There are few sure things in Washington, D.C., politics. Midterm election drama, and the legislative stagnation that comes with partisan politics this time of year, is a sure thing. The future projections of the growing national debt are also a sure thing.
So it is surprising when any bipartisan elected officials get together at this time in the political cycle to initiate a conversation the U.S. needs to have in the coming years about such a sure thing as national defense spending.
A group of 57 members of the House of Representatives led by Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Barney Frank submitted a letter last Wednesday to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a bipartisan commission created to address the nation's financial situation, calling for "substantial reductions in projected levels of future spending by the Department of Defense".
While no other Republicans other than the libertarian-minded Paul signed the letter, we should accept any veil of bipartisanship for its symbolic significance given the infighting between parties leading to midterm elections.
The increasing federal debt demands future budget cuts, higher taxes or both. Republicans and Democrats foresee this. What everyone differs on is how that is done.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already seen the writing on the wall and has sought to trim, or at least stop further expansion, of defense spending. But the program-by-program spending cuts proposed by Gates and others have already received harsh opposition from many Republicans who would surely resist the larger spending cuts championed by Representatives Paul and Frank to do such things as shrink the nuclear arsenal, curtail missile defense and reduce the size of the navy.
In July, Secretary Robert Gates had the courage and nerve to ask in the midst of his struggle to cut funds, "Do we really need ... more strike groups [than our 11] for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?"
You can add: "Should the U.S. continue to be responsible for 44 percent of all worldwide military expenditures?" and "Should we really still have military installations in over 38 countries, including 135,000 Americans still in places like Germany, Japan and South Korea?"
In response to Gates' question, Sarah Palin replied, “He said we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carrier ... well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and yes, we do, because we must.”
Sorry Sarah, it is not as simple as you think or would like us to think. The three assertions here that we afford, we can afford and we must afford our overspending on defense are wrong. The idea that we have been able to afford defense spending is laughable given the national debt and ever-increasing deficits, which defeats any claim we could continue to afford defense spending at its present level.
The last assertion, that we must continue to overspend on defense, is wrong in discounting any possibility that the national defense strategy could be successfully augmented to give the same or even an increased amount of safety for less cost. While certainly no one wants to undermine the nation's defense, it is time politicians in Washington begin to discuss defense strategy and cuts in defense spending.
Send Dan comments at djgarry@asu.edu
