American military budgets should be based on two competing imperatives. The first is that we are likely to be engaged in small, complex conflicts with much weaker opponents in difficult terrain. In other words, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Gates budget makes intelligent provision for these kinds of wars—in which manpower and intelligence are key. The second requirement is deterrence. The U.S. military protects global sea lanes and, in a general sense, preserves the peace. If the Somali pirates were to cause too much trouble, eventually it would be the United States military that would help tackle them. If the Chinese were considering offensive actions in Asia, it is the American response that would make them cautious.
But these imperatives can surely be satisfied with a military that is leaner, more cost-effective, more efficient and does keep somewhere in mind the capacity of potential adversaries. The U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft-carrier groups. China has zero. The U.S. defense budget for 2009 is $655 billion. China's is $70 billion, Russia's is $50 billion. America's cumulative cost overruns add up to more than the total annual defense budgets of China, Russia, Britain and France combined. This smacks less of deterrence and more of mindless extravagance and waste.
Coming up next for Gates is the Quadrennial Defense Review. He should take the opportunity—his last one to leave a long legacy—and move the United States toward a military strategy that is shaped by the world we actually inhabit. That would make him a true genius. He will certainly have all the dunces arrayed against him to prove it.
As I said, the new choices mean an abandonment of our policy of dominance. Speaking of our superiority in defense spending ignores the very basic fact that our superiority means we fight over there and not over here. In the case of China, our "mindless extravagance and waste" means that should the Chinese consider aggressive action in Asia, only our current superiority can give them reason to be cautious. Zakaria apparently does not see the connection between our superiority and notional Chinese caution. We could surely have a military that matches China's capabilities at far less cost. And then maybe we'd have a nice even war in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (with Hawaii on the frontline rather than the Chinese coast being the frontline now).
And I will concede that Zakaria makes valid points about our current superiority in various aspects. We are superior. Aside from the question of whether--or how much--superiority it would be prudent to maintain, even if Gates is a genius, will future leaders have the wisdom to see that the superiority has eroded so much that we must rearm? Will we ever cancel our Medium Term Rule? Not if we're counting on the likes of Zakaria. He fits nicely in the array of dunces.
