We also need to invest in the military for the next decade's military problems because what we do now will define our capabilities in a decade or two. This means technology, buying weapons, and training high quality people.
Yet our military hardware and technology rely on a sound economic base. We are easily still the largest economic power on the planet. But the cracks in the foundation are apparent:
Standard & Poor's, one of the world's three major credit rating agencies, cited "difficulties in bridging the gulf between political parties" as a major reason for the downgrade from U.S.'s top shelf AAA status to AA+, the next level down. The rating agency has essentially lost faith in Washington's ability to work together to address its debt.
This is a good reminder that raising our debt limit is not the same thing as dealing with our skyrocketing budget deficits. The media conflated the two, acting like failing to raise the limit was failing to satisfy the markets watching our economy. The markets aren't, apparently, impressed with our debt problem being solved with authority to borrow more. Fancy that.
Did President Obama cause this situation? No. Many on the right were not happy with the financial stewardship of the Bush presidency. But my God, President Obama makes Bush look like a skinflint.
In response to our financial problems, Fareed Zakaria counsels defense cuts. And rather than seeing that as a tradeoff that has to be made, he welcomes our new debt overlords:
It would be a much-needed adjustment to an out-of-control military-industrial complex.
A what? Ah yes, the dreaded "military-industrial complex." Boo!!
First of all, before addressing Zakaria's complaint, I must say that I have absolutely no respect for Zakaria as a foreign policy and defense analyst. But it gets worse. Zakaria cites another analyst to bolster his thinking:
Lawrence Korb, who worked at the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan, believes that a $1 trillion cut over 10 to 12 years is feasible without compromising national security.
Good God, it's the Korb leading the Zakaria. Korb, who I believe had his last name officially changed to "Who worked at the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan," is an even worse analyst than Zakaria.
So Zakaria thinks we spend too much on defense, stating:
Over the past decade, when we had no serious national adversaries, U.S. defense spending has gone from about a third of total worldwide defense spending to 50 percent. In other words, we spend more on defense than the planet’s remaining countries put together.
So what? The questions are what do we need and what can we afford? As I wrote in the post criticizing Korb I wrote:
Our economy is way bigger, and the burden of our defense budget compared to that is pretty darned low--even for peacetime levels during the Cold War.
As for the US defense budget being half of the world's--so what? The question is what do we need and what can we afford? We already see that Korb misrepresented what we can afford--as a burden compared to our GDP, defense spending is pretty low. Talking about defense as a fraction of our "discretionary" spending is also misleading because a vast span of domestic spending items are mandatory, while in the strange budgeting world of Washington, D.C., defense spending is a "discretionary" item--as if it is a luxury.
Back to the point, so what if we spend half of the globe's defense budget? One, this allows us to field forces to fight enemies far away from us rather than close to us. There is a reason that the only threats to our soil are terrorists and nuclear weapons. We enjoy the protection of our military keeping potential foes far from us. How much is that worth?
Second, the money buys us equipment and training that allows us to fight more effectively than our enemies. Spending money saves blood--that of our own troops and even the enemy's, too, for that matter. Yes we could win wars without all that stuff and skill. But we'd suffer far more casualties. And leave vast collateral damage in our wake.
We get a lot for our defense dollars at a relatively small (and since Eisenhower, decreasing) burden on our economy. But Zakaria thinks that we spend too much and also that we spend too much relative to non-defense foreign policy:
Defense budget cuts would also force a healthy rebalancing of American foreign policy. Since the Cold War, Congress has tended to fatten the Pentagon while starving foreign policy agencies.
Dude, if your concern is "balance" we could spend the money to get our State Department people some new cell phones. Hell, give 'em a State Department band or 20 if it makes you feel good. But this is typical of left-wing thinking. Worried about the gap between rich and poor? Hobbling the rich is easier and if the gap is narrower, it's the same as raising the poor. And if poor and rich are better off but the rich are more better off? The horror!
If Zakaria is worried about our non-defense foreign policy lacking funding, address that spending. If we slash defense spending to get that magical "balance," will our State Department officials suddenly get upgrades from coach flights as Zakaria complains?
Again, the questions for defense spending are what do we need and what can we afford? In both the near term and the long run?
Remember that Eisenhower wasn't complaining about an imbalance between defense spending and foreign policy spending. His complaints about the military-industrial complex were about warning that they should not have excessive influence in our civilian decision making. This is what Eisenhower said on that score:
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. [Emphasis added]
So Eisenhower thought the actual military-industrial complex was necessary. He goes on about the actual military and industry. Let's go back to the speech Zakaria links but did not apparently read:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
Huh. We need our military. We need industry. And we need them working now in case we need them in the future.
But we can't sustain military spending in the long run if our economy can't support the research and production base of that military. If--and this is a big "if"--we slash domestic spending (discretionary and non-discretionary) I'd be willing to cut defense spending in the short run to leverage those cuts.
But if our apparent resolve to balance our budget fails to change business as usual and the usual suspect of defense spending bears the burden of cuts that won't affect the bottom line anyway (because legislators turn around and spend saved defense dollars on domestic projects), then I oppose any defense cuts at all since we'd harm the foundation and gut the existing defense "building" that rests on the foundation.
I wonder if Eisenhower had anything to say about balancing today's wants with tomorrow's needs? Ka-ching!
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Inconveniently, we've become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow (well, AA+ rating, anyway).
Oh, and as long as we are having fun with Eisenhower's farewell address, might this section be relevant to the global warming science industry today that wants to regulate every aspect of our life for our own good?
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Beware the "scientific-technological elite." Words to remember.
Balance, people. And when domestic spending has outstripped defense spending since Eisenhower was president, don't be so quick to assume where that balance lies.
God, I hate myself when I waste my time reading Zakaria's so-called defense analysis. Let me go take a shower, now.
UPDATE: Samuelson has more on the declining defense budget:
Even before the deal, the Obama administration projected that — assuming continued withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan — defense spending would shrink to 15 percent of the budget by 2016. This would be the lowest share since before World War II. The deal’s cuts, potentially as much as $950 billion over a decade, would reduce that further. In the 1950s and ’60s, defense often was half of the budget.
Balance, indeed. I don't think that word means what Zakaria thinks it means.
