When Argentina decided to adopt a self-loading pistol for its military, it chose wisely. At first, the country purchased .45 ACP 1911 variants directly from Colt in Hartford, but then eventually commenced domestic production of the M1911A1 design as the 11.25 mm Sistema Colt 27. Argentina’s Dirección General de Fabricaciones Militares (the General Directorate of Military Manufacturing, or “DGFM”) made these pistols at the Fábrica Militar de Armas Portátiles (Military Small Arms Factory, or “FMAP”) in Rosario, 200 miles upriver from Buenos Aires.
Although the Sistema 27s provided reliable service, they were costly to make and, even after a decade of production, there still weren’t enough of them. So, work started on what would become the Ballester-Molina pistol.
Dr. Arturo Ballester Janer and Eugenio Molina—two Spanish entrepreneurs who established the firm Hispano Argentina Fábrica de Automóviles S.A.—also known as HAFDASA, gave the Ballester-Molina pistol its name.
Through the efforts of the company’s chief engineer, Rorice Rigaud, HAFDASA developed a pistol combining elements of Browning’s 1911 series with elements of the Spanish Star Model P. Noticeably, the 1911’s grip safety was replaced with a solid backstrap.
In addition to that, the new HAFDASA .45-caliber semi-automatic featured a pair of vertically grooved wooden grips, a hammer-blocking thumb safety, and an inertial firing pin that made it possible to safely lower the hammer on a loaded chamber.
(l.) The familiar “Ballester-Molina” rollmark is the first sign this isn’t a standard pistol. (ctr.)Barrels, which wear the same caliber designation, are interchangeable with 1911-style pistols. (r.) Trigger geometry also differentiates the Ballester-Molina from the M1911.
Although these features set it apart from Browning’s 1911, HAFDASA’s new pistol was almost identical in size, shape, caliber and operating principle. In fact, it was even designed to use the same seven-round detachable-box magazine, barrel and recoil springs. Nevertheless, the new HAFDASA .45 ACP was not a total copy of the Colt .45 ACP—the slides from the two pistols do not interchange.
During the first three years of production, the gun was roll-marked with the name “Ballester-Rigaud” but then in 1940 it was given the name that is more familiar to modern shooters and collectors—”Ballester-Molina.”
Initially, the Argentine government was the only user of the Ballester-Molina pistol, issuing the pistol to its military, federal police and customs service, but that changed soon after the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. The U.K. had to contend with a shortage of pistols after Dunkirk, and ordering Ballester-Molina pistols from HAFDASA helped relieve that situation.
Since Colt M1911A1 pistols were in widespread use in the King’s service and Colt could not keep up with demand, purchasing the Ballester-Molina pistol represented a sensible choice. It used the same holsters, magazines and ammunition as the Colt .45, so issuing the HAFDASA .45 would not introduce new accessories to the logistical chain.
By war’s end, the U.K. had purchased over 10,000 guns—many of which ended up being used by the Special Operations Executive (SOE) for clandestine operations. These British contract Ballester-Molinas carry serial numbers that begin with a ‘B’ prefix and fall below 21,000.
In the aftermath of World War II, the Ballester-Molina remained in production and in service. Then, in 1953 HAFDASA went out of business after having manufactured 113,000 guns. Although the assembly line had stopped running, pistols could still be found in military and police inventory even as Argentina transitioned to the Browning Hi Power 9 mm. Some Ballester-Molina pistols even armed Argentine troops during the invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1982.
But, after nearly 50 years of federal service, the pistol was finally retired. Even before that point, though, HAFDASA’s robust .45 semi-auto was already being imported into the U.S. as military surplus beginning the 1960s. Although it offers a more-affordable alternative to the military-surplus 1911, the Ballester-Molina pistol is nevertheless an outstanding design in its own right.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has been mired in “forever wars”—prolonged conflicts with no clear victory, draining trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and economic vitality. A 2023 Pew poll shows 54% of Americans favor reducing overseas military commitments, with 83% prioritizing domestic needs—a clear call for change.
The U.S. can no longer afford years of military overreach. A pragmatic strategy emphasizing diplomacy, allied burden-sharing, and strategic restraint is essential to protect national interests without exhausting finite resources.
The Overwhelming Cost of War
The post-9/11 wars have exacted a staggering toll. Brown University’s Costs of War Project estimates the U.S. has spent $8 trillion—38% of 2020’s GDP—on conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, equating to $24,000 per citizen.
Future interest on this debt could add $2.2 trillion to the national debt by 2050, burdening future generations. Human losses are equally dire: 7,000 service members and 8,000 contractors killed, 55,000 injured, and 940,000 total deaths from direct violence, with 3.6 million more dying indirectly in war zones.
Beyond numbers, the mental health crisis is profound. Veterans and active-duty personnel from these conflicts have died by suicide at four times the rate of combat losses—over 28,000 since 2001, according to 2022 VA data – mainly driven by post-traumatic stress disorder and repeated deployments.
Adding to the exhausting cost of conflict, caring for these veterans will cost $2.2-$2.5 trillion by 2050. These financial and human costs prove the wars’ unsustainability; constrained resources and public concerns require the U.S. to reassess its global security approach.
Rethinking Overseas Commitments
The U.S. maintains 750 military facilities across 80 countries, per a 2021 International Institute of Strategic Studies, at an annual cost of $80 billion—$55 billion for bases alone. The Quincy Institute reports that 91% of post-9/11 operations relied on these bases.
Yet, they’ve often fueled instability—think of the disorder stemming from Iraq’s insurgency or Afghanistan’s collapse—rather than the security they were supposed to provide. This sprawling footprint, born of Cold War logic, no longer aligns with today’s fiscal environment, demanding a leaner, more practical approach.
A Pragmatic Path Forward
Some argue that overseas military bases help deter terrorism, but the evidence suggests otherwise. According to the Cato Institute (2023), the probability of dying in a U.S. terrorist attack is just 1 in 150 million.
Since 9/11, America has experienced nine terrorist attacks, resulting in a total of 44 deaths. In contrast, during the same period, the U.S. military suffered over 7,000 fatalities and 55,000 injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, raising questions about the purpose of military operations overseas.
The cost alone is staggering. According to a Cato Institute report, a conservative baseline for total overseas basing costs is $80 billion annually, with some estimates reaching $100-$150 billion. This reflects differing indirect expenses, like troop support, highlighting the obscurity of overseas spending.
A 2023 RAND study also found that 30% of bases lack strategic purpose. A 25% reduction, focusing on outdated Cold War sites and unproductive Middle East efforts, would save $15 billion annually.
However, completely withdrawing is unwise; bases in Japan and Germany still deter Russia and China and allow forces to posture when needed. Closing outdated posts in stable regions—like parts of Europe or Asia—frees billions for pressing domestic defense needs.
The use of hard power has become overextended, yielding little success and eventually weighing heavily on the American public. A more effective strategy entails carefully reducing America’s overseas presence, reallocating resources, and reprioritizing homeland defense.
Strengthening Homeland Defense
President Trump’s campaign emphasized ending long-term military engagements, reducing overseas commitments, and reprioritizing defense strategies to enhance defending the homeland.
His 2025 executive order for an “Iron Dome” system reflects this shift, focusing on missile defense against nuclear and newer hypersonic weaponry from advancing adversaries. However, these initiatives currently face funding challenges.
The FY2024 defense budget ($850 billion) allocates $69 billion to overseas operations—defending allies—while just $29.8 billion (3.5%) boosts missile defense, unchanged since 2019.
Redirecting even half of that $69 billion could modernize defenses, aligning spending with existential risks over foreign entanglements.
However, missile defense is not the only way to protect the nation. It also demands attention to vulnerabilities closer to home, such as securing the borders—another pillar of homeland security.
Securing the Border
Border security, a neglected homeland priority, ties directly to resource reallocation. In FY2024, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) logged 3 million encounters at the southern border—up 400% from the 700,000 in the 2020s—costing an estimated $130 billion, challenging public safety and straining national security.
To help tackle this unprecedented challenge, President Trump’s recent executive orders, which declare a national emergency at the southern border and direct the military to support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in safeguarding the nation’s territorial integrity, highlight the priority of protecting the homeland.
DHS has also ramped up the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), leading to a significant 627% increase in the detainment of criminal aliens since January. This surge has prompted DHS to request additional military assistance to aid the detainment process. As a result, more military troops are being deployed to support CBP along the border, and the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is being repurposed to accommodate the detention of criminal migrants.
While reallocating military resources from overseas commitments to border security can effectively address domestic threats without requiring additional spending, as illustrated by Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s recent decision to shift eight percent of the FY26 defense budget toward homeland priorities, this approach also highlights a more significant imbalance in U.S. defense spending.
Burden Sharing Security
Disproportionate global security commitments add to the problem, as the U.S. must push NATO allies to meet their 2% GDP defense spending target—America spent twice their combined total from 2014 to 2022.
Leading allies, like the United Kingdom and Germany, spend less as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with the U.S. shouldering a disproportionate burden of European defense.
Additionally, the U.S. upholds numerous other global security agreements that extend well beyond Europe, such as the Pacific Deterrence Initiative—a U.S.-only defense investment and activity used to counter China that costs $10B annually.
The United States can no longer bear the burden of defending others. It must reassess its global security stance and agreements to ensure that costs are shared equitably. A balanced use of projecting power is needed to secure American influence abroad.
Balancing Power Projection
America’s decades-old philosophy of fighting its battles on someone else’s property remains vital to national security. A platform that can project US power quickly and support those efforts remains relevant.
Overseas “power projection platforms”—like overseas mobility bases and carriers in the Pacific—are necessary, enabling rapid response and sustainment to a crisis. However, basing that does not support projecting power should be reconsidered for closure. Trimming these frees funds for soft power—diplomacy and economic leverage—that achieves similar ends at a lower cost.
Harnessing Soft Power
Soft power—persuading through attraction, not force—offers a sustainable edge. Diplomacy can preempt conflicts that mimic hard power wins, such as the ceasefire that paused fighting in Sudan, allowing 150,000 to flee safely and aid to reach 500,000, per UNHCR reports.
Diplomacy can also secure trade deals, such as the 2020 U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement, which cut tariffs and secured U.S. farm exports to counter China’s trade dominance. Yet, while diplomacy can secure trade wins to help balance its trade, its effectiveness diminishes when multilateral agreements lead to persistent inequities.
For example, the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a multilateral trade agreement, incurred a deficit of $913 billion in 2024, a 12 percent increase ($97.7 billion) over 2023. Further, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, America’s total global goods and services deficit was $918.4 billion in 2024, up $133.5 billion from $784.9 billion in 2023.
This unsustainable trend indicates that the U.S. needs to rethink its negotiating approach in line with more equitable agreements that work directly with each partner, making adherence and fairness more manageable.
However, diplomacy and trade agreements alone cannot guarantee a nation’s security. Economic strength is vitally important and underwrites all its activities, making it essential to influence, leverage, and safeguard its interests.
Prioritizing Economic Security
The U.S. economy—$29 trillion in 2024, 25% of global wealth—thrives on energy, innovation, and resilience. For example, since 2019, an 8-quadrillion-BTU energy surplus has fueled energy exports, supporting Europe against Russia and countering Iran. Energy independence and growth are critical in maintaining America’s edge over rivals and securing its position as a preeminent global power.
However, the U.S. must address significant financial challenges, including its $34 trillion national debt and nearly $2 trillion budget deficit. While the U.S. currently has an economic advantage over China, purchasing power parity, or how much your currency can buy, shows that China leads by 23% and is growing. More concerning is that experts predict that China will surpass the total U.S. economy by 2040.
Remaining a global leader requires economic security and realigning priorities. Protecting against rising financial challenges and economic juggernauts like China means redirecting excessive global commitments to infrastructure and tech, not unproductive overseas commitments.
Conclusion
The post-9/11 wars have cost the United States $8 trillion, nearly a million lives directly and indirectly, and decades of overstretched resources—losses no nation can sustain indefinitely. To secure its interests, the U.S. must pivot from endless military entanglements to a strategy of calculated restraint: reducing outdated overseas commitments, redirecting funds to homeland defense and economic resilience, and leaning on diplomacy and allied cooperation to project influence.
This shift isn’t retreat—it’s recalibration. By prioritizing what strengthens the nation, from border security to soft power, America can safeguard its future without repeating its past mistakes.
– – –
Major General Don McGregor (USAF, ret.) is a combat veteran and an F-16 fighter pilot. While serving as a General Officer in the Pentagon, he was the National Guard Director of Strategy, Policy, Plans, and International Affairs, advising a four-star Joint Chiefs of Staff member.
Categories
J.M. Browning Harmonica Rifle
Categories