Insecurity in Security
“Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”
It’s a reasonable question. But to hear this coming from the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, at a speech to the Navy League on May 3rd, has forced me to reconsider some of my assumptions about the blood-sucking nature of ‘not-for-profit’ organizations (kidding, kidding … sort of). When was the last time a powerful figurehead leveled with his patrons: “You know what? Y’all probably gave us a little too much money last year.” And just last Saturday, at a celebration of the 65th Anniversary of VE-Day held at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum, Gates echoed Eisenhower’s warning about the “grave implications” of a powerful military industrial complex. According to Gates’ press secretary, the speech was intended as a “hard-hitting message.“
Gates’ remarks suggest a reorganization of current military priorities away from standing military infrastructure designed to combat formidable, national military forces simultaneously on two fronts. The common logic here is that we will need a leaner, more agile military force, with a focus on intelligence, to address contemporary security threats such as stateless terrorists or rogue military regimes with high-yield weaponry. This seems to make sense. To finance the transition, Gates has expressed opposition to standing military assets such as juggernaut flotillas and additional F-22, F-35 (JSF) and C-17 production. Such expenditures, which require the commercialization of advanced robotics, avionics, weaponry, and digital technology, as well as employing scores of well-trained servicemen with lifelong benefits, are burdensome. Since Bush’s election in 2000, military spending has risen steadily, and according to Gates those additional costs have not been effectively targeted at solving contemporary security threats but rather to beef-up of the status quo: “When all was said and done, the way the Pentagon selected, evaluated, developed and paid for major new weapons systems and equipment did not fundamentally change — even after September 11th.“
So how much money are we talking about? Well, it’s famously hard to figure, as a number of other departments such as Energy, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security receive federal funding for defense-related outlays. The top-line Department of Defense budget for fiscal 2009 was $719 billion. However, if you follow Robert Higgs and throw in non-DOD military expenditures, you will get a number just over $900 billion dollars. That’s about 5% of GDP, compared to around 3% at the end of the Clinton years. All the while, gross debt rose from 58% of GDP to 70% of GDP during the Bush years, from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008.
I’m not convinced Americans are any better for it. Over the last decade, an admittedly small but most relevant sample size, any correlation between military spending and the prosperity of Americans, and non-Americans, seems negative. The relative slide in US power has, if anything, been accelerated by excessive military spending and record deficits. Our $900 billion budget is at least six times more than China’s defense spending, which is probably the greatest potential long-term counterbalance to US military dominance.
The opportunity costs are the real killer here. Military spending alone doesn’t necessarily detract from US power, though its irresponsible use probably does. But think about what we could have done with all that money, at time when unemployment hovers around 10%, budget deficits (state and federal) are out of control, high-school graduation rates are below 80%, and the US is ill-prepared for an impending energy and environmental crisis. Like it or not, these are the issues that will probably determine the fate of Americans and our national priorities. Not terrorists.
We cannot continue to repaint the facade as the structure crumbles from within like a porkbarrelled Iraqi Police College. The obvious excesses of our military complex are a wasteful tragedy and a grave threat to the continued prosperity of Americans. If, say, $450 billion — still three times more than China — is not enough to defend our borders then something is terribly wrong within.
Why hasn’t this become a bigger issue for conservatives? Shouldn’t they be at the forefront challenging self-perpetuating, unnecessary establishment spending that doesn’t empower the people? All I hear today from the Tea Party crowd is the inclusion of Hispanic immigrants into the Axis of Evil. And all along I thought immigrants were supposed to be the ones having the party.
wallah…bravo.
inshallah intellectual conservatism still has a breath of life..
But i doubt you’ll get link love from HotAir or NRO, Walker.
— matoko_chan · May 16, 01:13 PM · #
Why hasn’t this become a bigger issue for conservatives? Shouldn’t they be at the forefront challenging self-perpetuating, unnecessary establishment spending that doesn’t empower the people?
Very reasonable questions. I’m not quite certain of my own answers, but one thing is certain: conservatives’ natural skepticism of government evaporates the moment somebody appears with either a badge on his breast or stars on his shoulders.
— Tom · May 16, 03:39 PM · #
We need enough carrier groups to absolutely, positively guarantee that we win the battle of the Taiwan Straits on whatever day it is fought. I don’t know how many groups that is, but there’s no evidence here that Mr. Frost does either. I’ve been hearing this rhetoric of “With all the money we’re spending on the military, we could . . . .” my whole life, and it leaves me cold. Perhaps Mr. Frost could explain why this rhetoric has always been wrong in the past, but this time it’s different.
— y81 · May 16, 04:48 PM · #
To the extent that it is thought to have something to do with skepticism of government power, conservatism is dead in this country.
See, e.g., the entire Bush Jr. presidency. Or this: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/05/jack-bauer-republicans.php (Or for good measure on the death of conservatism when it comes to thinking rationally about costs and benefits in war spending, this: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html )
Conservatism is about hating enemies. The end. Nothing else.
Now, it would be a great thing for America and the world if a principled conservatism were born again. Good luck to you.
— Elvis Elvisberg · May 16, 06:10 PM · #
It would be a great thing for America if conservative pudits would just start telling the truth.
The TPM is a white conservative christian grievance movement…..it has NOTHING to do with fiscal conservatism.
I’d settle for a little truthsay.
Let’s face it…..if you throw the christofascists, so-cons, creationists, life-warriors and white evangelical christians..and racists, bigots and homophobes out of the TPM, you have maybe 10 or 12 fiscal conservatives left, and they are all Paulites.
— matoko_chan · May 16, 08:16 PM · #
Tom, I agree. It’s almost like we put on the democratic baby gloves in deference to military service. Not only does that hurt the democratic process, but doing so seems awfully disrespectful.
y81, I’m not sure it has been wrong in the past. But, 6-1 seems an unnecessary resource advantage, the maintenance of which requires neglecting more important economic and social threats. All we need in Taiwan is a substantial deterrent to maintain the status quo. If 3-1 doesn’t do the trick, then we need to reconsider the breadth of our global military obligations, particularly at this time of economic atrophy.
Elvis, I think the sensibilities are still there, and conservatives don’t necessarily need a single political party to represent their libertarian interests. For the last decade, we’ve had two presidents who have acted like more government is the answer for just about everything on their respective agendas. I like the new agenda more than the old one. To me, more government makes more sense now (healthcare, energy, education, social security) than it did 10 years ago (military, security, moral issues). I guess those are just my contingent political priorities, and ‘conservatism’ doesn’t tell you when government works and when it doesn’t.
Matoko, I think one day people will look back and say, “What a strange coalition indeed.”
— walker frost · May 16, 10:01 PM · #
“I’m not sure it has been wrong in the past.”
You mean, after we left Vietnam and cut military spending under Carter, our economy boomed, social problems declined, and we became more powerful and respected throughout the world? You are clearly not a serious thinker.
— y81 · May 17, 12:46 AM · #
y81, obsession with the Taiwan Straits is itself an example of how distracted we’ve become. In neocons’ minds, every potential threat is tantamount to Munich 1938.
We can (and do) sell plenty of weapons to Taiwan as a deterrent. And even if China invades, explain to me how the geopolitical implications could be worse than, say, Pearl Harbor? Which when it occurred the US was not even in the top 5 in military spending?
— Derek Scruggs · May 17, 12:51 AM · #
“Why hasn’t this become a bigger issue for conservatives?”
1. Modern American conservatives in general are psychologically prone to be attracted to authority and force (which somehow gets conflated with patriotism).
2. Small government is just a mantra/rallying cry/motto to be shouted at rallies. It has about as much functional meaning as a skull tattoo on a hipster.
Beyond that, what the current purpose of our navy is at this time is pretty interesting, especially aircraft carriers. I am just thinking about this now, but I wonder how long an aircraft carrier would last against a serious assault by cruise missle. How many hits many would it take to sink one? Of course, then you have to ask, how many other countries have effective cruise missle technology? But when was the last actual sea battle? The Falklands? And that was just a little scrimmage. We haven’t had real full on sea battles since WWII if I remember correctly. Technology has changed a lot since then.
— cw · May 17, 03:54 AM · #
I looked up the numbers on how much the U.S. and other countries spend on their militaries as a percent of GDP back in 2006 during the war fever in the press that accompanied the Israel-Hezbollah war:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/08/war-human-race-just-isnt-trying-very.html
— Steve Sailer · May 17, 04:14 AM · #
“What a strange coalition indeed.”
Why?
Isn’t it obvious that the common denominator is taking THEIR white “judeo-christian” country back?
Everything flows together, federalism, white patriarchy social cohesion model, rural southern geolocation, high religiosity. The TPM is homogeneously conservative christian.
It is what they are saying, what they are showing us, in their signage, in their rallies, their constant references to god, in the visuals on tv.
Like Maya Angelou said, when someone shows you who they are …believe them. the first time.
— matoko_chan · May 17, 04:59 AM · #
Ha! You lost me at “graduation rates”! Yes, yes, let’s put that money into the department of education instead of the department of defense. Ha! Now, how do I filter out posts by “Walker Frost” . . .
— Michael · May 17, 01:50 PM · #
“You mean, after we left Vietnam and cut military spending under Carter, our economy boomed, social problems declined, and we became more powerful and respected throughout the world?”
No surprise—defense budgets under Carter were not as simple as y81 describes:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200701240002
Even if we take y81’s remark at face value, it’s bizarre to hear somebody declare that arguments to ramp down military spending have “always been wrong in the past” and then bring up the period around the Vietnam war to defend his/her assertion.
Isn’t Vietnam a perfect example of how overwhelming military advantage often brings significantly diminished returns?
— turnbuckle · May 17, 03:12 PM · #
Just curious Mr. _Chan…how many Tea Parties have you attended? It must be quite a number and you must have spent your time there intensely questioning the attendees about their motivations, their religion, and their fiscal philosophies because you sure seem absolutely certain about all these people and all their beliefs.
What? You’ve never been to a Tea Party?
You mean you’re just blowing smoke out your ass and you have no idea about the folks who attend Tea Parties? You’re just regurgitating what Garofolo and the MSNBC crew (“All Lily-White, All the Time”)spew?
I thought so….
— tomaig · May 17, 03:58 PM · #
Sigh… just another reminder – “Matoko-chan” is very obviously a woman’s name.
Well, it helps that they keep telling us what they believe. All you have to do is read their signs.
— Chet · May 17, 04:59 PM · #
A large military was required for the American transition to a free trade and an import-based society, from its previous protectionist and relatively isolationist stance. In order for this new system to work, American needed to control all markets and attempted to force changes in any nation rejecting the American system. When it decided to transform to a free trade regime (like the British system), the US had to adopt a interventionist military and economic policy (like the previous British system, which went to war to open closed economic systems).
For the US to give up its large military, it must transform the American society away from an import-based economy. The only other way to reject a large military is for the US to accept decline and secondary world status (like the British did after WWII).
— Gaius Gracchus · May 17, 05:14 PM · #
tomaig, im just responding to Walker.
it is not a strange coalition.
all tea party attendees believe in Jesus….self-described christians, and they self select for enthusiam.
that is common denominator, white conservative christians want “their country back”.
And like I said, Obama’s IQ bugs them a hella lot more than his skin color.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 12:02 AM · #
“ The only other way to reject a large military is for the US to accept decline and secondary world status (like the British did after WWII).”
What brings more suction on the world scene? A big dick? Or american culture plus the world’s default currency? We are no longer living in the 19th century forcing japan to open to US imports. We are not even in the 20th century where we needed a big navy to defeat imperial japan (these two events maybe connected, I would be interested if anyone had any insight into this). I would like to suggest that a huge military may not be as necessary as it was in the past. Or at least not a huge conventional military.
On the other hand, how much of the economy does the military industrial complex account for? How may jobs are created making weapons we don’t need. Which is probably no different than creating jobs making George Forman Frybabies that we don’t need. Maybe the MIC is just another aspect of our consumer society.
Take bikes for instance. Basic bicycle technology was perfected years ago. And it a decent bike will pretty much last indefinitely. But bike companies still need to sell bikes so they have create all kinds percived needs and products to match those needs. So now the average biker is riding something totally inppropriate for their needs with all kinds of complicated and unnecessary technology. Think mountain bikes. Basically there are all these people communitng to work in f22s. On the other hand, people like fancy bikes and get aesthetic pleasure out of them. I think the aesthetic pleasure and pride of ownership of these super fancy airplanes is also a factor their creation.
— cw · May 18, 12:09 AM · #
cw,
China raises bike tech to a whole new level
— Keid A · May 18, 12:46 AM · #
Keid A,
Those seem to make sense. I used to have a little moped with a tiny gas powered motor plus pedals and it was a lot of fun and a good way to get around. Of course, electric bikes are not pollution free (except for hydro and solar power, I guess). They had to burn a bunch of coal to make the electricity. But these kind of vehicles will drive battery and alternative electic generation technology which is where we have to go.
Porsche made a car using F1 technology that somehow takes heat from the brakes and converts it into electricity(?) which it uses to spin a flywheel super fast, and being a flywheel it just keeps spinning until some extra oomph is needed for passing (this is a race car) and the spinning flywheel genenrates electricity to power two little motors in the front wheels. THe fly wheel is essentially a mechanical batttery. Heat energy is (somehow, I don’t understand this part) is used to spin up the flywheel which stores the energy as motion, which is then converted to electricity when needed.
This is the kind of stuff we are going to be living with in the future. Oil costs too much (in all senses of the word) and the need for alternatives is driving innovation. It’s pretty interesting. I bet there will be some new form of energy/propusion that we never thought of.
— cw · May 18, 01:30 AM · #
The nation still has too much money, so…
— アダルト被リンク · May 18, 02:16 AM · #
GDP declined for twenty years following the recommissioning of the US Navy in 1794. Military is for security, not prosperity.
Just because we stop swinging doesn’t mean everyone will trade in for vaginas. I’d rather be the world’s relatively benign big dick than sucking the next one in line.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · May 18, 09:53 AM · #
An interesting fact, insinuating but not prescribing. We should aim for parity, I guess.
And “counterbalance to US military dominance” is a funny way of putting it. Perhaps “threat to US interests” or “rival for global dominance” would work best (you’re allowed to root for the home team, yo).
Comparing to the Clinton years is kind of stupid. Why not to the Eisenhower years, since you brought him up.
Not mentioned: US international obligations are many and complex; 5% is historically way low, except for the nineties when our growth outpaced appropriations; two wars thousands of miles away; international commerce and transfer routes; prevention, stability and crisis response capabilities; deterrence and concurrent contingencies.
We have more than borders to defend; that debate was settled, again, in 1784. Now I’ve come full circle.
Look, Walker. There are good arguments to cut the military budget and press pause on some platforms. You just didn’t make one.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · May 18, 10:22 AM · #
Matoko, I mean’t the larger conservative coalition that maintained power and remarkably some cohesion during the Bush years. On an intellectual level, the mix of pro-life and pro-war, pro-morals and pro-market, seems strange to me. But, I take you point, this probably never was an intellectual alliance. And history probably won’t see it as one either.
cw, I like the observation that military spending can be seen as a function of our more general propensity to irresponsibly consume. I guess we can’t expect our government to be any more critical of waste and excess than we are with ourselves. And if the only justification for military spending is to drive employment, we should all be fired anyway for our sheer lack of creativity.
KVS, I put it that way because people (and you) seem to believe that a rival would be a threat. I guess you and I just have different home teams. I care for the US only in so far as it empowers its people, which is why current levels of military spending won’t make my roster. Otherwise, I have little interest in the Glory of Washington. And why would I compare contemporary security threats to those of the 1950s? Your only argument seems to be that I am underestimating our contemporary security obligations, but I don’t support assuming security obligations that require the US to spend six times more on military than any other country. I think this dispute is just a difference in our competing visions for what we want America to be. I have no argumentative recourse for convincing you that my priorities are better. If current levels of spending support your cause, then who am I call you stupid?
— Walker Frost · May 18, 12:59 PM · #
hai KVS.
i think you just have an american exceptionalism hangover.
those days are gone.
“conservatives” are just having their Custer’s Last Stand moment in November, and then we will all move on.
Can’t fight teh global demogrpahic evolution.
Big White Christian Bwana best get read to slink off into the sunset.
After we get done failing in Iraq and the Graveyard of Empires, “american exceptionalism” is going to be as dead as the British Raj.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 01:23 PM · #
this probably never was an intellectual alliance.
dude, it is an anti-intellectual alliance if anything.
Obama’s IQ is a hella bigger problem for the TPM than his skin color. I seriously think IQ data would show average conservatives significantly lower than average democrats….the problem is the within group variance….and both parties are likely bimodal distributions, but my hypoth is the GOP has waaay more 40 percenters….
its GOP populism…..negative social capital leveling for IQ and education, positive social capital leveling for “commonsense” and religiosity.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 01:45 PM · #
Sanchez already pointed part of this out.
Conservatism is a political philosophy; the farce currently performing under that marquee is an inferiority complex in political philosophy drag.
Various studies have established a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity (see Lynn), and the GOP is definitely the religiosity party.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 01:58 PM · #
matoko_chan,
Big White Christian Bwana best get read to slink off into the sunset
I don’t believe it was ever really that, even though that made up a large part of the mythology, or rather the narrative of Western imperialism at its height. In reality it was always the rationals vs the prerationals, and that’s what it is now too.
In this century it will be the most powerful rational society that wins. It’s just that that is no longer the West. Bankrupt Western civ is being left in the dust by rising profitable and solvent Asia.
Wave bye bye to your bankers as they pass you by. For now you are borrowing trillions every year, just to bail out your corrupt disfunctional institutions. Soon you will be borrowing trillions just to pay the interest on the vast debts.
By the end of this decade, a sizable fraction of US GDP will go to Asia in interest payments. USA has almost completed the circle back to being an economic colony of a foreign power. George Washington would be amazed how his revolution turned out.
— Keid A · May 18, 02:53 PM · #
matoko,
american exceptionalism” is going to be as dead as the British Raj
Just as the US Raj replaced the British Raj so the Chinese Raj will replace you. The one constant is the Raj.
You are deluded if you think the end of American power would mean the end of imperialism. It just means others will run the empires. You will be taking orders instead of giving them. Get used to it. Winners win, losers lose. USA and Europe are the new losers.
It’s a race to the bottom. Last year America was “winning”; this year it’s Europe. Neither side can imagine controlling their spending. So you cannot escape. Controlling your excesses would require discipline and purposfullness. Your effete systems are no longer capable of either. So you fail.
Asia is lean hungry and ambitious. You are old fat and lazy. There is nothing more certain than that the decandent West is fucked.
— Keid A · May 18, 05:22 PM · #
Oh, goodie. A spirited response.
Unaligned interests plus comparable weight class equals potential threat. Can be unhelpful in a variety of ways. This is inarguable, as in, you probably shouldn’t be seen arguing against it.
Therefore, margin of safety and redundancy. Things can get Wild West real quick on this planet.
Empowerment is freedom from fate, and fate is the will of another.
What about the Robustness of America, then? Your East Coast friends might not even scoff at you for that.
If I were glib, I’d say something about China and Russia. Anywho, why would you compare it to the nineties? In the nineties we were stalled by ignorance; over what just happened, over what to expect when the dust settled. Now we have a better idea, and it’s worse than we expected.
My argument is that you made a poor argument: what other countries spend is irrelevant sophistry — logically and practically irrelevant; prosperity and security are two distinct frames facing different directions; security’s impact on prosperity is too complex to measure according to GDP per capita — what is the internal phase, what is the external phase, what are the feedback loops, etc etc.
Arguing in this way muddies rather than clarifies the debate over military spending. So I attacked your argument’s weaknesses rather than make an affirmative argument of my own.
Finally, the debate is over bang for the buck and the diminishing marginal return of bang. What we’ve learned is, build for rainy days and rogue waves, then build some more. When to stop building is a function of utility in the security realm, not the prosperity realm. And to me, it doesn’t seem like you’ve thought very deeply about the security realm.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · May 18, 05:39 PM · #
cw:
If those fancy swoopy full-suspension mountain bikes cost nearly $200 million each (like the F-22), I’m pretty sure 99.9 percent of bikers would be happily riding Schwinns.
— Travis Mason-Bushman · May 18, 05:47 PM · #
Perhaps. But for Medium-sized Scots-Irish Atheist Genius Who’s Incredibly Good Looking, the mid-morning sun is shining as brightly as can be.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · May 18, 05:47 PM · #
So I attacked your argument’s weaknesses rather than make an affirmative argument of my own.
like we haven’t heard that a kajillion times.
read my lips KVS……you have no “arguments of your own”.
otherwise you’d put them forward.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 05:50 PM · #
The value of those carrier battle groups is similar to being on the gold standard. When all else goes to hell, America has something backing its continued existence as a superpower. Call it the steel standard.
— BrianF · May 18, 07:27 PM · #
why does America need to be a superpower BrianF?
Obama says we aren’t going to be the Superawesome World Police anymore….we can’t afford it and it just makes everone in the world hate us.
If Israel wants to commit seppuku, our aircraft carriers aren’t going to stop them.
Many people think American superpower status and Our Special Relationship with Israel just enables Israel to reject any and all processes moving a peace agreement forward.
Lets cut Israel loose so they can get realistic and pragmatic….the Likudniks are just using us anyways.
You are just like KVS….“american exceptionalism” was glorious as long as all our little foreign misadventures just involved massive dying on the part of the darkskinned….lol, now we have a darkskinned president and a burgeoning darkskinned electoral majority, when the dark of skin ally themselves with liberals…
Obamas not so keen on that brand of foreign adventurism….we are not going to meddle anymore.
:)
— matoko_chan · May 18, 08:01 PM · #
matoko,
Obamas not so keen on that brand of foreign adventurism
That’s why he ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and brought all the troops home. No. Wait…
“american exceptionalism” was glorious as long as all our little foreign misadventures just involved massive dying on the part of the darkskinned….lol, now we have a darkskinned president and a burgeoning darkskinned electoral majority, when the dark of skin ally themselves with liberals
Lemesee. He expanded the Afghan war and extended it into Pakistan. So that must be on account of all the WECs in Pakistan. Nope. GOP voters? Tea partiers?
— Keid A · May 19, 12:20 AM · #
oh Spock, you fail at 11D chess.
Obama built an escape hatch for the Graveyard of Empires.
he gave the generals what they ax for, but allowed for a gtfo in 3 years.
we are already gtfo’ing Iraq.
that is what the much vaunted Surge was……….cover to gtfo.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 02:47 AM · #
My last comment was lost in space or textile or w/e.
If you want to get out, why not just get out? I’ve told you before about your 11D imagination. Policy hardly changed when Obama became the leader of the greatest world power, I say it would not change much even if Hu Jintao was the leader.
Power has its own imperatives. This was true even in ancient Rome or Egypt. There is the same need to protect stability or trade. Great powers try to defend the forces that support the status quo.
That’s why it’s so naive for you to rant about the “white Bwana”. If there was no white Bwana, there would be a brown Bwana or a yellow Bwana.
It is the human condition. The nature of power is eternal and universal. As long as there are governments there will be power.
— Keid A · May 19, 03:06 AM · #
je refuse.
are you so jaded you can’t see the new world order?
my side won already…..we won when Obama was elected president.
its all over but the bitter butthurt squalling of the losers….who are pretending so hard not to see.
the World is transformed.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 04:48 AM · #
my side won already…..we won when Obama was elected president
The USA is the Titanic.
Washington DC is the crew, fighting over the steering wheel.
The iceberg is winning.
— Keid A · May 19, 07:49 AM · #
KVS: “Unaligned interests plus comparable weight class equals potential threat. Can be unhelpful in a variety of ways. This is inarguable, as in, you probably shouldn’t be seen arguing against it.”
Its only a threat to our ability to project force on an unrivaled scale, the preservation of which you see as necessary and I don’t. It’s just a difference of opinion about America’s role in the world. But you’re trying to gloss over the difference in our perspectives with mawkish appeals to the purported primacy of reason. Talk about muddying the conversation…
— Walker Frost · May 19, 11:46 AM · #
I’ve served for 20 years and am zealous in pursuit of our national military objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I agree with your analysis wholeheartedly. Our military power derives from our economic power. If we aren’t careful, we’ll forfeit economic and thereby military leadership on the altar of an antiquated acquisition, procurement, and production process. Paul Kennedy’s “Rise and Fall” spoke to this issue in 1987 and we’d do well to heed his and your advice.
— J. Burns · May 19, 01:34 PM · #
Thanks, J. Burns, for the warm remarks. It sounds like you and Gates have a lot in common.
— Walker Frost · May 19, 01:56 PM · #
All this is theoretical. History shows that it’s very hard to cut defense in this country because of jobs and lobbying (bribes). National security is part of it, but the defense budget is a brakeless (congress) freight train fueled by an endless supply of money (taxes) and as such is very hard to stop. For a congressman the math is simple: jobs in the district means a job in the District of Columbia (plus bribes). It is actually amazing that the F-22—an airplane that was super expensive, super unreliable, and totally unnecessary—was halted.
You can talk about national security needs as a rationale for cutting defense, but I think it will take some kind of huge changes in the structure of our electoral system and/or our politics and/or our economy to make any meaningful cuts. And the first person who says that the teaparty will be the impetus for defense cuts will be subject to merciless mocture.
— cw · May 19, 03:40 PM · #
That’s about 5% of GDP, compared to around 3% at the end of the Clinton years.
I’m pretty sure the “all-in” numbers a la Robert Higgs would put % of GDP at about 5% in 2000 ($500 billion) and about 7% right now (~$1.05 trillion). Higgs looks at year 2009, but there was a $100 billion increase in total defense spending from FY2009 to 2010 (mainly DoD, State, and Veterans Affairs increases) and a projected $70 billion further increase from 2010 to 2011 (mainly DoD and interest on debt increases). I’ve put lots of information here.
— John Rose · May 19, 04:11 PM · #
The Chinese would be smart to not take up the American role and instead remain a free-rider on the American system (like the US was a free-rider on the British system).
The problem for the Chinese is their own history. The people of the Middle Kingdom would very much like to reclaim its position as dominant world power. So, I would expect a relative American decline, followed by Chinese dominance, and the eventual decline of the Chinese in 100 or so years….
— Gaius Gracchus · May 19, 04:39 PM · #
matoko_chan,
are you so jaded you can’t see the new world order?…
…the World is transformed
Can you be so naive as to believe that politicians are anything other than power-hungry scumbags? – Any politicians.
One more difference between me and you – a major one.
My heroes are never politicians.
— Keid A · May 20, 11:31 AM · #
A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example.
—Niccolo Machiavelli
— matoko_chan · May 20, 12:36 PM · #
Yes but Obama is waging aggressive wars.
His policies have already murdered hundreds of innocent people including children.
This is not my idea of virtue.
I am not a pacifist, but neither am I a hypocrite.
Great power politics is a dirty, dirty game.
Politics can no more yield a “new world order, the world transformed”, than knitting could build you a nuclear power station.
There is no way from “here” to “there”.
Politics by its nature can only give you “more of the same”.
— Keid A · May 20, 01:58 PM · #
While this article accurately articulates the flaws of astronomical military spending, the author makes some assumptions which strike me as wrongheaded. “If, say, $450 billion — still three times more than China — is not enough to defend our borders then something is terribly wrong within.” I question the assumption that all our military budget is dedicated “defending our borders”. Historically the United States has been the foremost imperialist power in the Americas. When the Phillipinos overthrew Spanish colonization, the United States quickly overthrew the new government and established its hegemony over the islands. We did the Cuba and the Phillipines and countless other Central and South American states pre-WW2. After WW2, in the wake of the Cold War and the recent American dominance in Europe, the United States began a new wave of interventionism and imperialism. The United States, the clear global superpower, began to dictate political affairs across the globe through dictatorship, war, bribes, and bombings. All of the manipulation was portrayed as a neccesary defense against Communism. The validity of that claim is not really at issue because the pattern of U.S. behavior in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union hasnt changed much. We intervened in Somalia and Kosovo in the 90’s. Then we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the 00’s. Remember that our main goal in all of those interventions besides perhaps Afghanistan was to foster democracy and remove evil dictators. Protecting our borders seems like a notion irrelevent to this discussion.
— Lee Eames · May 20, 09:52 PM · #
Thanks for the comment, Lee. I completely agree that much of our military activity is not defensive but, as you explained, interventionist. But should we maintain that ability to project overwhelming military force, even to foster democracy? Should we be in a position where we can police the world if we so choose? I think no, some think yes. That difference strikes me as just a difference in political goals and priorities, not easily reconciled with argument.
What’s more interesting to me is that our recent spending priorities (last decade) suggest that collectively (in so far as the decision is democratic) we want America to become more involved in projecting power and intervention abroad, at a time when we are confronted with what I believe are much more threatening social/economic issues.
Still, with this post I am not answering any of the hard questions about how to build political will or how to responsibly scale back all of those diverse responsibilities you mention.
— Walker Frost · May 21, 01:06 PM · #
Walker,
It transcends even “projecting power and intervention”. We have the nuclear capablities to blow up the world a couple times over. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. At this point the military-indutrial complex is so out of control that in the decade we’ve continued to add to an already out of control military surplus. In my opinion more military expenditures do not even fill a power void. I believe we have already reached the limit of our power in terms of magnitude of firepower. Our military futility in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to the fact that we are attempting to “nation-build”; we’ve opened Pandora’s box and are now failing to close it. That failure could of couse been foreseen,o and was by many prominent writers and thinkers in the build-up to the Iraq war.
— Lee Eames · May 22, 06:17 PM · #