Being The Worlds Policeman Is An Expenive Enterprise. Maybe Too Expensive.

I have long believed that America’s allies have not adequately shared in the financial burden of keeping the world safe. Be that Korea and Japan in the Far East or UN military activities or be it our NATO allies, America has always picked up the lion’s share of the cost. I know that I am not alone among conservatives in feeling this way. The “kinetic action” in Libya is just another example.

Apparently, according to an Associated Press report via Yahoo News, out going Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates shares this opinion. In Brussels as part of his farewell tour, he pulled no punches when referring to NATO. Here is some of what Gates had to say:

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members’ penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” he said.

“Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more,” Gates said.

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” he said.

While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission,” he said. “Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”

There was a time when the failings of our allies was no more than a nuisance. Today, with our weak financial situation,  plans to take military action must take into account the cost of such action like never before. In other words,  our military policies are seriously impacted by our financial condition. The author of the Inform The Pundits blog who goes by the handle AZLeader has similar thoughts. Here is some of his/her analysis:

Throughout most of American history the cost of war has been the leading cause of debt growth in this country from which we never fully recover.

In this millennium, despite all the wars and military conflicts we have been in for so many years, war is NOT the primary driver of our nation’s debt growth. Logically, with all that activity you’d think that war was driving debt growth, but it is not.

According to the Congressional Research Service, a government agency, total war expenditures since 9/11 up through 3/18/2011 is about $1.3 trillion but debt growth has been more than 5.5 times that amount since then.

Most of the $3.72 trillion added to the National Debt since Barack Obama took office was mostly from excessive and ineffective government spending during the Great Recession.

Debt growth today is driven more by social programs and economic uncertainty. It is almost as high, percentage-wise, as during the Great Depression.

The author goes on to discuss at length the recent comments of Secretary Gates. afterwards we are given the authors views on the political implications of our financially constrained military. Although I find myself agreeing with the author in many respects, I also find myself in disagreement with his/her opinion of the conservative’s views on the military budget and certain current military activities. Let’s take a look:

This puts conservatives into a quandary.

Conservatives know that it is the right moral thing to do to support the Arab Spring Movement and fight the War on Terror. Liberals don’t like dictators or terror either so both might actually be on the same side this time.

But the conservative belief in a strong defense and spreading democracy is now at odds with their equally strong belief in fiscal responsibility.

Liberals, who have never thought twice about the cost of any government social program whatsoever, are fundamentally clueless about this nation’s fiscal crisis. That is why Democrats, with their tiny little kahunas (See Rep. Andrew Wiener), have only proposed superficial cuts in spending and won’t do more before November 2012 unless the economy tanks again.

Conservatives better understand just how desperate the situation is and that drastic action needs to be taken now. That is why Republicans have the kahunas big enough to make meaningful spending cut proposals and take the heat from the liberal media.

AZLeader then concludes from this analysis as follows:

For conservatives, the question is which belief is stronger – fiscal responsibility or strong national defense?

Conservatives want to bring democracy to the Middle East but also know it’s cost conflicts significantly with being fiscally responsible.

If conservatives remain steadfast that there should be no cuts in defense then it will undermine their chances for success in the 2012 elections. Inflexibility on modest tax increases will undermine their chances to.

Republicans don’t need to abandon their principles, but do need to give a little ground in order to gain the backing of the average American and win BIG in 2012.

As I said, there is much of the author’s analysis with which I agree. Mostly the principle point That America, because of its financial condition must now think twice when considering the use of its military in some conflict half way around the world. This is a significant change for the U,S at least in my life time.

Where I have a difference with the author is his/her opinion that conservatives feel a moral obligation to support the Arab Spring movement and the spread of democracy around the world and that we are conflicted by our desire for a strong defense and fiscal responsibility.

I follow a lot of conservative/libertarian bloggers and pundits and I find no support for the Arab Spring movement or the spread of democracy around the world. Conservatives today understand very well that democracy without constitutional constraints will always lead to tyranny. Most conservatives today think we should bring our troops home from Afghanistan and that as a general rule we should not be engaged in nation building.

Also, I see no conflict for conservatives when it comes to fiscal responsibility and a strong defense. These are not mutually exclusive issues. Although we do believe in a strong defense, I think most conservatives recognize that we can reduce waste in the military without sacrificing strength and readiness.

As for the conservatives inflexibility to consider “modest” tax increases to get a deal on spending cuts, the author may have us there. I don’t know what the author means by “modest” but raising taxes is problematic for us because we know that increasing taxes on the so-called rich would be counter productive. Should we be willing to throw the rich under the bus in order to get where we want to be on spending cuts versus the debt ceiling on the assumption that we would pull them out from under the bus after the 2012 elections? Maybe. But, I would prefer we agree to reform the tax codes and eliminate loopholes as a way to increase revenues.

My differences with the author aside, I believe the point that he/she makes about our financial condition affecting military policy is both valid and important. What do you think?

21 thoughts on “Being The Worlds Policeman Is An Expenive Enterprise. Maybe Too Expensive.

  1. “Right moral thing to do”… I do not know any Conservatives who are wedded to the Arab Spring. It will turn into anarchy before it is over, or another Muslim dictatorship complete with Sharia law. Europe has lived large on our dime. We developed all of the drugs and health technology and they pay a pittance. Never paid for security, Gates was right on.

  2. Arab ‘spring’ it may be, but the only things that truly thrive in a desert are scorpions, snakes, and plants with thorns. We’re not really the world’s policeman–we’re the bodyguard who pays his own salary.

    1. The body guard who pays his own salary, I like that. We have strategic reasons to want to have a presence in certain parts of the world, but Japan and Europe need to pay for the services they are receiving.

  3. I disagree with this portion of the statement:

    Conservatives know that it is the right moral thing to do to support the Arab Spring Movement…

    Also, we cannot “bring” democracy to the Middle East. Democracy has to come from the bottom up and not the top down.

    Today I read this interesting analysis. The blog title and the blog’s graphics may put you off, but I do think that what the blogmaster wrote is worth considering.

    As for America helping other nations while America is in such dire financial straits, I have to say that we need to “pull in” and take care of the home front first. For example, FEMA just denied tornado victims here in the United States aid. If we saw such devastation in such a foreign nation, we’d be rushing right in. Go figure!

    1. i agree. that is an excellent article about Obama’s role in instigating the rebellions in North Africa and the Middle East.. I have noted it in various post but not nearly as well. Sometimes people (Obama) need to be careful what they wish for. We and the world may end up paying a terrible price for his misadventure.

  4. We’re thinking along the same lines, Conservatives.

    Restoring fiscal responsibility is the best national defense. Trying to bring democracy to the middle eastern third-world toilet is a fools errand. They need to get there on their own, and we should encourage that, but not one more dime or one more deployment.

  5. I don’t know any conservatives that are supporting the “Muslim Spring” either, I am not sure where that notion came from. I think now that OBL is dead it might be time to start bringing our troops home, what else is left to do over there that can be done? We have to leave at some point and no matter when we go there is bound to be some trouble.

    1. Hey, Tony! Nice to have you back again. I’m sure our government has not always been truthful about their supposed strategic reasons for some of the things they do. Instead they have hidden behind some so-called moral obligation smoke screen. But you are right. We have no business interfering in another sovereign nation unless there is a direct threat against the US.

  6. Morality aside, conservatives generally believe in a strong defense. A strong defense costs money. Lots of money. But the money isn’t there.

    But conservatives also believe in fiscal responsibility.

    That is the conservative conundrum.

    In a down economy, spending for a strong defense and reducing debt and the deficit become counteractive goals.

    It is this writer’s opinion that the state of the economy dictates that spending in ALL government programs need to be trimmed back – including defense – if the deficit is to be reduced and ultimately that debt gets back under control.

    I’ve proved mathematically a couple ways ways that no amount of tax increases on the rich or on corporations will solve our debt problem. Our REAL deficits for each of the last two calendar years have been right at $1.7 trillion and will be around $2 trillion in the proposed budget if nothing is changed.

    If we taxed corporations AND individuals together at the 100% level we could barely cover the deficit and not reduce the debt at all. Even if we made that change it would spiral the economy strait into the ground and clearly be destructive.

    An idea unpopular with conservatives is returning tax levels for the rich back to pre-Bush levels. It amounts to about $40-45 billion a year. That is a “modest” tax increase.

    Wealth in this country has become highly concentrated in the top 1-2%.

    The wealthy have earned their wealth, deserve what they have and already do pay their fair share of taxes. Current wealth growth at the top makes it such that they can afford to pay a little more and should do so as long as it does not significantly impact their ability to create jobs. A return to pre-Bush tax levels is a small change and is NOT enough to drag down the economy.

    On the other had, that tax increase wouldn’t come close to making a significant reduction in our deficits, but it helps a little bit.

    Only massive spending cuts will solve the entire problem.

    Mostly, a modest tax increase and cutting defense spending at the same level as all other government programs would have a psychological effect on voters and generate support for conservatives to push large spending cuts.

    The necessary massive spending cuts, that affect everyone in this country become more palatable to most voters if they believe that everyone is sharing the burden.

    That is why conservatives need to accept some defense spending cuts and some modest tax increases in order to achieve the far greater goals of deficit reduction, debt reduction and a reduction in the size and extent of big government.

    1. “That is why conservatives need to accept some defense spending cuts and some modest tax increases in order to achieve the far greater goals of deficit reduction, debt reduction and a reduction in the size and extent of big government.”

      I could live with that, AZ. I do understand your point about about making the spending cuts more palatable. However, I would insists that the cuts this next fiscal year and the next few years be very significant. I wouldn’t want to sign off on even modest tax increases if the the cuts are spread over 15 or 20 years, which is no guarantee at all.

      1. Modest tax increases? No way. I’m not supporting that one bit. The government already gets more than 50% of your money if you’re in the highest tax bracket (I’m talking effective tax rate here). They don’t need that much. I support a voluntarist economy, not the use of force to achieve the ends of a select few.

      2. Any tax increases must have at least a dollar-for-dollar cut in actual spending for the current year budget.

        It is OK to talk about how much can be saved over a 5 or 10 year period of time as long as you identify the per year budget cuts.

        The only cuts that are truly meaningful are the one for the current budget cycle.

        The budget cut shell game for confusing taxpayers by projecting total cuts totaled over a decade or more in the future needs to stop.needs to stop. Those numbers are meaningless.

  7. Always on Watch nailed it. We cannot “Spread democracy.” The notion that we ever could or should is absurd. The action in Libya is not defensive. We can support a strong military defense, we cannot support police actions and spreading democracy. Those budget items should be cut. I am not for tax increases for any group of Americans. Cut enough programs, trim the fat off existing programs, severely limit foreign aid (esp. to combatant nations) and reduce the overall size of the federal government. Actually, we need to cut corporate taxes.

    1. I agree 100%, Freedom. If some pat of the world is thought to be of strategic importance, then we are owed a clear explanation of why it is strategic.
      I very much like Pawlenty’s plan for corporate taxes,

  8. In a way it’s also a lesson that liberal retards in America won’t learn. For years, just like the euro-trash, they derided Bush for his cowboy approach, mewling instead about soft power, group meetings and anything else that those euro-bitches waffled about. They crowed that obama would usher in a new era of global wiffle-waffle.

    Now that obama has been president for a good few years, the euro-wankers are still giving him the finger, telling you folks to do it yourselves. Leave those cretins to fend for themselves, they’ve indulged in socialist adventurism for decades while America did the hard work, it’s time they grow up and take care of their own sh!t, or die off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s