Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
After World War II, Harry Truman and Louis Johnson wanted to cut the Marine Corps; by winter 1950 what was left of it almost single-handedly saved the reputation of the collapsing U.S. military in Korea. After Vietnam, we were told there was no more need for large ground forces—until the Middle East heated up and we won the Gulf War in four days with huge ground forces. Then came massive cuts in the late 1980s and 1990s—until Iraq and Afghanistan proved that we still needed boots on the ground. So now, with President Obama’s cuts to the defense budget, the future is supposed to be all air, naval, drones, special forces, and counter-insurgency. Apparently the North Koreans will never again cross the 38th Parallel; or some rogue nation will never help plan or subsidize another 9/11; or some future European or Asian dictator will never again threaten his neighbors—or if all the latter come true, drones and missiles will suffice. I find all that hard to believe. Some other considerations:
A) There are really only two ways to audit the Obama administration's new cuts to defense—are we presently spending more on defense in terms of GDP (say, over 5%) than usual during "peacetime" and is the percentage of the federal budget inordinately devoted to defense (say, over 30%)? In truth, we are spending in the postwar age what we usually do between major wars, even though we just fought two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
B) Yes, it could be wise to shift emphasis to Asia, but Europe was where most American lives were lost in the 20th century. We do not yet know the strategic ramifications of the unwinding of the EU. NATO ('keep Germany down, Russia out, and the U.S. in') is now a cocktail-party construct, and will fade away without a strong U.S presence. An ascendant Turkey has always bullied Greece when the former was confident and the latter weak, and there are lots of hot spots from the Ionian coast to Cyprus. The Balkans are not settled yet, and the democratic futures of the former Soviet Republics are still up in the air. Libya would have been impossible without US/NATO bases in Italy.
C) The military is not all fighting and hardware. The training offered 1 million youths is in many cases superior to what they now find on today's college campuses. They leave the military with skills and responsibilities, and without student loans; all too often, in contrast, our twenty-something students pile up debt without skills or real learning on contemporary campuses. We trust 20-year olds in the military to guide $100 million jets on carriers; in contrast, I find it dangerous to walk across a campus parking lot with 20-year-old students running through stop signs.
D) The drawdown is not occurring in a vacuum, but is the bookend of a loud new 'reset'/'lead from behind' strategy that deprecates traditional allies like Britain and Israel while failing miserably in outreach to supposedly new neutrals like Syria and Iran—all in a landscape of bowing, apologizing, and Cairo speechifying. All of these developments serve as force multipliers to the military retrenchment and confirm the impression of our enemies that the world is now entirely negotiable in a way not true four years ago. The unspoken irony is that the military and our anti-terrorism protocols served Obama well when he arrived: he found a quiet Iraq with almost no monthly American casualties, a decimated al Qaeda (largely destroyed in Iraq), anti-terrorism measures that had foiled over 30 plots against the mainland (and were all demagogued by candidate Obama before President Obama embraced them), major powers like China, Russia, and Iran wary of pressing the U.S., allies like Japan, Taiwan, Germany, and South Korea secure under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and the most seasoned and experienced U.S. military in generations.
E) The new $500 billion cuts must be considered against the nearly $5 trillion Obama has borrowed since assuming office, in addition to what he will borrow this next year. A defense budget that was tolerable prior to 2008 becomes apparently unsustainable with expenditures for Obamacare, vast new green projects like Solyndra, expansions in food stamps and unemployment insurance, and vast increases in the size of the non-military federal government. At least with the military our money earns safety and deterrence, while with Obama's massive new Keynesian projects we do not get more jobs, more energy production, or more wealth created -- only more dependency, more class strife and 1% vs. 99% class warfare, as one's status is not judged by absolute material standards but only in relationship to being worse off than someone wealthier. Some of us might prefer a new frigate manned by professionally trained American youth to another resurrection of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, another cash infusion into GM, yet another failed private/public windmill or solar factory, or another 20 weeks tacked on in unemployment insurance to the increasingly dispirited jobless.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
A military draw-down will leave only two options in time of a required response (read self-defense):
1) We can nuke the daylights out of the opponent
2) We can give in to the opponent.
Given the two options, I would prefer nukes.
May '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
It's just another disaster piled atop disaster from this administration and worse, I'm afraid the GOP will be unable or unwilling to exploit this parade of Obama horribles for their political gain, and we'll see another Obama term.
Dr. Hanson, do you see in this military reduction any parallels to twentieth-century disarmaments and if so, which seems the more apt comparison, the disarmament after WWI or the Carter era?
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
VDH, as always, is spot on. At the end he makes the point I did earlier today in Ben Domenech's post about defense cuts. I would rather the Air Force give me a large, competent ground force to support and an advanced aircraft to support it with than chucking money into the maw of big government. There are places to cut defense spending, but not where it affects the size and strength of it. Look to retirement, Tricare, and the post 9/11 GI Bill first.
Jun '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Drawing down the American military is not a bad idea if you are an internationalist with a socialist/totalitarian outlook. You can't very well have a worldwide socialist collective if a nation of free people can oppose you with a volunteer military supported by the world's largest economy. What this says about Obama must be left unsaid because to do so would be racist!
Aug '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
I sometimes wish we could cast either/or votes like this, instead of voting for "bundles of policies" in the form of individual politicians.
Seriously, are conservatives the only people who worry about repeating history? In every discussion of foreign policy (and monetary policy for that matter), I have never heard a liberal worry that some aspect of warfare and human nature might rear up from the past, and interrupt their perfectly planned new world order.
Dec '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Pilli: A military draw-down will leave only two options in time of a required response (read self-defense):
1) We can nuke the daylights out of the opponent
2) We can give in to the opponent.
Given the two options, I would prefer nukes. · Jan 6 at 10:03am
Don't be too certain about the first option. Our strategic force structure is shifting. Within a few years our submarine launched assets will comprise 70% (or more) of the nuclear triad. All the money being spent in this force is being spent on physical security for existing systems that went into service over 20 years ago. We're hunkering down, not projecting force, even with our nuclear capabilities. The lead time required to update and modernize these forces is tremendous, the old systems are already having their service lives extended, and the cuts coming will be at the expense of modernization or replacement of existing weapons systems. Every setback in the development of new systems has an exponential impact on their eventual deployment.
Jul '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
A. is not an argument. Not a conservative one anyway. No matter if times are booming or times are tough, the military budget should be a percentage of GDP? Didn't we have this conversation already?
B. Ah, the "world's policeman" argument: so long as it's people of European descent. I see no calls for activity in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, or even Cuba. Waiting for an evil dictator to die is some foreign policy.
C. The military is a jobs program! Wonderful. Again, not a conservative argument.
D. We've had Obama in the White House for how long? The draw down in West Asia is accompanied by killing OBL, capturing or killing Al Queda agents, etc. In that time, North Korea has been sitting on their nuclear technology, despite the hysterics from the hawkish crowd that they'd be bombing Japan tomorrow.
As a side note, Japan and South Korea are technologically advanced. They can fend for themselves. Our intrusion in Europe these last 60+ years has led to their sclerosis as their military budgets are insignificant, yet their social largesse continues unimpeded.
E. The last argument is opportunity cost. We're gonna spend that money anyway...
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Michael Tee: A. the military budget should be a percentage of GDP?
B. so long as it's people of European descent.
C. The military is a jobs program!
D. despite the hysterics from the hawkish crowd that they'd be bombing Japan tomorrow.
A: I don't think VDH is saying that defense spending has to be a certain % of GDP, just noting where it's at and where it has been.
B: You're right, Afghans and Iraqis are very European. Somalis too. And Libyans. And etc.
C: Again, I think VDH is just making an observation about what defense spending gets you, in this case a group of highly trained citizens who have a lot to give this country in addition to their service.
D: You can't tell me that countries don't refrain from doing things because they know Uncle Sam is sitting right outside their doorstep holding a big stick.
Our "intrusions" (your word) aren't always perfect, but our military is a force for good in the world. And what's good for the world is usually good for the US.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
I think we can all agree that a strong military is one of the goals of our government, or should be. While size is often an indication of strength it is not necessarily the only factor to consider. If not actively engaged in wars requiring massive troop deployments, reducing personnel would seem a legitimate way to save money. What I think we want, and I am not sure we do have, is the ability to quickly scale up our army if the need arises. Thus while not in an active war we have only 500,000 soldiers. If N. Korea does march we can swell our ranks up to double or triple that number in a year.
There is something to be said about modern war, which is that it can be over very quickly. So if we lack the troops at the onset we can never recover. Of course as it is we only have 30,000 troop in Korea now and I do not think we could get that up to 100,000 very quickly. If I recall it took us a few months to build up the troop levels in Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Thus we can never really defend any place like Korea from Invasion. What we do is guarantee retaliation. For this we can take our time to build up our army. What we need is the means to respond rapidly with Air and Navel Power to provide support to South Korean ground troops (1 Million of them I believe). That we can do in a few days. I think that is where we should focus our military spending.
From a practical stand point of dealing with the budget we must avoid having any sacred cows. It would be hypocritical of us to declare something off limits in solving our budget problems. There is also something to be said for the shear inefficiency of the military acquisitions process (this though is not addressed by budget cuts to the army).
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
How do you suppose we do this? Draft? Ask our nation's youth nicely?
Edited on January 6, 2012 at 8:20pmAug '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Brilliant post, Dr Hansen. It's very clear that Obama longs to make the US just another European social democracy, as Mitt Romney says.
One of the many problems with Europe is that their militaries are an absolute joke. They are punchless and feckless - exactly what Obama wants the US to become.
The Book of Revelations predicts major troubles in the Mideast. I always wondered where the US would be in the battle of Armegeddon. Now I know - sitting it out.
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Victor Davis Hanson:
E) At least with the military our money earns safety and deterrence, while with Obama's massive new Keynesian projects we do not get more jobs, more energy production, or more wealth created -- only more dependency, more class strife and 1% vs. 99% class warfare, as one's status is not judged by absolute material standards but only in relationship to being worse off than someone wealthier.
Point of clarification if I may, Victor:
Isn't defense spending Keynesian as well?
Sep '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
I love the professor, but...this seems to me emblematic of our inability to deal with our bloated and corrupt government bureaucracies. Defense must be cut as must all other government programs. I do not favor cutting defense more than the rest, but cut we must. I don't know how to defend our country and its interests, but I am absolutely sure that an ever increasing debt burden will make the problem of funding defense even more acute in the future. It will never be as easy as it is now.
Jun '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Defense is the only area that radical cuts are being made.
Hanson is perfectly clear. It is a mistake to cut so deep.. The problem is not defense spending.
Someone has to keep the sea lanes open in the world.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Josiah Fast
Michael Tee:
D. despite the hysterics from the hawkish crowd that they'd be bombing Japan tomorrow.
D: You can't tell me that countries don't refrain from doing things because they know Uncle Sam is sitting right outside their doorstep holding a big stick.
Our "intrusions" (your word) aren't always perfect, but our military is a force for good in the world. And what's good for the world is usually good for the US. · Jan 6 at 11:06am
I was going to make much the same points, but you did it better, Josiah.In light of the D/C overlap, it's worth noting that the Japanese don't all come form Europe recently, either.
I'd like to add, though, that no one knows when the Norks will bring out the big guns. That a sword of Damocles has not yet fallen is no reason not to be keenly aware that it is dangling, and continues to dangle.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Tommy De Seno
Victor Davis Hanson:
E) At least with the military our money earns safety and deterrence, while with Obama's massive new Keynesian projects we do not get more jobs, more energy production, or more wealth created -- only more dependency, more class strife and 1% vs. 99% class warfare, as one's status is not judged by absolute material standards but only in relationship to being worse off than someone wealthier.
Point of clarification if I may, Victor:
Isn't defense spending Keynesian as well? · Jan 6 at 2:24pm
So are tax cuts, but the meaning of Keynes appears to have drifted somewhat in Ricochet circles.
Jul '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Josiah Fast
B: You're right, Afghans and Iraqis are very European. Somalis too. And Libyans. And etc.
D: You can't tell me that countries don't refrain from doing things because they know Uncle Sam is sitting right outside their doorstep holding a big stick.
Our "intrusions" (your word) aren't always perfect, but our military is a force for good in the world.
Your 'arguments' fall flat since apparently you don't understand them.
The Iraqi conflict was for oil (Western European world) Afghanis are for the drugs (Western European world.) If you like to suppose that U.S. intervention in Africa or Cuba is because it's too hard as opposed to Afghanistan, I'd like to see those arguments.
Our intrusions are a WASTE OF TIME AND PEOPLE. Go ask someone whose served in the Middle East. It will sound a lot like those who served in Vietnam. Reduced ROE, no clear mission, and no victory.
Where's the Victory Parade for Iraq?
There is no Victory Parade because We Lost.
Victor Davis Hanson is a joke of a historian. Just ask his colleagues.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Finally, a comment by King Prawn I can endorse. Few understand what 'obsolescence' means in a military context. A weapon system is obsolete when the costs to defend the system from attack exceed the costs that the weapon system can inflict on the enemy.
Modernization of the nuclear and carrier forces is crucial, because hypersonic missile technology is becoming mainstream. That is very likely to make the aircraft carrier weapon system obsolete. The aircraft carrier is one of our main force projection systems and is the preeminent expeditionary force protection system.
When the aircraft carrier is obsolete, the high seas will become balkanized, a return to pre-Brittania naval politics. Not pretty without a nuclear deterrent.
But honestly, can't we call back the trip-wire forces in Europe and Japan while still maintaining Ramstein and Okinawa as logistics hubs? Come on. There's plenty of places to cut defense spending.
May '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Michael,
Just want to make sure I completely understand your comments. Is it your position that we invaded Iraq because Hussein was unwilling to sell Iraqi oil on the open market if we lifted sanctions? Also we invaded Afghanistan so that opiates would continue to be sold at a reasonable price in Western Europe? Finally, exactly who are these colleagues of Mr. Hanson who find him lacking? I've always got the impression that the folks at Hoover thought he was great.