Glenn Greenwald (tip to Weekly Standard), a case in point, believes that we spend too much money on defense:
Our military spending exceeds the rest of the world's spending combined, and we spend almost 10 times what the second-place country, China, spends. "Only" about $150 billion of the total U.S. amount is attributable to the two active wars we're fighting, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, even if one wants to excludes those amounts, the basic picture remains the same. ...
In indisputable sum, we are the world's empire, in a state of permanent war readiness. In American politics and policy, there is no distinction between "peacetime" and "war." We're the most militarized country in the world by far, on permanent war footing, far beyond what anyone could ever remotely argue is necessary for "defense" or a "strong defense," no matter how broad a definition one wants to adopt for those terms.
Let's recount his cluelessness. Stay with me, this will take a bit. Allow me the privilege of simply ignoring the foolish "empire" remark.
One, since 2002 it has formally been the policy of the United States to maintain a margin of superiority that it will discourage potential enemies from even trying to match us:
We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
If we were talking about any social program this would be called a wise preventative measure that saves money in the long run by forestalling the need to spend much more if we wait to solve a problem after it emerges. Anybody want to wonder if the Twin Towers would be standing today if we had taken bin Laden into captivity in the mid-1990s? We still spend less of our GDP on defense than we did in the Cold War, so this burden is not going to break us.
Second, we spend money to avoid spending lives. Our budget pays for excellent equipment and thorough training that spares both our troops and civilians in the battle area.
Third, a lot of our budget goes to personnel compensation and payments to veterans.
Fourth, we have a significant nuclear force whose purpose is solely to keep conflicts from going nuclear and which do not add to our conventional combat ability. China does not have anywhere near the cost we have. Most countries don't have this cost at all.
Fifth, basing spending comparisons with a starting point of 1998 starts us nearly a decade into the "procurement holiday" where our defense spending declined as our military was reduced in size. We could get away with not buying new equipment because as we cut force levels, the best of the equipment we had could be given to remaining units and we still had plenty of spare equipment in reserve. We actually did judge we were in peacetime and reduced our spending quite a bit. Since 9/11, spending has gone back up. The problem isn't that our country doesn't recognize the difference between peace and war, but that our Left doesn't really believe we are at war. If our enemies don't stop trying to kill us, in what world does it make sense to simply stop fighting those enemies?
Sixth, we are a global superpower. Unlike any other country in the world, we can deploy our military anywhere on the globe to defend our interests and our allies, supply it, and win a war. Even wealthy Europe couldn't spearhead two fairly minor military interventions in the nearby Balkans in the 1990s. Unless you find it acceptable to fight with China east of Hawaii should it come to war rather than off of China's coast, don't talk about the cost of fighting away from our homeland. We saw what terrorists can do to us when they wage war on our soil. Don't think a nation with that capability would do less harm.
Seventh, in regard to China, our military is surely far superior to their military and will remain so for decades, I judge. Although Peking's lack of transparency about defense spending is definitely a worry in the long run. But remember that in 1941, Japan's economy was about a tenth of ours. China's is what? Forty percent of ours? Like Japan in 1941, China today can threaten us just by being able to project power into their own neighborhood. If China can dominate the air over and water around Taiwan only 100 miles from their coast for several weeks, Taiwan could fall and we'd see quite the fallout. It would be a signal event demonstrating our inability to protect allies close to China. The effect on India, Pakistan, Central Asia, South Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia, and Australia could shake our alliances and friendships.
I count our country lucky to be able to afford enough defense spending to actually, you know, defend ourselves from actual and potential enemies. Is that actually "too broad" of a definition? What other country can actually say that they spend enough to protect themselves? I mean what country that doesn't count on us to defend them can say that?
Funny enough, the ranks of those who say we spend too much include many who say we failed to equip or train our troops properly for the war--supposed deficiencies that would cost money to correct. Pick a complaint, people. Do we spend too little or too much? Pick only one.
Hey, for those who think a film critic is qualified to opine on foreign policy, I guess his piece is about par for the course. Heck, it even has color charts!
Give me a break. I won't comment on the costume authenticity of Off-Broadway plays if people like Greenwald will stop offering advice on defense policy.
You've got to know your limitations.
