Scott Rasmussen a well known conservative pollster has written an interesting article over at Reason.com entitled, “Ready to Cut Military Spending.” Rasmussen argues that the American public is tiring of our over seas adventures, questions our need to remain in NATO, and questions, with the exception of a few, our alliances.
The implications of this are far reaching; will we retain forces in overseas bases; will there be a radical reduction in the size of the US military, in particular this argues against a large standing Army; the US public is not buying that People’s Republic of China and Russia are peer competitors and as such question the continued spending on national defense; and finally would rather spend money on defensive systems, air defense, fighter interceptors, and cyber rather than offensive weapons systems.
Interesting proposition: designing a military to support national interests. Pretty exciting new concept! Where’s Rasmussen been all our lives!
Tend to wonder if we send “Thank You” cards to those countries who aren’t hard-core enemies. “Thank you, but we’re only offering fee-for-service protection these days.”
And we expect any less? There is a growing (already large) disconnect between “the warrior class” and the citizenry…. Americans, at large, do not consider themselves to be in any danger, from anyone. The idea that someone might want to harm you because of your nationality is foreign to most of “us.” That is something that happens “over there”. Unless we find a way to educate the public on the very real dangers that exist, this security syndrome will continue. “We” have grown fat and comfortable… unless and until the citizenry realizes the situation, I fear we stand alone.
Obama was an anti-war president, yet war has continued. And there is 16 trillion in debt, 4 of which he added. Please, name the cuts that you can get politicaly passed, and then run for office. 16 trillion in debt is becoming a larger existential crisis than the ability to wage war “over there”.
The US has many small enemies, Iran, NK, terror groups, but without another super power to menace the country the population is going to generally feel safe. In fact, that is a good thing. It means our military has done its job. However, while we can’t let our guard down we have to tailor our forces to the threats at hand and what we can afford.
NATO simply does nothing for our national security, neither does “nation building” in Afghanistan or anywhere else, neither does “humanitarian missions”, neither does military (or any other form of ) foreign aid, nor does the UN. The “war on drugs” is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and a drain on military resources. It’s pretty simple, “attack us, we kill you, break your stuff, and leave” should be the sole mission of the military.
Being opposed to using the military as the world’s police force does not equate to being anti-military. A genuine, non-negotiable, public declaration of our intention to use our nuclear deterrent as a deterrent again would go a long way toward making spending cuts possible.
Would such a nuclear declaration have any weight? We may have the capability, but in my opinion (and I, think, in the opinion of likely adversaries) we have neither the political nor the cultural will to follow through.
I take it that you think disengaging from world affairs and adopting a policy of nonintervention mediated by strong home defenses is the way to go. I happen to believe that our OCONUS bases give us an ability to influence regional events in our favor and mitigating threats locally to the benefit of the CONUS. It seems that this price comes at the cost of a certain amount of foreign entanglement, NATO and otherwise. In my opinion the benefits are worth the price. Is there a way to insulate ourselves against the economic and political turmoils of “the rest of the world” without becoming a second DPRK?
Take a look at Libya for your “influence of regional events”. Console the families of US soldiers killed by Afghans they’ve trained that COIN works. . . I say again, none of this actually does anything to promote US security. . . only the ego of those who want to strut around the world as the “big guy”.
So, by your estimation, we either continue to try to “influence regional events” by borrowing from the PRC so we can flaunt power (ever so restrained), or become North Korea, no in between huh? Your reply would be laughable if it’s implementation hadn’t already lead us to bankruptcy and our children to slaughter.
I guess you chose to ignore the words, “genuine, and non-negotiable” in my original post. I to doubt we have the will to do this. . . the will to survive.
But to some extent those of you who insist that restrained conventional interventionism could or should (though it never actually has) work instead undermines the will of the people to do what is really necessary.