Since the end of the Cold War the United States has found itself unable to decide upon a new defense posture. In the interim, hawks in recent administrations and the politically-strong defense industry have done their best to reorient our defense posture towards a new threat.What nobody seems willing to ask is whether such a high level of defense spending (aside from that for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) is necessary, or even prudent, when a strategic competitor such as a Soviet Union no longer exists.
The first Bush administration and the Clinton administration both maintained the extravagant defense spending of the Cold War. They used our powerful military, and its ability to project power, to act as "the world's policeman." Major operations were carried out in Iraq/Kuwait, Somalia, and Kosovo. A long-term deployment was also made to Colombia, which continues to this day.
The second Bush administration, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, reoriented the United States towards a confronting radical Islam as if it was a new Soviet Union. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, ostensibly to stop radical Islamic terrorism. A long-term deployment was made to the Phillipines, also for the purpose of fighting radical Islamic terrorism.
The fight against Islamic terrorism has cost the United States, and our NATO and non-NATO allies, dearly. Yet there are many hawks who seek now to align ourselves against the Chinese, to start a new Cold War. How many enemies must we seek?
I am no proponent of isolationism, far from it. I am not, however, a proponent of a continued far-ranging forward deployments to fight a nation (the Soviet Union) that no longer exists.We need to align our defense establishment towards a new set of objectives, objectives that don't involve continued antagonism with other major powers.
Excluding the spending on the contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2010 United States defense budget was about $534 billion. We simply do not need to be spending that much. We do not need to spend that much because we neither need to engage in further hegemonic ambitions, nor do we need to remain the world's policeman. The United States should retain a first-rate military, but one perhaps 50% of its current size. While some foreign bases are important for retaining an ability to rapidly react if the need arises and project power against our enemies, the number of overseas military bases should be rapidly and substantially reduced through the combination of existing bases, joint-basing, and overseas force reductions. We do not need any forward-deployed army or marine units on non-American soil. Those bases which are retained should be those few air force bases which are necessary to retain a force-projection ability. A new effort should be placed on an active defense, such as more funding to human intelligence, and more and better signal surveillance and space-based imaging capabilities.
We must also make continued cuts to our nuclear arsenal. This should be done in concert with the Russians, under treaty. Consideration should be made of China's nuclear arsenal, and whether they should be involved in any further nuclear arms reduction agreements between the United States and Russia. Serious thought should be given to whether we need to retain all three legs of the nuclear triad (bombers, submarines, land-based ICBMs).
The military that we, in the United States, have costs money. In fact, it costs a lot of money. We need to answer some very basic questions about what sized military we need in the twenty-first century. What we have now is undoubtedly unneeded once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. Cutting costs related to our military saves money, which reduces your taxes and the deficit.
No comments:
Post a Comment