Personally, I’m under the impression that the money spent on American defense is ridiculously high. I’m on campus right now, so I don’t have any of my sources with me, but American defense spending is often compared to the defense spending of either a certain number of the next-biggest spenders combined or all the “rogue states” combined.
It seems more and more that both conservatives and liberals are questioning the present defense based american policy and using past (pre-WWII) examples of Amercan POVs to justify their concerns, showing essentially that this idea of huge defense spending is not congruent with core-American ideals.
One example of a conservative that comes to mind is Mike Sheuer in his Imperial Hubris. I should first clarify that I’m inferring that he’s a conservative. This is because several time in the book he cuts down the Clinton Administration as sort of wimpy and gutless, then other times he says things about Reagan along the lines of “the example which all Presidents should strive to reflect.” That said, he mentions that the present US view of defense above diplomacy is strictly a post-WWII ideology and that it is for the most part contrary to the perspective before.
(As I’ve said, I don’t have the book with me, so don’t take any of these quotes to be anything but a more or less blurry image of their true selves)
The liberal objections I believe are apparent, so I’m not going to go to the trouble of presenting them all.
Here are the questions I want to ask:
Is American defense spending out of control? If not, please explain why not. Also, please clarify to me why the US cannot spend the minute fraction (less than $20 billion of it’s present $400 billion) that could eradicate diseases like malaria and provide adaquate AIDs treatement. Will that not, in the long run, make the US far safer than constantly having to defend itself? Is it possible to “kill them with kindness”? Who’s going to rise up and fight the country that immunized their entire country from the ravages of certain diseases?
If so, what can we do to lower it? Are there organizations that lobby to defer money from defense to projects for developement?
Finally (I might be going overboard, asking too many questions at once), why does there seem to be a complete aversion to peace through diplomacy as regards American concervatives? Why is peace sometimes seen as something laughable that always conjures images doped up hippies and idealistic, naive kids (like me). I know I’m not imagining this, but I may be projecting it on a larger group than truly does hold this idea. I just want to know why thinking/wanting peace (that does not mean peace via war) is something un-macho, irrational, and unpatriotic.
I have stated before, and I will state yet again, American defense spending is not overly high. It is down quite a bit from the high levels of the Cold War as measured against GDP.
As recently as 1986, we spent about 6% of our GDP on defense. Right now, even with a war on, defense spending is at 3.5% of GDP. Given our global responsibilities, that is not overly large.
If anything, other countries are underfunding their militaries, maling them unable to meet NATO commitments, for instance, or back diplomatic efforts with credible force. And this is what it all comes down to - the realization that talk can never solve anything unless that talk is backed by power. Military power is a crucial component here.
I’ll preface this question by certifying that I’m not being sarcastic, but what are our global responsibilities exactly that require our military to be hands, feet, heads above everyone else in the world?
If that responsibility be maintaining the peace, would other actions (note: not “talk”) be more effective in conjunction with a powerful military? By this, I mean, things like irradicating malaria in Africa, not tacitly supporting (which includes silent on actions that are unjust) dictators and other corrupt governments, striving to develope failed states as they are havens for terrorism (this includes, obviously, not creating failed states that are havens for terrorists), or strengthening and equilizing the opportunity of education in undeveloped nations.
I agree completely that talk doesn’t accomplish anything without power. I believe, though, that many people neglect a certain power that America has which is far more effective and which doesn’t involve wepaons buildup. That’s why I see diplomacy as an action, not as a conversation or negotiation.
I believe the other form of American power isn’t used because many people often pass of failed states as automatically corrupt, and therefore unfixable outside of military intervention.
But the fact that the US doesn’t spend more per capita or per GDP doesn’t solve whether it spends to much in the long run.
I’m still wondering, what are those global responsibilities? and is a powerful army the most important tool in carrying out those responsibilities?
I’m getting at the fact that lowering the number of people who may want to attack us (or tacitly support those who do) is just as (if not more) necessary as is a powerful military.
case in point, from Cecil:
One thing that Osama and al-Quada has harped on is the fact that the US supports corrupt Arab dictatorships, especially the one in Saudi Arabia. Wouldn’t we be better of not arming the Saudis, thus largely reducing largely the number of people who want to attack us, then spending the money we don’t need to spend on defense on education and disease reduction in throughout the world (which isn’t a handout, because it’s in our own best interests that people around the world are educated and healthy, as it increases business, innovation, global health while reducing terrorism, failed states, etc.)
I’d hope that the $7 Billion lost in not doing business with the Saudis would be a drop in the bucket compared to the stability gained worldwide (no not ultimate stability, this is just one example).
Regarding global responsibilities, since 1945 we are committed by treaty to the defense of Europe, and we maintain bases and forces there to meet those treaty obligations.
We have maintained bases in Japan since WWII, first as an occupation force, then as a projection point for American power for the defense of the Asian landmass against Soviet and Chinese expansionism. We still keep forces there even now because of a North Korean threat, and because Chinese interests do not dovetail with our own by any means.
We maintain forces in Korea for the defense of South Korea, again by treaty.
We have a major force consentration in Afghanistan right now, for fairly obvious reasons. Same with Iraq.
The Soviet Union does not have thousands of tanks poised to make a run over western Europe anymore.
Also, I would point out that force is not the only way to back up diplomacy. Unless your idea of diplomacy is “Do this or else” and then you need force. American diplomacy should not be “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse” but something more akin to “Try to see it my way.”
Also, I will reiterate, diplomacy backed by nothing is impotent. The failure of United Nations Security Council resolutions and sanctions to deter the behavior of Saddam Hussein ought to have demonstrated that.
But they weren’t a failure. He didn’t have a WMD program. Sure, he wasn’t nice to his people, but that wasn’t the point. The point of the sanctions was to keep him from being a threat and they worked.
I know that the military is trimming back. The navy is smaller, bases close. All that is well and good. But, with how much we do spend on the military, and the dominance of the idea of the military in our culture, does this make us look to military solutions as the way to go.
I watched a very interesting report on Frontline last night about Iraq. It covered the ‘private security’ and the ‘outsourcing’ in Iraq and the problems they solve and the problems they create. And they may not be saving us any money at all.
As far as your point of view on Diplomacy, I understand it. I just don’t believe it.
Saddam Hussein had a WMD program, and working WMD’s. Most of these weapons were dismantled under the sanctions regime, but the program remained in place, awaiting the day when sanctions ultimately fell apart.
The sanctions were failing badly by the time the Iraq War started, and could no longer be counted upon to restrain Iraqi behavior.
Thus, they did not work. And they couldn’t work as long as credible force wasn’t placed behind them.
This is the Duelfer Report. It did not sugarcoat our intelligence failures in Iraq prior to the war. It also does not flinch from stating that the Hussein regime fully intended to resume WMD productioon once sanctions failed.
Progressive liberal and idealistic peacenik though I am, I am not against the idea of military spending. I just think we ought to spend our resources a little more wisely. More agents on the ground instead of more bombs. More education programs to deter fundamentalism taking root. More outreach to moderates. More translators. Better benefits and pay for soldiers and vets. And above all, we need less waste, theft and corruption in our military/industrial complex. The Pentagon admits to not being able to account for at least 2.3 trillion dollars. That’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. And that was before what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. How can we even tell whether we are spending too much when there are cooked books on what we are spending it on?
“Preeminence”. If you haven’t already, please take the time (quite a bit of time) to read Rebuilding America’s Defences, a pre-9/11 document which has informed, pre- and post-9/11, the current US government’s military policy. In fact, the entire site is fascinating, as many of the signatories to PNAC are currently, or have been recently, working for the government.
You guys might wanna look at this from another direction before slashing all that defense spending. A well-equipped (and large) military could be considered a by-product of keeping all those engineers employed and factories staffed. If you try to eliminate too much defense spending, you’re gonna have a lot of unhappy unemployed people. At best, you may just end up moving the spending around a bit.
I don’t really want to get involved in this argument on either side, but felt it necessary to add another dimension to the debate.
I googled around a little more and also came up with this:
Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Budget Request
As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, and Comptroller Dov Zakheim,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Monday, July 16, 2001.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question is, of course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for the Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense Review on this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two weeks. We’re obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a big, broad, complicated subject.
As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It’s the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can’t do. I know Dr. Zakheim’s been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can’t account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that’s believable. And yet we’re told that we can’t hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.
Your cite? Not saying your wrong, it just seems that everything to do with the UN is based on whether one is for or against the UN (e.g. The UN isn’t effective so the US needs to overhaul the UN/the UN is falling apart because the US doesn’t abide by it’s rules and now the US wants to completely take it over).
Colin Powell was on the BBC yesterday. Though, I’m not saying he completely refuted the above claim, but he gives several times a pretty stern, “We were wrong.”
He doesn’t say that we had to go in because UN sanctions were crumbling. He does say that Saddam wanted to build the weapons.
Either way, I digress, and I’m hijacking my own thread.
I think spending is too high. I think that our adventurism has led to our ‘responsibilities’ largely, and it is becoming a recursive cycle where we create problems militarily that need to be solved militarily. We need to go with a more military isolationist policy and build up a military somewhat akin to Israels, with good intelligence and elite forces. I think assassination is a better way to prosecute a war than rolling tanks through cities. If we had an elite force of assassins we could tell any aggressor state that if they don’t toe the line we are going to land 10,000 elite assassins right on top of their capital and execute the people on a list of government officials. We shouldn’t bother to rebuild the nation, let the people do that, but this force would only be used in case of a genocide or raw military aggression. We should declare all out war illegal, and get other nations like China and Russia to back us up in this. We should stop caring about nations that are still locked in tribal conflicts, let them figure it out and come into the 21st century at their own pace, and have an economy that is dynamic enough to shift around the globe to do business wherever it is stable. We should implement economic policies where we don’t try to help the lowest on the totem pole but help those that are ready to be on the same page that we are, and focus on regions that we can help stabilize by introducing an influx of investment capital. We should be focusing more on Mexico and it’s economy in order to bring up all of the Americas to our standard than we do on the middle east, and be working on alternative energy sources, allowing oil prices to rise rather than helping to keep them low so that we can continue to drive hummer H2s. Gasoline should be rationed, in that you are allowed a certain amount each month, and if you buy more than that, you have to pay 1.5 times the price for it. The military industrial complex should be refocused onto space exploration, and we should be focusing on undersea and outerspace colonization. We should put a stop to the drug war, and institute programs that teach the REAL dangers of drugs and not a propagandized version designed to deter the ignorant.
We could continue to recruit for the military, but turn the military into a building force that goes into a nation and builds their infrastructure for them if they are willing to meet certain guidelines for constitutional governance, one of the guidelines being that their debt is not to be paid back to us, it is to be paid by funding our military builders to build the infrastructure of the next country, and so on until the entire world is a first world nation, and everyone is trading peacefully.
An army is an organization that specializes in killing people and breaking things. It fights. Or it simply exists as a standing threat to discourage enemies. It is as fundamentally unsuited to nation-building as it is to policing.