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 '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
"The 'cuts' are not actually spending cuts; they're cuts in the rates of increase in spending. So you can relax. Our 1 million and 1 bases around the world posed to strike in case of a 3-pronged nuclear attack from Russia, China, and the Death Star will survive the Budget Control Act."
Oct '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
emory king: 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?
emory, you are the soul of solemnity here but I fear you are wasting your time. ‘War for Oil’ is a mantra, which means the person repeating it never has to provide a single argument or piece of evidence in support of it. And that’s fortunate for him, since he will never find either. ‘War for Opiates’ is a new one to me, but I think it’s safe to put it in the same category. The absurd comment about VDH is beneath contempt and ought to be grounds for expulsion … Ricochet should not be allowed to become one of ‘those’ blogs. It’s too bad that all that inanity had to obscure the one valid point … a decade of war, nearly 5000 lives, hundreds of $Billion$ … for what? Sectarian violence in Iraq never really ended and is only getting more obvious with us gone. Afghanistan can’t be built into a nation no matter how many lives we waste trying.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Michael Tee
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.
War for oil? It has been nice having such cheap gas here in the States since we invaded Iraq to steal all their oil. And if you think that we are fighting in Afghanistan because of drugs, well then I don't know what to tell you.
As for your "Go ask someone" statement, I asked myself, since I have served 17 months over there and will be headed back some time later this year. Are the ROEs and parts of the mission frustrating? Yes. Waste of time? No. But, you know, I guess I don't know anything.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
HVTs
a decade of war, nearly 5000 lives, hundreds of $Billion$ … for what? Sectarian violence in Iraq never really ended and is only getting more obvious with us gone. Afghanistan can’t be built into a nation no matter how many lives we waste trying. · Jan 7 at 7:30am
I think the reasons we went to war in those 2 countries was just. I think what we tried to do after, what our mission turned into, is where we messed up. I'm not quite sure what would have worked, but that's not my job. I do know trying to make Afghanistan into a nation is nearly impossible. And Iraq is a mess. But let's just think about if Saddam was still in power. How would he have handled an Iraqi spring? How would he be handling Iran and their nuclear ambitions? My guess is he would've handled the Arab spring much like al Assad is and that he would be closing in on a weapon like the Iranians are. I'm not saying the 2 wars haven't been bad in many respects, I'm just holding off before I call them a total waste.
Aug '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Michael Tee
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.
Hi Michael,
Here is the chart from Wolfram Alpha regarding the price of gas since 1994ish. Man, those gas prices sure did drop a WHOLE LOT... oops, had the chart upside down...
Would you care to revise your statement?
Oct '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
Josiah Fast
HVTs
a decade of war, nearly 5000 lives, hundreds of $Billion$ … for what? Sectarian violence in Iraq never really ended and is only getting more obvious with us gone. Afghanistan can’t be built into a nation no matter how many lives we waste trying.
I think the reasons we went to war in those 2 countries was just. ...
I do know trying to make Afghanistan into a nation is nearly impossible. And Iraq is a mess. But let's just think about if Saddam was still in power. ...
I'm not saying the 2 wars haven't been bad in many respects, I'm just holding off before I call them a total waste.
We agree ... you'll notice I didn't say the wars were unjust or "a total waste." We should have done what Rumsfeld wanted and gotten out of Iraq after taking down Saddam's regime. We should have told the Taliban that we'd help modernize if asked, but what you can't do is ever again let your territory be used as a terrorist staging area. If you do, we'll be back with steadily escalating violence each and every time.
Apr '11
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
HVTs
We agree ...
It seems that we do.
Dec '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
I'm carrying this over from Ben Domenech's post on Dec. 5.
I think it's time we stopped the pussey footing and took the gloves off. This man in the White House is a fifth column. He literally is sabotaging the defense, the economic health and the moral structure of this nation. He will strip the military of fighting capability. We will not be able to project the power we need in this chaotic world.
I am particularly interested in the F35. I know someone you might say was the bean counter's bean counter. He is giving the F35 a very hard time. He seems harmless enough in person. I think he has been seduced by the left wing limelight that his stand creates for him. Always a hard working wonk, now he has a chance to look heroic to the lefties by spearing the F35. (cont.)
Dec '10
Re: Cutting the Military is a Bad Idea
(cont. from #28)
More recently I talked to this other guy. He is real airforce. Middle level he did a lot of training all over the world. He thinks the F35 is a good plane. It's expensive as hell he says but it's worth it.
Frankly Scarlet, I just may upset the bean counter's bean tray the next time I see him. (cont.)
(cont. from #28 Dec 5)
I saw the bean counter's bean counter in the flesh over the weekend. I confronted him. He equivocated like crazy. I accused him of being the arms procurement "Slick Willy". He countered that nobody really cared that much. I asked him whether Israel wanted the plane. He said oh sure it would be great for them. We were in Synagogue at the time! Slick Willy slipped on a banana peal. Even his wife was angry at him. The Rabbi came over and got on his case.
Boy did I have a good time!