Anything Reps. Ron Paul (R., Tex.) and Barney Frank (D., Mass.) both support should give the rest of us pause. Their proposal to slash defense spending by $1 trillion over a decade — only the most recent joint effort by the new isolationists on the Left and Right to curtail American military strength around the world — is as foolhardy as it is unrealistic. Were such a policy enacted, the nation and the world would be set on a path not toward peace, but toward instability, conflict, and a lessening of freedom in many corners of the world.
As the deteriorating situation on the Korean peninsula reminds us, the security concerns of the United States do not disappear in times of economic distress. America’s interests, whether economic, strategic, diplomatic, or moral, cannot be set aside when Congress tires of them. The United States and the world paid a severe price for the ostrich-like behavior too many democratic nations exhibited during the 1920s and 1930s. Reps. Paul and Frank appear determined to repeat this mistake.
Advertisement
The United States continues to face an array of global challenges that require a modern, technologically superior military. It is very much in the interests of the United States to uphold the territorial integrity and economic independence of much of Asia, maintain the security of critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, and protect American trade from pirates and terrorists worldwide. Rather than regard the nation’s defenses as a ready source of money available for diversion to domestic concerns, Congress and the president should identify the challenges America faces and assure that its military is able to meet them.
At its core, the Frank-Paul effort appears to be an attempt to prevent repetitions of wars the two congressmen regard as either unnecessary or faultily executed. But the United States has broader and more important long-run national-security concerns than Iraq and Afghanistan. As the U.S. became bogged down in those two countries, it began feeling strains elsewhere, precipitated by China, Russia, and potentially toxic menaces such as Iran and Venezuela.
Counterinsurgency warfare and Predator-drone strikes against transnational terrorists certainly defined much of the last decade. But the next decade will witness increasing competition among nation-states for control of valuable resources and the exertion of influence worldwide.
Russia, through its control of vital energy pipelines, seeks to draw Western Europe more closely into its orbit, thereby weakening the latter’s historical ties to the United States. By taking a similar approach to Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, the Baltics, and Moldova, Russia is on the verge of re-colonizing economically many of its former satellites.
China, while continuing to upgrade its naval capabilities, grows increasingly assertive. In pursuit of its own Monroe Doctrine for East Asia, Beijing has proclaimed its sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, menaced neighbors from India to Vietnam, used its economic muscle to intimidate Japan, and increased its threats against Taiwan. China’s leaders have been studying the writings of the 19th-century American naval theorist Alfred Thayer Mahan, who demonstrated the connection between sea power and economic strength. At the turn of the last century, Theodore Roosevelt found in Mahan the blueprint for achieving unprecedented American influence in world affairs. His efforts to build both a strong navy and a sound economy ushered in the “American century,” the period in which the United States became a force for good throughout the world and a beacon of hope for those yearning to breathe free.
In pursuing a “blue-water” ocean-going navy capable of supporting their expanding global economic ambitions, the Chinese are acting from a desire to defend their nation’s trade and access to world markets, with a focus on energy supplies. It is critical that the Chinese — who are closely studying both Mahan’s writings and the history of the Monroe Doctrine — and Americans who see Chinese hegemony over Asia as either inevitable or a price they are willing to pay in exchange for slashing defense spending not draw the wrong lessons from history. Both sides should understand that it was not American might that gave the Monroe Doctrine force, but the then all-powerful British navy. For much of the 19th century, Great Britain had reasons of its own for keeping other nations out of the Western Hemisphere and for wanting to see the United States develop internally.
Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says national debt is our biggest security threat. We can't begin to cut our deficit without looking at Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. That's where the money is.
Not wanting to police the world is hardly isolationist. Only someone with an agenda would call it that.
The authors predict "Were such a policy enacted, the nation and the world would be set on a path not toward peace, but toward instability, conflict, and a lessening of freedom in many corners of the world."
It would seem that we are well along this path aleady.
Additionally, we have seen the "lessening of freedom" right here in the United States. The authors seem to overlook the Patriot Acts, Military Commisions Act, varous executive orders and numerous other anti-Constitutional/liberty eroding actions by our own governemnt in its pursuit of enemies.
There are indeed serious threats to our fellow citizens and military personnel, and these must be dealt with intelligently and appropriately.
However, our government has chosen a series of policies and actions which are literally creating enemies where none existed before.
The authors full fledged endorsement of US global hegemony is really shortsighted, not the modest proposals by Frank and Paul to rein in our military industrial empire.
Propping up China's economy in the Far East with the US-as-gun-for-hire would sure help Asia but it would not benefit workers in America one whit. Has the National Review taken leave of its senses.?
America is not a power that will be ignored no matter how hard we try to be ignored. We can do everything we can to pull back, not interfere and not "police" the world and we will still be attacked and targeted. Why?
Everyone that hates freedom, democracy and political liberty know that they are not safe and secure in their various forms of oppressive dictatorships until America has been PROVEN too weak to stop them.
Pulling out and weakening our military simply allows the people that want to take America the space and time needed to plan their attack and make it on their own terms.
Until we lose a major war and show that we can be beaten or do not have the will to defend ourselves enemies will come after us no matter what our domestic policies are. A high level of defense spending on our military superiority is a must for us as a country pretty much no matter what we do. The enemies are out there and are coming for us out choice is whether we make easy or hard on them.
I'm getting really tired of reading stuff like this, especially at NR. This kind of hysterical overreaction to common sense budget cutting is nonsense. Our military budget, like the rest of the federal budget, is bloated. Our military is too big, and like any other federal agency, constantly seeks to increase its size and influence. We could slash the DOD budget by 50 percent and still have by far the most powerful military in the world. We've got military programs that are so expensive... the F-22, the F-35, the Ford class carrier, the Zumwalt class destroyer... that not even the greatest economy in the world can buy enough of them.
Enough is enough. A smaller government includes a smaller military.
Not going to war is NOT isolationism. What Ron Paul wants is free trade and peaceful diplomatic relations with other countries. What we are doing now is isolationism: we set up trade barriers, we have sleazy "diplomatic" activities (as wikileaks has shown), and we go to war over nothing.
I suggest the author do some research on the Just War Theory of Christianity. To quote Martin Luther King, “Don’t let anybody make you think that God chosen America as his divine, messianic force to be - a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America “You are too arrogant!”
The over expansion of America's military should only dictate that a retrenchment of defense spending. If our leaders would begin topair back our overseas spending on defense much of the domestic pain in expenditures woul be solved. While the thrreat of China, Venezuela and the likes is present they and Iran pose little immediate threat to our borders.
I would say that the "new isolationism" is actually the isolating of America in the court of world opinion by our strategic foreign policy blunders and intervention.
Felzenberg talks like he's got it all figured out but the reality is he doesn't. No one does. If foreign policy was as cut and dry as he makes it sound, we would be in a better standing in the world. We're not and our standing is declining at an alarming rate. We had much of the world flying American flags on September 11th, 2001. Not even ten years later, we've alienated even some of our biggest supporters.
He then talks like it's a matter of resources. Well, if that's the case, then that's how it should be presented to the American people. Or better yet? Take the trillions and invest in new energy, new economies, and new industries. Why are resource shortages a military matter?
The reality is a neutral America scares people. It's simply fear that's driving the neo-conservative war machine. I don't blame them. History is littered with examples of choosing not to get involved in situations. History also shows us what happens when a country spends too much and can't afford their empire anymore.
Call me crazy. Call me liberal. Or libertarian. Or communist. Or anti-american. Or anti-Taiwan. Or anti-semetic. Or whatever your derogatory word of the day is but the financial collapse of the USA is a lot more dangerous and its economic and political effects on the world would be a lot more destabilizing than say, a terrorist attack.
At this point in time I think I am willing to go along w/ Paul and Frank on this....but only as long as the cutting knife goes to all spending by government. We shouldn't be in any war right now because Congress has not declared a war. People want a constitutional government, well Congress declaring war is in the Constitution, Article I....not one lone President.
I am really tired of any event that happens it is the US that pays the lion's share of the price in treasure and bloodshed.
We should maintain decent spending on Military and Defense technologies to do just that....
Not going off to war in other Countries....Especially at the behest of some other countries actions.....see NATO.
Imagine if that little country of Georgia were in NATO at the time they had their spat w/ Russia....our men and women would be fighting in a war that was not our choosing, but some small rinky-dink country.
Cut spending in ALL areas....not just defense/DOD.
These big government "conservatives" will never learn, will they? If they are worried about the American public becoming more isolationist, is it anyone other than they who are to blame with their endless, unfinanced wars?
The Soviet Union was a hollowed-out, 3rd world country with an enormous military. That's what the big government conservatives would do to the United States.
Nat'l DEFENSE should not include policing the globe. Secure our borders and liberties first before deciding where to spend $1 Trillion+ abroad each year. There's plenty of fat that could be cut and we'd be a safer nation if we had the courage to go through with Paul's and Frank's plan. Oh, btw, Non-intervention and isolationism are completely different from each other. Nice smear attempt by the authors though, pssssshhh..........
Having been a student of International Relations and Political Science at LSU, I can honestly tell you that Rep. Paul's and Frank's program of cutting spending is anything but isolationist: it is realistic.
The United States cannot maintain its role as 'policeman of the world' or 'armed social worker'; it is financial suicide. Paul's and Frank's suggestions follow in the vein of Eisenhower's warnings of an industrial-military complex, and should be taken in all seriousness and respect.
This piece is a sign that a new realism with respect to foreign policy may be on the rise, and it is panicking those who adhere, out of conviction or self-interest, to hegemonism and the national security state. We have some 800 bases overseas, many in places we do not trade with and cannot threaten us. We have alliances designed to contain a Soviet Union that is 20 years gone, and a China that is a hotbed of robber-baron style capitalism.
We could have a continental defense, and a navy to protect our trade, and substantial increase our freedoms, reduce our deficits, and repair our infrastructure. This goal demands a disciplined rethinking of our global strategy and a careful trimming of the defense establishment to fit.
We would have a stronger, freer, and more prosperous society if we did this voluntarily. If hyperinflation, military exhaustion, and national bankruptcy force these reductions upon us, 'twill not be pretty.
Since the terrorists hate us for our freedoms so much, the only logical choice is for our government to take away our freedoms, therefore terrorists won't hate us anymore.
You are extremely foolish to believe that a "strong military" is the answer to America's problems.
Firstly, military intervention never actually solves problems long term, and is morally wrong. A more accurate view of history will show that intervening proactively in other countries militarily, as America has been doing for the last 50 years, to support "American interests" is far closer to the philosophy of Germany's Third Reich than people would like to believe.
Secondly, the idea of American exceptionalism is a myth. Contrary to popularly held belief in the US, God did NOT intend America to be the shining light that has His mandate to lead the world. There have been many, many empires that rose and fell throughout history, and ALL of them thought they had the right to bring light to the barbarians. They were all wrong. It is the God given right of people to have self-determination, as the Founding Fathers so eloquently wrote. If that is the case, why should the will and interests of the American people be binding on anyone else, any more than the will of the English people be binding on America in 1776? You can make all kinds of smarmy, sophisticated arguments as to why military interventionism is in the best interests of America and those poor benighted souls you intervene to help, but the bottom line is this: If you believe in the American Constitution, and the high moral ideals the Founding Fathers were willing to die to uphold, your arguments are not morally right. Freedom is an aspiration that belongs to everyone, not just Americans.
Thirdly, you simply cannot afford it. You are a nation in serious decline. Your schools no longer turn out the best educated students, your lead in innovation, always a mainstay of the economy, has slipped, your government cannot manage its obligations, raising its debt ceiling ever year to unprecedented levels. All these clever economists make arguments about why that doesn't matter, because going bankrupt cannot happen to YOU, as the dollar is the basis for the world economy, and everyone else will always bail you out, because the cost of changing the system will be so high to them if they don't. The truth is, it depends on the level of pain. Take the Euro... they bailed out Ireland, they bailed out Greece, because it was less painful to do that then break the Euro.... if Spain and Italy hit rock bottom, they may reform the Euro instead. Same with the dollar. If you are an incorrigible deadbeat, eventually people eat their losses and stop doing business with you on credit.... and you no longer make anything the world views as essential, I can only buy it from the US... not even military weapons.
Last point: Ron Paul is not a pacifist (I can't speak for Barney Frank). He is advocating a return to policies of strong national defense, putting the Department of Defense back to what it was supposed to be originally. Today, a more accurate name would be the Department of Offense. "Oh, some bad people blew up some buildings... since we have no clue how to find them and hold them accountable, lets use this as an excuse to use our shiny new toys to beat up people who had nothing to do with it, one group because we dont like their religion, the other because they wont sell us oil". If you think that is a childish and inaccurate representation of what happened, you are right, it is. If you think that no-one outside of America believes that is what happened, you are wrong... and if you think that doesn't damage America's reputation and interests in a fundamental way, far worse than anything that could have happened if you refrained from your invasions, you are also wrong. It is a fundamental truth that the world dislikes bullies. Doesn't mean they won' do business with them, may be forced to in some cases, but no-one likes them.
Ron Paul is a visionary, brave leader who is unafraid to make unpopular points, but he is no demagogue. His positons are clear and well thought out. He is not right about everything, but everything he takes a position on should be considered very carefully and objectively, because he is right about almost all of them.
Having read all the comments about shrinking our military, cutting the defense budget, or relinquishing our self assumed role as the world saviour I am in two minds whether to agree or disagree.
The world indeed is a dangerous place and our enemies whether we like it or not are many, some idelogical, some religious, and some out plain old jealousy.
I'm all for a strong defense but, why do we have to pay for all of it, why don't we hold our allies feet to the fire and give them the choice of spending the exact same percentage of their GDP on defense that we do.. consider the EU, they outnumber us in people, they have higher taxation and therefore should be able to defend themselves, yet we have a large US Military presence there, so if they don't want to contribute in material and men they should be paying for the presence of all American military in their area of responsiblity, period.
As for Iraq we have done our job, time to come home, if they can't get it right or they and their neighbours want us to remain again let them pay the tab.
Afghanistan, this war is technically a NATO war, why aren't NATO members contributing equally as we are, we must start holding these countries accountable, either provide the personnel and material or pay us for doing it.
Regards,
Doc Somali Basin:
To the above, all I can add is the following. There is no state or even combination of states that can realistically threaten the United States. North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela? The first is starving, the second is ruined and the third is turning into a remake of my favorite Madonna movie. None can truly threaten the US. Even China -- which does not have a blue water navy -- is no real threat right now (though it may become one).
Cutting defense does not mean unilateral disarmament. I support missile defense for example and believe in peace through strength. But we can cut some of the budget by first rethinking many of our alliances. NATO has long served its purpose and acts only to subsidize the European welfare state. It is the ultimate big government program, still trying to be relevant long after its reason for existence has disappeared.
Russia is not the Soviet Union and is no threat to us unless we make her one. Russia MAY be a threat to Europe as a whole and is a threat to her immediate neighbors. But the way to address that is to better integrate Russia into Europe, rather than make her an enemy.
As for "deteriorating situation on the Korean peninsula" -- why is no one asking the real question -- why is this our problem? South Korea is a modern nation of 50 or so million well fed, prosperous free people. North Korea is a Stalinist nightmare of about half that subsisting on tree bark. If South Korea cannot defend itself, it is not worth defending.
The idea that the "terrorists attacked us because they hate us for our freedoms" is a dangerous misconception.
The CIA coined the term "Blowback" to describe the negative repercussions that we suffer as a result of our interventionist foreign polices: We are attacked for what our government does to/in foreign countries - not for our own freedoms.
Please consider the following:
A) Professor Chalmers Johnson: "The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy."
"Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable."
"On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight."
This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values - as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon - is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated." (See #1)
B) Professor Robert Pape: "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." (See #2)
(1)Professor Johnson's article Blowback, in the 2001 October issue of The Nation Blowback (External Link) External Link
(2) Professor Pape's 2005 Interview in The American Conservative. Professor Pape is the author of "Dying to Win; the Logic of Suicide Terrorism" External Link
I still don't think that anyone is advocating spending defense dollars on remote control but the cuts we make, possibly reducing our presence in Europe and other places, uniting the forces equipment and deployment and things of that nature would be great. Also we have a lot of bureaucratic bloat in the military that could be reduced. However modernizing our military should be a priority. Having the best military is very useful and there strategic spots around the globe that we must be engaged in and we must deny enemies "space" in which they are free to grow and arm until they are ready to fight us.
@MightyMax imagine that if Georgia was in NATO there never would have been a war in which Russia invaded a country for NO OTHER reason than to prove that they could do it and to protect their criminal rackets running on Georgian territory. You may not the appreciate the strategic value of Georgia, which is fine, but a free independent Georgia that could not be invaded by Russia is a huge bonus to us and our allies.
@Once again: The Soviet Union was a hallowed out 3rd world country with a large bad military because they could not and did not know how to build a good one anymore and Reagan and others exploited that brilliantly. Right now our defense budget is not a net loss to us because it keeps many important industries going, keeps peace and trade open in large swaths of the world and reduces our costs of doing business while increasing costs to our enemies. That does not mean that we must keep spending on defense where it was for two wars. However not modernizing our military is a big mistake. Cuts can come but they need to take in the long term interest and needs of the US.
Well I don't have any more time. So I will leave it there. But withdrawing from the world and not modernizing our military and giving a much freer hand to our enemies will give us a huge future bill to pay.
