Defense Spending

The Brookings Institution has just put out an opinion piece on U.S. defense expenditure.  It warns against large cuts in national defense, like 10% of projected spending.  The security risk that the author cites are for the most part not threats to the continued survival of the U.S.  For example, it is stated that if military spending were deceased by that amount, we might not be able to deter a large war in Iran or Korea.  Neither Iran nor Korea are in any position to challenge the continued survival of the U.S.

It seems clear that the author is considering the problem that certain places in the world might not be governed as we would like.  While this is true, it is something different from a concern over the continued survival of the U.S. government.  In any case, it is doubtful that war with these countries is likely to improve things without massive expenditure on our part, and perhaps more importantly this would not be the most humane way of changing the political situation in other countries.

On the matter of terrorism, what we are concerned with is terrorists that come from other countries.  Domestic terrorism would be a matter for law enforcement.  On this matter it seems likely that the interest that foreigners have in committing acts of terror against Americans depends on the extent that we intervene in their countries.  They oppose our intervention because they either disagree with us about how their country ought to be governed or believe that the means that we are using to achieve our ends are either not humane or likely to bring about the desired change.  They may also suspect that our stated intentions are disingenuous.  Reducing this risk doesn't require an increase in expenditure, we can reduce this risk for free by simply not intervening.  As a matter of fact this would involve a reduction in expenditure.

There is one concern that he had that I thought was legitimate.  That was keeping the sea lanes open.  However, this is a concern that all of the large countries share.  China and India don't like piracy any more than we do.  There is no reason to fight the Chinese over who gets to stop the pirates.

One point of agreement between the author and myself is that our current financial condition and excessive government spending pose a threat to national security in the future.  I doubt that the Chinese would want to interfere with the continued existence of the U.S.  Even if they built up an economy that would enable them to do this, this is a project that would be much too expensive to be worth their while.  However, if the U.S. becomes financially weak enough, someone might be tempted to make such an attempt.

More realistically, a sound economy is desirable for its own sake.  Even if our country is impoverished, other countries would still find it expensive to replace our government, but that doesn't mean that we should go ahead and impoverish the country.  Entitlement reform is desirable for this reason.  On the question of taxes, here I must part company with the author.  Since I believe that a sound economy is desirable for its own sake and not simply as a means of increasing revenue, I am likely to support a different kind of reform in this area than what the author has in mind.