The Wall Street Journal argues persuasively that America’s current economic woes are rooted not in “imperial overstretch” (liberal historian Paul Kennedy’s phrase) but rather in “entitlement overstretch” (as described by military historian Andrew Krepinevich). That is, the economic crisis is due to unrestrained and unaffordable entitlement spending, not defense spending.
In fact, the entitlement state has for some time been supplanting – and, in the Obama era, downright muscling out – the nation’s security needs. This year’s defense budget, with the current wars included, amounts to 4.5% of GDP, down from an average of 7.5% throughout the Cold War, and 6.2% at the peak of the Reagan buildup in 1986. The Obama Administration has been wringing out savings from the Pentagon, all the while pouring funds into new entitlements, most profligately, ObamaCare. The White House’s proposed defense budget for 2012 was $13 billion less than it projected last year. Through 2016, there will be practically no increase in spending at the Pentagon, and the Army and Marine Corps will have to be pared down by 47,000 troops. Some $350 billion of weapon programs have been cut or eliminated. Last year, in response to then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s admonition that the Pentagon requires 2%-3% real budget growth to maintain only its current missions, the White House provided him with 0%. And, according to a Fox report on September 6, 2011, the Administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by end of year to 3,000, despite senior commanders’ request that 27,000 stay; one source told Fox that with such a small number of troops they cannot “secure everybody [the remaining U.S. troops] nor…do what [they] need to with the Iraqis.”
Such decisions on the part of President Obama raise doubts that he will heed Gates’s most recent warning, intended to influence the president’s 2013 budget proposal, against “across-the-board [military] cuts, such as those in the ‘70s and ‘90s that hollowed out the force.”
Meanwhile, entitlement spending continues to spiral out of control. Entitlements are projected to consume 10.8% of GDP by 2020, while defense spending heads down to 2.7%. If current trends hold up, entitlements will devour all tax revenues by 2052.
In a powerful critique of “pennywise” defense policies, former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld observes that, although substantial savings can be found in the defense budget, hundreds of billions of dollars cannot be cut without imperiling our security. In any event, he wryly notes, even the total elimination of all our military forces and national security agencies would not resolve the nation’s financial quandary. He is concerned that decisions already made by the Obama Administration – such as reducing the number of strategic delivery systems, missile-defense interceptors, F-22 fighters and Navy cruisers – will “leave America ill-prepared for a conventional conflict and erode the strong deterrent necessary to prevent it.”
Rumsfeld also cautions that on-the-cheap defense policies will inevitably, as in the past, force the country to scramble to shore up its defenses when unexpectedly confronted by an aggressor. The crucial difference between then and now, however, is that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons leaves us with “a considerably more modest margin of error.”
Relatedly, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation warns that the recent debt-ceiling accord requires hacking defense spending by $350 billion or so over the next ten years. In addition, if Republicans and Democrats cannot reach an agreement on finding savings in other areas, the debt deal could “’trigger’” a slash in military spending of up to $1 trillion. Already, our armed forces are in some areas not “fully mission-capable,” i.e., not prepared for immediate combat, and, unconscionably, in some cases they may not have been provided with the sufficient quantity and quality of equipment needed for combat.
Moreover, the Obama Administration has not been mindful of potential future conflicts but, rather, has shortsightedly dedicated our military resources to fighting only today’s wars. Obama and like-minded leaders, who cavalierly sap defense in order to fatten entitlements, seem to forget that war is the norm in human history, and the world ever a dangerous place.
Hence, as Brookes indicates, China’s unprecedented military expansion bespeaks its apparent intent to dominate the Western Pacific and shoehorn the U.S. out of the region; North Korea not only remains a mortal danger to South Korea but is reportedly developing road-mobile ICBMs to bolster its long-range missile and nuclear arsenal; Iran continues to arm Iraqi militants and sundry terrorist groups, and is also likely to have an ICBM by 2015; al Qaeda, while on the run in Afghanistan, remains a strong force in countries such as Somalia and Yemen; in addition, there are reasons for concern about Russia, Pakistan, and Venezuela, among others.
The reckless cuts in U.S. defense spending signal to our enemies that we have embarked upon what Arthur Herman aptly calls a “full strategic retreat, perhaps further back than at any time since before World War II.”
Our excuses now, recession and debt, are reminiscent of the 1930s, when the Great Depression served as a catalyst to eviscerate the military, opening the way for no less a defeat than Pearl Harbor.
Then, as now, there is no substitute for hard, abundant, responsive, flexible American power by sea and by land. Intelligence-driven threat assessment, informed by a robust strategic vision, and not political expediency, must determine our capabilities.
Of course, the nation urgently needs entitlement reformers. But it also requires warrior-leaders with the wisdom and foresight to identify future threats to the homeland and our allies, the courage and ability to explain to the people why they must provide the wherewithal to meet these threats, and the fortitude to build and train our military in the use of whatever weapons systems are needed to ensure our protection.
Much is at stake – not just our fate but that of the entire free world and all people striving for freedom.
Big Peace
