Defending the Cliff

Terrorists killing a U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi. Terrorist networks operating everywhere. Pressures from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the United States to draw redlines around Iran’s nuclear program, setting firm timelines and concrete steps for that nation to step down those efforts. The rise of new governments with strong ties to religious fundamentalists who see the United States as the great Satan. Amped up military spending from Russia and China. North Korean games. Instability in Pakistan. The contraction of spending on things military in Europe as their struggle with their debt crisis, placing more of a burden on the United States as the West’s military enforcer. Genocide and rebellion around the world seeking well-armed friends for relief. The increasing disdain shown for American policy goals all over the world under a perception that the United States is weak and in decline. We need power unbridled to make a very strong point to those who oppose us. Arguments for increases in our military budget.

We’re out if Iraq and leaving Afghanistan, both unwinnable wars where no matter how long U.S. forces remained, departure at any time would generate the same failed result. Fewer wars, lower military expenditures, right? Such failed wars have added trillions to our deficit, made us into what many consider the global bully and resulted in massive loss of life, including so many of our own. Even with recent reductions, we still spend 41% of all military expenditures on earth (outspending the next highest ten nations combined), as domestic needs for education, infrastructure and job-creating research go begging. Yet except for minor and short term skirmishes (e.g., Grenada, Bosnia, etc.), the United States has not emerged victorious (or left a conflict with the desired results solidly in place) in any significant war since World War II. When a conflict does break out somewhere in the world, because we have such an accumulation of arms, we are often called upon to use it. When something “seems bad,” our knee jerk military responses (because we can) have created a litany of unintended consequences, from “blowback” to increasing us as a target for the angry and dissatisfied on the planet, the obvious king of the hill that needs to be brought down. Arguments for decreases.

The sequestration bill (Budget Control Act - BCA) in Congress would automatically slash and burn our budget ($1.2 trillion worth) if there is no Congressional override by the end of the year; the sudden shock to the system, cutting almost $500 billion from our military budget as part of that effort, would effectively send a huge segment of soldiers, civilian Defense Dept employees and lots of vendors into idle unemployment (some folks say it would put a million or more people out of work), thus raising the national unemployment rate significantly higher and formally retriggering a deep recession, if not more.

Since our defense budget represents about half of our annual discretionary spending, our ability to manage the deficit very much depends on how that discretionary funding is reallocated. The GOP pledges no new taxes, so increases in defense spending necessarily mean massive cuts elsewhere, although the specific proposals on when and where that would be have yet to be revealed. The Democrats see the world as needing a different kind of military but definitely smaller and learner, relying more on drones and special forces. Less invading and more surgically-precise responses.

With an election looming, and the Congress split heavily along ideological lines, the world is watching and waiting, and the credit rating agencies are threatening to implement a serious degradation of our already-reduced credit rating (potentially increasing the interest we pay on that huge deficit) if we don’t find a mutually acceptable solution and then fall off the cliff. And while the divide on taxation, immigration and social issues is deep, the going-forward policies in defense appear to be one of the few areas of disagreement where hard numbers have been put forth by each major party.

“Romney and congressional Republicans, meanwhile, continue to accuse Obama of reducing defense spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Here’s the math for their claim: They add the congressionally approved $487 billion from the BCA with $500 billion more that would emerge if sequestration happens… But forget reducing spending when it comes to the Romney plan for defense. Obama has called for reducing U.S. troop levels by 100,000 over five years as U.S. combat forces leave Afghanistan. The start of those reductions in the Army and Marine Corps are already in the Pentagon’s 2013 budget and future plans, but Romney wants to do an about-face. He wants to increase force levels by 100,000. That could cost an additional $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next 10 years.

“He also has said that he wants to step up U.S. Navy shipbuilding, from nine vessels a year to 15. It costs roughly $18 billion for the current pace of nine ships a year. The Romney plan would add an additional $12 billion, or more than $120 billion to defense spending over the next 10 years…On [September 8^th], he threw another costly item into his Pentagon shopping cart. During an interview with WAVY television in Virginia Beach, he raised the idea of reopening the F-22 Raptor [pictured above] fifth-generation stealth fighter production line… Saying he opposes Obama’s ‘defense cuts in addition to the sequestration,’ Romney said: ‘Rather than completing nine ships a year, I would complete 15. I would add more F-22s and add more than 100,000 active-duty personnel to our military team.’” Washington Post, September 12^th.

As Congress nears a shorter-term vote to keep government going a while longer (the “continuing resolution”), before the BCA would kick in, the proposals in front of our representatives will increase military spending over earlier projections under virtually any passable version of the legislation, even with the savings from our troop withdrawals. Can we afford to keep spending this way? Are such military expenditures creating a better world for Americans? A safer world for Americans – those who travel and those who remain home? What are the trade-offs? What do we give up if we want to increase our military spend or even keep it level? What do you think?

I’m Peter Dekom, and this is perhaps the greatest test in our recent history for the survivability of the United States, no matter which direction we choose.