As the American federal budget deficit continues to spiral out of control, and its national debt continues to grow into a monster which could well destroy the lives of the current generation's children and grandchildren, it is time for the policy-makers in Washington to face the truth and admit to the American people that massive and painful spending reductions are coming. Most political leaders in Washington, Democratic and Republican alike, would like to pretend that this problem does not exist, but sticking their heads in the ground will not make it go away. Indeed, as the Baby Boomers retire and mandated programs like Social Security and Medicare come under even more financial pressure, it is only going to get worse.
The national debt is the most critical threat facing America today, far more dangerous than the most sinister terrorist plot imaginable. And it presents a serious danger to the global economy as a whole. If this challenge it to be met, America is going to have to put every option on the table, allowing for no sacred cows. One of the most difficult choices it is going to have to make it also the most obvious: America must massively cut its level of military spending.
For too long, politicians with the courage to state the obvious truth that American military spending is too high have often been labeled as unpatriotic or willing to endanger the lives of American soldiers. This name calling must stop. The vast majority of American military spending is not for the defense of America or the welfare of its soldiers, but for maintaining an unnecessary ability to project power around the world, or to line the pockets of politically well-connected defense contractors. It's also burning a massive hole in the federal budget, and there is simply no escaping the fact that it needs to be brought under control, for the good of the country and the world as a whole.
The budget for the United States Department of Defense is roughly $680 billion a year. Many other federal departments and agencies also contribute to the American military budget, such as the Department of Energy (which is responsible for the maintenance of nuclear weapons), NASA, and the intelligence community. When all this is added in, the annual American military budget comes to more than $900 billion.
The American military budget is roughly equal to the rest of the world put together, and accounts for nearly a quarter of the entire federal budget. Indeed, the federal government spent more on the military than on all other discretionary spending combined. It is clear that any effort to get the federal budget deficit under control is going to have to take military spending into account, and that any realistic plan to reduce the deficit and eventually balance the budget will require massive reductions in military spending.
The good news is that finding ways to cut American defense spending will not be very difficult, because most of the money spent on the military is either entirely unnecessary or, at best, of very dubious value. Immense financial wastage is generated by an obscenely large nuclear arsenal, unnecessary permanent military bases overseas, and unjustifiable purchases of large numbers of extremely expensive weapons. It is time for the United States Congress to scrutinize the military budget and go at it not with a scalpel, but with an axe.
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) have joined forces to call for significant cuts to the military budget, an act all the more admirable as the two of them agree on very little aside from their shared opposition to bloated military spending (Congressman Ron Paul would not normally be mentioned positively in terms of being a global citizen). They have called together a panel of experts from across the political spectrum, known as the Sustainable Defense Task Force, which recently issued a comprehensive report on the issue. Its stated aim is to highlight the measures necessary to cut $1 trillion from the American military budget over the next ten years, without endangering American national security.
The report makes some good recommendations, but in many cases does not go far enough. For example, it calls for reducing the American nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, to be deployed on seven Ohio-class missile submarines and 160 Minuteman ICBMs, which would save over $110 billion over the next ten years. They might have recommended reducing the arsenal down to 350 warheads and eliminating the land-based element altogether, which would not have reduced the ability of the United States to deter any potential enemy while saving considerably more money.
Similarly, the report calls for reducing American forces in Europe from about 70,000 men to 35,000 men. No one can articulate how deploying a single American battalion in Europe does anything to improve the national security of the United States. If the authors of the report had wanted to be truly bold, they would have called for eliminating the American military presence in Europe altogether.
Other recommendations in the report are quite good. The reports suggests that the Navy should be reduced from 287 warships and 10 air wings to 230 warships and 8 air wings (including retiring two aircraft carriers), reducing the Army from 45 combat brigades to 40 and reducing the Marine Corps from 27 battalions to 23 battalions, abolishing two Air Force tactical fighter wings, and many other proposals. These are all excellent proposals, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, significantly easing the pressure on the federal budget.
If the proposals are flawed, it is only in that they do not go far enough. The military establishment of any country should be kept at the level necessary to ensure proper security, as true defense in the Nuclear Age lies only in collective security. The bloated American military budget is merely a swindle of the American taxpayer, as well as a dangerous enticement to political leaders towards foreign military adventures, like those we saw in Iraq.
The United States is one of the most geographically blessed nation on the planet. The Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans provide unbridgeable moats to its west and east, while its borders on the north and south face friendly neighbors that pose no military threat. To protect the territorial integrity of the United States requires no major land army, but only a sufficiently large navy and air force to secure the nearby sea lanes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This could be done for a fraction of the $900 billion America is currently spending on its military every year.
Many policy-makers and pundits commonly claim that a massive military is necessary in order to defend America's "vital interests" around the world, but they rarely articulate what they mean by the term "vital interests". Usually, it comes down to defending a nation allied with the United States, thus giving the taxpayers of the ally in question a free ride and requiring American taxpayers to pick up the bill for the defense of a nation on the other side of the planet. Loosely-defined economic or trade issues are sometimes tossed around as an excuse for high military spending, which is a rather silly red herring. Pray tell, does Germany's comparatively low level of military spending somehow threaten its economic relationship with, say, India?
The stated goal of the Sustainable Defense Task Force was to find ways to reduce the American military budget by $1 trillion over the next ten years. This would be quite an achievement, but nevertheless America needs to aim higher. Real national security for the United States can be obtained even if it reduces its military spending to half of its current level, and perhaps even more. That would enable it to save half a trillion dollars every year, which would go a long way to solving the terrible fiscal crisis that threatens not only its future, but the future of the rest of the world as well.
The United States is a republic, not an empire. There is no need for it to militarily dominate the globe, nor is there any need for it to obsess about being the most powerful nation in the world. That wasn't the dream of America's Founding Fathers, nor should it be the dream of the present American generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment