Robert Samuelson writes:
Since 2010, inflation-adjusted defense spending has declined 21 percent.
Is that because there is less need for a strong defense? Samuelson argues that just the opposite is true:
potential missions multiply: fighting terrorism; deterring cyber-attacks; protecting Europe (after Vladimir Putin's Ukraine gambit, more troops are needed there); coping with Iran's nuclear program; containing North Korea; maintaining open shipping lanes; dealing with a resurgent China (termed "the pivot to Asia").
More scathing is a congressionally mandated task force, the National Defense Panel. Its unanimous report warns that defense cutbacks "constitute a serious strategic misstep [that has] caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S readiness and ... have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve." The report wasn't the work of cranks. The panel was co-chaired by William Perry, defense secretary in the Clinton administration from 1994-97, and retired four-star general John Abizaid; it also included Michele Flournoy, President Obama's undersecretary of defense from 2009-12.
Higher defense spending is in America's interest because global order is in America's interest. Global order is hardly guaranteed, but without a strong American military, the odds of global disorder are much greater. This fundamental national interest is being subordinated to short-term political interests -- Republicans who won't acknowledge that higher taxes are needed to pay for an adequate military; Democrats who will cut almost anything except retirement spending. History is likely to judge them harshly.
Read more
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment