06 August 2010

Must the U.S. military straddle the globe?

Here is the question being posed:
The U.S. military is already unaffordable — and yet it needs to be larger to sustain America’s global leadership, especially in the face of a rising China. That’s the bottom line from a congressionally chartered bipartisan panel... Gordon Adams, among others, has already blasted the Hadley-Perry report for making the underlying assumption that the U.S. can and should continue to invest heavily in being a “global policeman..."
This reply from Christopher Prebel, writing for the libertarian CATO Institute:
"Even though we spend in excess of $800 billion annually on national security (including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs) we could choose to spend as much, or more, for a while longer. We could choose to shift money out of other government programs...

But what is the point? Why do Americans spend so much more on our military than does any other country, or any other combination of countries?

Trade routes need not be policed by a single dominant power; the international economy is complex and resilient. Supply disruptions are likely to be temporary, and the costs of mitigating their effects should be borne by those who stand to lose — or gain — the most. Islamic extremists are scary, but hardly comparable to the threat posed by a globe-straddling Soviet Union armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. It is frankly absurd that we spend more today to fight Osama bin Laden and his tiny band of murderous thugs than we spent to face down Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao. Many factors have contributed to the dramatic decline in the number of wars between nation-states; it is unrealistic to expect that a new spasm of global conflict would erupt if the United States were to modestly refocus its efforts, draw down its military power, and call on other countries to play a larger role in their own defense, and in the security of their respective regions...

But while there are credible alternatives to the United States serving in its current dual role as world policeman / armed social worker, the foreign policy establishment in Washington has no interest in exploring them. The people here have grown accustomed to living at the center of the earth, and indeed, of the universe. The tangible benefits of all this military spending flow disproportionately to this tiny corner of the United States while the schlubs in fly-over country pick up the tab.
More at the link. Via The Daily Dish.

3 comments:

  1. But, how else can we impose our values on other cultures? Just as the busybodies here at home do to a large number of American citizens, our military must be certain that the entire world is forced to follow the mores of the U.S.A. no matter haw badly it erodes the local culture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Count me in with the Libertarians on this one. I wrote my congressman just last week to inform him that I, as a voter, am willing to live with the resulting pain of closed local bases, if necessary to reduce military spending. Of course, he's rightly worried the bulk of his electorate would NOT be fine with that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cato has a lot of good ideas on this subject. If you're interested in actual change, this is the best way to accomplish it.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...