by Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n
National Review Online<\/em><\/p>\n Two bedrock beliefs of traditional conservatism are fiscal discipline and strong national defense. Likewise, two general rules of budgetary reform in times of economic crisis are, first, to scale back expenditures rather than raise taxes, and, second, to look at defense for some of the deepest cuts. Something therefore will have to give.<\/p>\n In the last two years the United States has piled up record $1.3 trillion annual budget deficits. That red ink has pushed the national debt close to $14 trillion, approaching 98 percent of the nation\u2019s annual gross domestic product, a peacetime record. Worse still, there is no end in sight to this massive borrowing. Trillion-dollar budget deficits are scheduled at least through 2014 and will take our national debt beyond $18 trillion.<\/p>\n These staggering figures have caused near-panic throughout the world, as the Federal Reserve desperately prints $600 billion to monetize some of the huge debt, gold soars to over $1,400 an ounce, and Washington is chastised as profligate by everyone from Germany to China, which worries about the solvency of its massive surplus dollar accounts. No wonder, then, that the quest for fiscal sanity became the signature of the Tea Party movement and fueled the general Republican political renaissance. But amid the talk of across-the-board budget freezes, radical entitlement reform, and elimination of entire programs, is it fair to spare defense from the anticipated 2011 slashing?<\/p>\n At first glance, clearly no. After all, the United States will spend over $680 billion on defense this year alone \u2014 slated to rise to $712 billion next year \u2014 and well over $1 trillion when you include defense-related expenses that are not counted in the official Pentagon budget. Depending on how one categorizes the figures, defense spending now represents over 19 percent of the federal budget and is nearing 5 percent of the nation\u2019s GDP. Over the last nine years, the Pentagon\u2019s budget has grown on average by about 9 percent each year, more than triple the rate of inflation \u2014 quite apart from the supplementary spending on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.<\/p>\n Indeed, America now accounts for about 40 percent of the world\u2019s military spending. That is six times as much as its supposed chief rival, China. And when America\u2019s defense expenditure is added to the military budgets of Europe, as well as those of Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and other allies, the Western alliance accounts for nearly three-fourths of all global outlay on defense. Why can\u2019t fiscal conservatives at least freeze Pentagon spending in an era of near\u2013financial collapse?<\/p>\n In addition, national security and global influence are not always measured by arms alone. China, with an economy one-third the size of ours and a military budget one-sixth the size of ours, is increasing its profile in Africa and Latin America and is insidiously reminding Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan that the time is approaching when a near-bankrupt United States either cannot or will not support them in times of existential crisis. Flush with nearly $2.5 trillion in cash reserves (the result of huge ongoing trade surpluses and budgetary discipline), China reminds both neutrals and rivals that it has plenty of money to buy, bribe, or persuade its way with nations \u2014 and will have even more in the years ahead, even as its chief rival, the United States, will have less.<\/p>\n In Washington, meanwhile, the Democratic White House and Senate are most likely to compromise on budget cuts if defense-spending freezes or reductions are on the table \u2014 concessions that might both preclude increases in income-tax rates and facilitate reductions in general social spending. No doubt the president\u2019s bipartisan deficit commission will include defense allocations among the cuts it recommends as necessary to balance the budget. After all, most government bureaucracies have plenty of waste, the Pentagon included \u2014 especially in a period of rapid expansion that saw the military budget double in less than ten years and consume $1 trillion in aggregate budget increases above the rate of inflation.<\/p>\n Yet there are also compelling reasons not to cut defense, and these are rarely discussed. The United States has an alarming record of courting danger when it has slashed defense, or even merely been perceived abroad to be pruning its military. In the 1930s the Germans and Japanese did not take the United States seriously as a deterrent power, and understandably so: It was not until 1943 \u2014 after tens of thousands of American deaths \u2014 that the United States finally deployed planes, armor, and ships that were of rough parity in numbers and quality with those of its Axis enemies.<\/p>\n After World War II ended, America demobilized and returned to its parsimonious military ways. The result: By August 1950 an outnumbered and outclassed American army in South Korea was confined to the tiny Pusan perimeter. For the first six months of hard fighting in Korea, the military\u2019s obsolete tanks, anti-tank weapons, and planes proved no match for Soviet-supplied T-34 tanks and MiG-15 jets.<\/p>\n Three decades later, in April 1980, post-Vietnam budget cuts were the subtext of the humiliating failed mission (Operation Eagle Claw) to rescue the Iranian-held hostages. And the post\u2013Cold War defense cuts of the 1990s may have made it far more difficult to pursue terrorists or fight in Iraq and Afghanistan in the new millennium. As Rudyard Kipling put in his poem \u201cTommy,\u201d the public demands a superb wartime military as much as it neglects it in peacetime \u2014 \u201cFor it\u2019s Tommy this, an\u2019 Tommy that, an\u2019 \u2018Chuck him out, the brute!\u2019 \/ But it\u2019s \u2018Saviour of \u2019is country\u2019 when the guns begin to shoot.\u201d<\/p>\n At present, the world is not tranquil. At least a half dozen countries, including Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, have ratcheted up their bellicose rhetoric, spurned US efforts at outreach, and either threatened or harassed their neighbors. Our future relations with China, Syria, and Turkey are at best problematic. Soon-to-be-nuclear Iran may start a new strategic-arms race in the Middle East, as Sunni Arab states seek to deter the Shiite Persian hegemon. Potentially more frightening are the increasing tensions between Japan and both China and Russia that stem from territorial disputes over islands near the Japanese mainland. It is almost a given that anytime the post-war United States cuts its military or tires of its global deterrent role, it will soon rue the effort and pay for its laxity with blood and treasure.<\/p>\n Second, the United States military keeps international peace in many quiet ways that transcend its more overt efforts to rid the world of assorted thugs, genocidal dictators, and terrorist sponsors such as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Manuel Noriega, and the Taliban. NATO, which would be impossible without the United States, cools a number of traditional hot spots like Cyprus, the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey, and the historically vulnerable eastern-European borderlands that abut Russia. The US military hunts down al-Qaeda from the horn of Africa to South America, fights the Somali pirates, organizes tsunami relief in Indonesia, facilitates aid to earthquake-stricken Haiti, and keeps sea lanes open from the China Sea to the Persian Gulf. These costly deterrent and humanitarian efforts save lives and build goodwill \u2014 and many of them either would not occur or would be taken up by less conciliatory powers should we cut back the current military budget.<\/p>\n Third, much of the Pentagon budget is spent on military personnel \u2014 at least $150 billion \u2014 including college education and vocational training. After 20 years as a professor in the California State University system, I can attest that returning military veterans were more mature and responsible in general, and were better-motivated students, than my average undergraduates, who often expanded their college experience to six or eight years of on-again-off-again study. In short, the military was able to train 20-year-old signalmen on aircraft-carrier decks to park $150 million jet fighters wingtip to wingtip far more safely than college students zoom through campus parking lots.<\/p>\n Fourth, we are currently spending on defense (at least on average) one point of GDP less than we did during the Cold War in the 1980s \u2014 which ended with the implosion of a Soviet Union that simply could not produce a technologically sophisticated and disciplined military commensurate with America\u2019s re-equipped and expanded armed forces. When the George W. Bush administration entered office, we were spending only about 3 percent of GDP on defense, a historic low, and the figure did not exceed 4 percent until the latter half of Bush\u2019s second term. In other words, in terms of the overall economy, the present military budget is not historically high.<\/p>\n Fifth, the US military is billions of dollars behind in repairing or replacing equipment worn out by years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and by its increased responsibilities in the War on Terror. Indeed, we sometimes forget that we are in a global conflict with radical Islamists who most recently have attempted to kill thousands of Americans in the New York subway system, in Times Square, and on both passenger and freight planes.<\/p>\n The failures of these planned operations are attributable in part to stepped-up military intelligence, the elimination of thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ongoing targeting of terrorists by drone attacks in the badlands of Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. But this does not show that conventional weapons are unnecessary. As personnel costs and the prices of weapons systems skyrocket, we are forced to buy fewer planes and vehicles. Those economies increase both the per-unit cost of acquisition and the hours of usage per asset. The result, for example, is that in just 20 years the Air Force has gone from deploying over 4,000 fighter aircraft to scarcely 1,500. That means fewer and more costly planes than ever before, and more wear and tear on those that we can afford.<\/p>\n Of course it is salutary to review carefully all Pentagon expenditures, and to make sure we are not purchasing assets or fielding forces that we do not need, or that are not in line with our strategic goals and responsibilities. But we should also remember that near the end of the Cold War, in 1988, income taxes were lower (28 percent on top brackets), budget deficits were smaller (3 percent of GDP), and defense expenditures were proportionally greater (5.8 percent of GDP) than they are now \u2014 reminding us that the present budget meltdown reflects particular policies and priorities that transcend both tax rates and defense spending.<\/p>\n In the end, the problem of national security in a time of budget restraint is not so much about defense spending per se; instead, it lies in two other areas. First, we must establish our global responsibilities in the context of our fiscal limitations, and fund our military to fulfill the ensuing obligations. At present, defense spending is increasingly not synchronized with a clear and understandable strategic mission. Second, we must grow the economy. Our defense capability improved radically in the last 30 years without a great leap in expenditures as a percentage of GDP, simply because GDP grew at such a rapid clip. But unless we continue to expand the pie, there will be fights over the size of the slices. A healthy economy is the best national-security measure of all.<\/p>\n \u00a92010 Victor Davis Hanson<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online Two bedrock beliefs of traditional conservatism are fiscal discipline and strong national defense.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[504],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-hV","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1175,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/deficits-and-depression\/","url_meta":{"origin":1111,"position":0},"title":"Deficits and Depression","author":"victorhanson","date":"October 18, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Media Services We will learn in November just how angry the public is about a lot of things, from higher taxes to massive unemployment. But the popular uproar pales in comparison to the sense of humiliation that we Americans are quite broke. In 2008, the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "October 2010"","block_context":{"text":"October 2010","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2010\/october-2010\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":11960,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/trump-or-what-exactly\/","url_meta":{"origin":1111,"position":1},"title":"Trump \u2014 or What, Exactly?","author":"victorhanson","date":"August 28, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Victor Davis Hanson \/\/ National Review In traditional political terms, there is always an alternate agenda to an incumbent president\u2019s that reasonable voters can debate. In Trump\u2019s case, two massive annual budget deficits \u2014 coming on top of the previous two administrations that doubled the national debt \u2014 seem fair\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2590,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/the-psychology-of-debt-obamas-rendezvous-with-political-reality\/","url_meta":{"origin":1111,"position":2},"title":"The Psychology of Debt: Obama’s Rendezvous with Political Reality","author":"victorhanson","date":"July 19, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson PJ Media Debt Matters Over the last two decades it became an article of popular faith that budget deficits did not matter that much. Conservatives began to talk of annual red-ink in vague terms of percentages of the gross domestic product rather than in real billions\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "July 2009"","block_context":{"text":"July 2009","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2009\/july-2009\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2868,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/american-mob-rule\/","url_meta":{"origin":1111,"position":3},"title":"American Mob Rule","author":"victorhanson","date":"March 30, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Media Services In the last three months, we've been reduced to something like the ancient Athenian mob \u2014 with opportunistic politicians sometimes inciting, sometimes catering to an already angry public. The Greek comic playwright Aristophanes once described how screaming politicians \u2014 posing as men of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "March 2009"","block_context":{"text":"March 2009","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2009\/march-2009\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2488,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/is-the-president-in-recovery\/","url_meta":{"origin":1111,"position":4},"title":"Is the President in Recovery?","author":"victorhanson","date":"August 1, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Media Services President Obama does not care much about deficits \u2014 other than worrying that big debt might matter in his re-election campaign. In his first three budgets, Obama borrowed nearly $5 trillion. Currently, the government is borrowing about 45 percent of everything that it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Debt and Deficits"","block_context":{"text":"Debt and Deficits","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/politics\/debt-and-deficits\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":127,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/a-new-year-in-america-will-we-continue-down-the-road-to-decline\/","url_meta":{"origin":1111,"position":5},"title":"A New Year in America: Will We Continue Down the Road to Decline?","author":"victorhanson","date":"January 8, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bruce Thronton Frontpage Magazine \u00a0 Looking back over 2012, one could be forgiven for thinking that if America goes on at this rate, the nation must be ruined. But as Adam Smith replied to a young man who said those same words about British losses during the American Revolution,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bruce S. Thornton"","block_context":{"text":"Bruce S. Thornton","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/our-contributors\/bruce-s-thornton\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1111"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1111"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1111\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1112,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1111\/revisions\/1112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}