We are currently at war, threatening war or waging low-level combat operations against over a dozen countries and non-government entities: Iran, Venezuela, Syria, the Islamic State in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, China, Russia, al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, and various terror groups in Africa.
This unnecessary and counterproductive military overextension doesn't make us stronger or safer. It is precisely how great powers have destroyed themselves throughout history, squandering national power on peripheral concerns.
The idea that because we have a couple major threats like China and Russia means we have to ignore all other lesser threats is ludicrous and just means that enemies like China and Russia know they can avoid taking us on directly while making gains at our expense in the areas we ignore.
And how are we overextended with far more of our military power based in the United States since we won the Cold War and then ended major commitments to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Further, the percent of our GDP devoted to defense remains lower than it was in the Cold War. Does this look like an expanding burden that will overextend America?
I'm no math major. But unless I reversed that chart and it shows a spiking defense burden, I think we can afford our defense spending. I'm reasonably sure this chart understates defense spending by not counting war-related spending during the Bush 43 administration after the 9/11 attacks as part of the base defense budget. But that still wouldn't elevate defense and war spending to unprecedented levels. And that factor wouldn't count in more recent years.
Good grief people, given that we've been enjoying security and prosperity already with higher defense burdens, how are we not going to keep enjoying "historic national security and economic prosperity" which the author says is at risk unless we follow his advice? Have I missed something? Was there a National Public Radio story that explained how we are truly and royally effed right now?
And what of the list of countries and entities that we are frittering our power away in a war, threatening war, or waging low-level combat? Which one should we allow to win or simply cast adrift our allies who will help us resist them and instead wish them good luck?
Iran: Iran has been killing our people ever since the nutballs took our embassy forty years ago, with a death toll approaching a thousand in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf. We aren't at war,we aren't threatening to go to war, and we aren't involved in low-level combat against Iran unless you only count their efforts aimed at us. We are using economic and diplomatic power against Iran with a military safety net to deter Iran from waging even more war on us. And we have allies to contain and roll back Iran's war effort. How would we be better off ignoring Iran?
Venezuela: This is both a humanitarian crisis and a threat to regional stability. And while America might contribute troops for humanitarian purposes (our hospital ship is just the most obvious example) or for logistics if regional states intervene, we are not about to send major troop contingents to Venezuela to overthrow Maduro.
Syria: Our interests are limited and our limited military role shows this. We have interests in crushing jihadis there, supporting the Kurds, and enforcing the overly optimistic chemical weapons deal with Assad. We have not and won't commit an army to overthrowing Assad.
The Islamic State in Iraq: Should we not have had a limited troop commitment to defeat ISIL in Iraq? Should we give northern Iraq back? Walk away again to allow them to regenerate?
The Taliban in Afghanistan: 9/11 seems to speak of the need to defeat the Taliban who hosted al Qaeda. Don't pretend that the Taliban aren't a problem because technically they aren't al Qaeda. And right now our troop presence is low in support of Afghan forces who fight and die to prevent the Taliban from taking Kabul again.
China: Why are they on this list of peripheral concerns that distract us from major threats?
Russia: Why are they on this list of peripheral concerns that distract us from major threats?
Al-Qaeda: So when did we destroy this terror group? And why is it listed separately from jihadis in general?
Al-Shabab: Our effort is low level. And the problem of letting jihadis get a sanctuary should have been established by 9/11.
Yemen: Blocking Iran makes it worthwhile to lead from behind as the Saudis take the lead. And killing Sunni jihadis is needed, given that Yemen-based terrorists have tried to strike us at home.
Libya: That was a distraction, but we committed so little force that it hardly affected us. Does anyone think we are in danger of sending an army there?
Pakistan: Why is Pakistan on the list? We are not thinking of invading our problem child ally.
Various terror groups in Africa: Again, didn't 9/11 teach us the problem of having places jihadis can set up camp? This is a low-level effort that has actually been downgraded since the new emphasis on great power competition. This is an economy of force front and in no danger of seeing several American divisions sent to war.
And let's add in North Korea which isn't on the list but which he mentions as a non-threat: Seriously, North Korea can't cause a lot of damage before it is defeated, more damage after it is defeated if it sparks conflict with China over the corpse, and even more if North Korea manages to deploy nuclear missiles?
And it isn't even as if he is completely wrong about some of the countries as not being worth a war. And I note that there are clearly places we should not go to war over.
But military power doesn't have two settings: Eleven or Off. There is a difference between full-scale war and using military power to influence enemies short of war or military means in between war and threat that can advance our security and prosperity.
Nobody says we should wage endless war abroad. Why argue against what nobody advocates and which we are in no danger of doing?
We are not using military power against "virtually any opponent with whom we have a political dispute." We have friends and allies with whom we have political disputes and we do not threaten war.
And even in regard to "potential enemies" we often don't threaten to wage war on them unless they attack us or our allies. Is that really the same thing as crazily seeking enemies to fight?
And if we are talking about actual "enemies," how is it inappropriate to actually wage war against them with the appropriate level of force or the threat of force combined with other means of exercising national power?
If we don't use our strength--including our military strength that we have built at great expense over the decades--to bolster our security and prosperity, it is as if we don't have any strength. And our security and prosperity will eventually reflect that absence of strength as allies we refused to help when the cost of victory was low succumb to enemies.
The author has a point that we don't want to dissipate our power needlessly. But his list of distractions that could cause us to overstretch our power and defeat ourselves is not credible in the world we live in where we aren't at war everywhere and where we aren't burdened by an economy-crushing defense budget.
Just where are the burdens that could hurt our security and prosperity?
UPDATE: Okay, while the essay I've commented on above really annoyed me, I regret my title.
That author's basic point is valid even if I think the evidence marshaled to support it is very flawed. I should have simply done that without the slam tossed in.
But as I've said before, my policy is not to alter such regrettable editorial decisions (just who is my idiot editor who let that get by, anyway?!) as a lesson to be more prudent before I hit "publish."
