Continuing the series, we are, using the subtitle of Andrew Bacevich's book, "seduced by war." It seems like an obvious proposition that we could reduce our military spending without compromising our national defense. Plenty of that spending goes to expand our empire, not to protect our citizens. For the right words, I'll turn to page 215 of the book:
A better approach [than pegging military spending as a percentage of GDP], one more likely to limit adventurism abroad while still meeting essential U.S. security requirements, would be to peg U.S. expenditures in relation to what others are spending. To stipulate, for example, that the United States should match the next ten most lavishly spending powers combined would assure U.S. military capabilities not only far in excess of any potential adversary but also in excess of any remotely plausible combination of adversaries. The budgetary impact of such a stipulation--one that if made by another country Americans would view as evidence of rampant megalomania--would be to reap substantial savings. Indeed, at present the United States could earmark for defense as much as the next ten largest military powers combined and still reduce Pentagon outlays by tens of billions of dollars per year.
The book was written in 2005 and cites the following link for worldwide military expenditures. The distinction between national defense, narrowly defined, and national security, which is subject to all manner of manipulation, is essential. That is what needs to be rationalized, so that reductions in military spending remove only the least essential aspects of our military activities.
I posted about Bacevich's book when I first picked it up. Now finding the time to finish it off, I recommend it highly. For those of you in the Hanover area, the Rockefeller Center will host Andrew Bacevich on February 19 for a public lecture at 4:30.
Other People's Money
It doesn't make much sense to use other nations' defense expenditure as some sort of baseline for our own. Particularly when some of those nations are supposed to be our allies, but are shirking their responsibilities (the Somali pirates wouldn't be getting away with what they're doing to Saudi oil tankers and European cruise ships if the British navy wasn't a shadow of its former self).
We should determine what our vulnerabilities are and budget accordingly. 19 muslims did a fair amount of damage on Sept. 11, 01 without much military expenditure. Nor do the jihadists in the caves of Pakistan's tribal areas show up as a % of any nation's GDP.
What if puny Iran--apparently run by religious nutcases--figures out a way to deliver a nuclear weapon by submarine over Chicago? Some think the electromagnetic pulse would be devastating. It would probably take a very small amount of money compared to our defense budget.
spending mix
Discussion of spending mix as well as amount
We do not want to build maginot lines without appropriate other stuff
Put a few guys in jail not
The first thing to do is to make a few of the idiots who caused this mess pay the price. Whoops, can't do that, since the real cause is the failure of the American people to repay their debts, and debtors prison seems a little 18th century. Then let's lock up everyone who told Fannie and Freddie it was OK to function without capital. There goes Dodd and Barny and a big slew of democrats, except Obama still needs them. So what about everyone who who undid Glass-Stegal back in 1999 and got the banks securitizing mortgages? Nah that would get rid of most of the rest of the economic dream team. So let's just give away TARP money to the banks like the other guys were doing.