for the National Interest’s Distinguished Service Award.