Democracy Arsenal

« Our Ongoing Civil-Military Crisis - The Milburn Edition | Main | The Long Road to Iraqi Government Formation »

October 05, 2010

Neocons Fudge Numbers, Lose Party on Defense Budget
Posted by Jacob Stokes

Military-spending It’s pretty tough to keep track of all the attempted sleights of hand being slung around the Beltway by establishment republicans about the defense budget right now, but one thing’s for sure: it’s a desperate attempt to enforce party dogma on an increasingly fissured movement.

First, the numbers sleight of hand. It’s one of those lies, damn lies and statistics-type things. In Monday’s op-ed by conservative poobahs Kristol, Feulner and Brooks, they revert to a number of conservative hobbyhorses, the most ridiculous of which is the idea that defense spending should be evaluated as a percentage of GDP rather than as a response to threats. Is there some magic ratio of GDP to defense spending that magically makes us “safe”? If so, what is it? And would they have made the same argument during the Cold War, even when the threat level is different? 

Kristol et al use the ridiculous defense spending-to-GDP standard to claim that we’re not spending enough on defense. But as Larry Korb and Laura Conley of CAP point out

Total defense spending in real terms is now higher than at any time since the end of World War II, more than throughout the entire Cold War, and even 10 percent higher than the peak of the Reagan defense buildup. The baseline defense budget has been growing in real terms for 13 straight years—the longest-ever period of sustained real growth in U.S. defense spending.

As a result, the portion of the world’s military expenditures the United States consumes compared to our potential adversaries has grown from 60 percent to 250 percent. This means that even if the United States were to cut its spending in half it would still be spending more than its current and potential adversaries. We are far beyond the point of diminishing returns in U.S. defense spending relative to our actual defense requirements.

So we’re spending more despite the reduced threat landscape that comes from having dumped the Soviet Union onto the ash heap of history? Kristol et al try to say we still face a similarly dangerous world: “…faced with a nuclear Iran, or a Chinese People's Liberation Army that can deny access to U.S. ships or aircraft in the Asian-Pacific region, there are many missions ahead.” Dan Drezner quickly cuts this down to size:

I'm about to say something that might be controversial for people under the age of 25, but here goes.  You know the threats posed to the United States by a rising China, a nuclear Iran, terrorists and piracy?  You could put all of them together and they don't equal the perceived threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  And until I see another hostile country in the world that poses a military threat in Europe, the Middle East and Asia at the same time, I'm thinking that current defense spending should be lower than Cold War levels by a fair amount.

Okay, so I feel like we’ve established that the arguments have little policy merit, but what about the politics? As my boss Heather Hurlburt wrote before this stuff blew up, the defense budget was always a vulnerability for the GOP because of the libertarian, deficit-conscious wing, the old-fashioned moderates and pretty much every faction of the GOP that retains a desire for fiscal solvency. A civil war is brewing. As the longtime conservative strategist who has allied with the Tea Party Richard Viguerie has said: "We’re all on the same page until the polls close November 2." After that, "a massive, almost historic battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party begins." We’ve already seen desertions from the neocon dogma from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul and prospective GOP presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. And Rand Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) joined Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) on the bipartisan Sustainable Defense Task Force, which made suggestions on ways to include defense in budget cuts without sacrificing security. 

By writing this op-ed Kristol et al, have – unwittingly, it seems – shined a light on these divides. And they have had to backtrack after Ben Domenech lambasted their efforts to make the rest of the party fall in line. Attempting to square this circle, RedState writes: 

Such an alliance should not be interpreted as old-school Washington establishmentarians manning the bulwarks against a new, popular conservative grassroots movement, but rather a plea for the Tea Party to acknowledge the dilapidated condition of the US military, which is facing unheard of budget cuts and historically low spending during a time of a tough, protracted war against Islamic extremism.

No matter how the GOP tries to spin it, it’s going to tough to sell any true fiscal conservatives on a defense spending-to-GDP ratio because that is by very definition entitlement spending, the kind that can torpedo deficits. 

And a final point, one that should be obvious, but it never hurts to remind: It is true that, despite our massive budgets, the military is stretched. I’ll grant that much to the Kristol et al. But it’s not because the American taxpayer has underfinanced them. It’s because for most of the decade we’ve been engaged in two wars, at a cost of $1 trillion in raw cash and an estimated $3 trillion when you factor in downstream costs. At least one of those wars, Iraq, was a complete mistake that caused us to ignore and arguably miss the window to win the second, Afghanistan. No amount of defense spending can prevent or paper over strategic blunders on the scale of Iraq.

Like I said, so many attempted sleights of hand and purposeful omissions here, most so transparent even wings of the GOP aren’t willing to go along with them.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e20133f4dd1acd970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Neocons Fudge Numbers, Lose Party on Defense Budget:

Comments

good. thanks a lot.

We need to end the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is costing us Billions per year and only adds to the enforcement problem and empowers the cartels. If you ended the Drug War, you would have lots of extra money for the military.

Show - light shone of these to share. And they were forced to back down after Ben Domenech lambasted efforts of the other party to drop the line.

The Christmas season swarovski activities around when, in addition to what style, the swarovski jewelry socialite wind can c all occasions? The vast majority of people win affection? I do not believe you, a delicate, fashionable swarovski bracelet denial and cultivation of "uptown brothers. They girl" wherever he will not be followers! So, let us swarovski charms together to show the waves of 3 - elegant sweet Olivia socialite Palermo, fashionable vogue, and Chung Alexi Hilton, your high-profile Swarovski how they learn to plunder the high-order socialite demeanor, with swarovski beads offers delicate and individuality jewelry light Christmas overall modeling.
Who is the new generation of fashion and representatives of the swarovski bracelet charms socialite? The answer is, Olivia Palermo. The New York recently flied socialite star, a father is a Connecticut property tycoon. As the Queen of gossip girl popularity in the swarovski chram bracelet prototype, realistic reaction B's version of "reaction, Olivia B" Swarovski crystals has a professional team to help her elaborate fight socialite Icon. Olivia modeling proved to us that swarovski pendants grace may hold the key to profile; clothing and accessories are the colors and styles. She chooses style is very complex, but the Swarovski UK necklace of material and relatively slender crystal Swarovski UK chain make even pitched, also appear layer is not so heavy.
DE Rental Swarovski crystals wholesale necklace experience, creativity swarovski pendant & earrings brilliance set will sizes and fine white artificial bead chain, combining qualitative light feeling in the mutual echo and contrast, cold metal texture Swarovski crystals wholesale let whole necklace with personality become fashionable sheet is tasted.

my comment got eaten. Anyway I wanted to say that it's nice to know that someone else also mentioned this as I had trouble finding the same info elsewhere

Good, I like the achievement, thanks a lot.

That will really help us all. And this might bring some good repute to you.



  
"Let me entreat you," cried Mr. Elton; "it would indeed be a delight! Let me
entreat you, Miss Woodhouse, to exercise so charming a talent in favour of your cheap air max 90
friend. I know what your drawings are. How could you suppose me ignorant? Is not
this room rich in specimens of your landscapes and flowers; and has not Mrs. nike womens air max 90

Weston some inimitable figure-pieces in her drawing-room, at Randalls?"
air max90


  

Let me entreat you," cried Mr. Elton; "it would indeed be a delight!

Nice post.It's all in the eyes and where they are looking.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Emeritus Contributors
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use