It is unclear whether this is because Mr. Trump plans to withdraw from those wars or because he rejects the underlying premise of those programs: that war is primarily a political problem and can be won only by solving the underlying political issues — for example, in Afghanistan, the absence of a strong, central state.

Instead, Mr. Trump seems to take an older, more nationalistic view, in which might is the final deciding factor in any conflict. He has not articulated how this will lead to victory in the grueling counterinsurgency campaigns across the Middle East.

Weaponry as Stagecraft

Most administrations arrive at military spending priorities through a three-step process: Identify what problems they want to solve, determine the strategy that will solve them and, finally, buy the equipment necessary to enact that strategy.

Mr. Trump appears to have run that process backward.

“I don’t think we should assume that Trump’s military spending is linked to a military strategy,” said Erin Simpson, a national security consultant who served as an adviser to the military in Afghanistan.

Why not?

“He hasn’t had time to conduct a full strategy review,” she said. But Mr. Trump has nonetheless called for building new aircraft carriers and nuclear capabilities.

This may help explain why he has not articulated strategies for fighting Al Qaeda or the Islamic State, or for containing China: Military might, in his view, translates directly into power, and power into victory.

This would dovetail with Mr. Trump’s emphasis on showmanship, stagecraft and above all negotiation.

“I think he sees force as performative. The utility of force is in its demonstration,” Ms. Simpson said.