Resources For National Security

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Times
February 27, 2008
Pg. 15

James Jay Carafano's argument for a floor for U.S. defense spending ("In defense of defense spending," Commentary, Thursday) tied to the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) is fundamentally flawed. His comparison of the cost of arming a high-tech military with the modern high-tech living room proves it. Does every American household really need a plasma screen and a Wii, or does everyone simply want these expensive gadgets?
The key issue is whether our spending is meeting our strategic national security needs. In truth, whether we spend more or less on defense than the rest of the world, or more or less than we did during the Cold War, is irrelevant.
Four percent of GDP is certainly affordable and sustainable, as is 5 percent, 6 percent, 7 percent or more. The question is not whether we can spend that much, but whether we need to do so.
Defense spending is not like charitable giving. We should be under no ethical obligation to give until it hurts when there is no evidence of compelling need.
At this time, we simply do not need to set a floor for defense spending. The kinds of likely threats we face do not require investment in expensive high-tech weapons platforms designed to combat peer or near peer competitors.
The biggest challenge we face militarily comes from the adoption of a global strategy of regime change and occupation. The dirty little secret about this approach is that it is not a strategy that can be implemented simply with more money.
It will take more personnel. If we are serious about this approach, we need to be talking about a military draft, not a floor for defense spending. We are beginning to reach the natural limits of what we can demand of the all-volunteer military, regardless of the number of dollars thrown at the problem.
Most important, an obsession with a floor for defense spending neglects the urgent need to invest in the other tools of American statesmanship, including diplomacy and foreign aid. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has argued in favor of an increase in funding for "soft power" initiatives, including the Department of State.
The key question is not whether we can afford the current defense budget but whether this level of spending is, in fact, the best allocation of national security resources.
It isn't.
BERNARD I. FINEL, Senior fellow, American Security Project, Washington
Editor's Note: The op-ed by James Jay Carafano appeared in the Current News Early Bird, February 21, 2008
 
Back
Top