When people consistently interpret the world in a way that is demonstrably false and detrimental to the causes they profess to serve, you know the time has come to take a fresh look at some of their cherished notions with the view of clarifying the matter for them. The people I have in mind are Arthur Brooks who is president of the American Enterprise Institute, Edwin Feulner who is president of the Heritage Foundation and William Kristol who is director of the Foreign Policy Initiative. Again and again these people have shown to be wrong in the way they interpret the world, and the time has come to prove to them that their activities hurt the causes they say they want to serve. The hope is that they will take a breather during which time they will see the light and reconsider their positions.
The three individuals made it easy to discuss their positions by jointly writing an article that contains the essential wrong premises upon which they have constructed a false model of the world. The article is titled “Peace Doesn't Keep Itself” and was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 4, 2010. It deals with the economics of defense as you can see in the subtitle that was chosen for it: “Defense spending has increased at a much lower rate than domestic spending in recent years and is not the cause of soaring deficits.”
You get a sense of the prism through which they see the world from the introduction they articulate in the first paragraph where they criticize a speech by President Obama given on August 31 in which he declared his preference to invest in the American people rather than squander America's wealth in military efforts. And they add this: “As Bob Woodward's new book 'Obama's Wars' makes plain, a similar mentality pervaded the president's Afghanistan strategy.” After that, they take several paragraphs to give a critique of the president's preference, and reinforce their point of view at the end of the article by criticizing the people they say do think like the president: “There are some who think the era of U.S. global leadership is over, and that decline is what the future inevitably holds for us … But this is an error. A weaker, cheaper military will not solve our financial woes. It will, however, make the world a more dangerous place, and it will impoverish our future.” Put in a nutshell, this would be their grand conclusion.
Between the introduction and the conclusion, our three authors discuss the notion of balance between the social needs of the nation and its military needs without showing the slightest sign of having wrestled mentally with the subject. They do this while tilting in favor of what they believe are the requirements of the military. And they make their points (a) by stating that expenditure on the military does not hurt the finances of the nation, (b) by arguing that in percentage terms, the country spends less on the military now than during previous times, (c) by opining that too much money is now spent on social programs and (d) by hiding behind the men and women in uniform. All of which are thin arguments as will be seen in the discussion that follows.
The most important argument they make is the economic one, and so let us discuss that. They state: “Global prosperity requires commerce and trade, and this requires peace.” The implication here is that the world needs a policeman, that America should appoint itself to that post, that America can fulfill the role and that it will not be challenged when it begins to enforce its vision of law and order. The authors assure us that if America takes on the role of world policeman, the world will be made safe, commerce and trade will flourish and global prosperity will result which will be good for the world including America and the barbarians at the gate themselves who would hurt the world in the absence of America's watchful eyes and interventions. And the question to ask is this: Can any of this be true or is the whole thing a fantasy of adolescents flourishing in the body of grown-ups who are playacting a worldwide game of cops and robbers?
Let's see if we can answer this question. Without challenging their numbers, let us look at them to see if they contain holes that point to a flaw in their argument. First, the three authors say this: “Even with the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, this year the Department of Defense will spend some $720 billion – about 4.9% of our gross domestic product, significantly below the average of 6.5% since World War II.” Then they say this: “Yet we face those challenges [Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran and China] with a baseline defense budget ... that is 3.6% of GDP, significantly less than the Reagan-era peak of 6.2%.” Well, you do not need a PhD in mathematics to figure that if the average of the defense budgets during the indicated period was 6.5%, that if during the Reagan-Bush-41 era of that period the peak was 6.2% and that if during the Bush-43 era the percentage was 3.6%, it follows that the military budgets of America were significantly higher than the average during the remaining eras of that same period. As it happens, however, most of these remaining eras were Democratic eras. Well then, are the authors of the article -- the very conservative Arthur Brooks, Edwin Feulner and William Kristol of the illustrious right wing think tanks of America -- giving this much credit to Democratic presidents? If yes, will they please elaborate? Because if they don't, we shall have to consider them a trio of adolescents occupying the body of grown-ups and playacting a worldwide game of cops and robbers. And this is something that other more sober conservatives may find embarrassing to associate with.
Furthermore, if President Reagan was able to defeat the superpower that was the “Soviet Evil Empire” by bankrupting their civilian economy and without firing a shot, why is there a need to increase the military budget now? President Reagan was able to accomplish what he did by starting an arms race with the Soviet superpower that was super militarily but inferior economically. And this prompts the question: “Do the three authors of the article believe that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the other non-state actors as well as Iran and China can be bankrupted by getting them involved in an arms race with America? Indeed, are the three authors calling on the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the axis of evil and on China to arm themselves to exhaustion then declare bankruptcy as did the old Soviet Union? Please elaborate ye illustrious honchos of the American think tanks. We hunger for clarity.
Another bewildering approach taken by the three authors is that they talk about America's finances as if America were isolated from the rest of the world but then apply their conclusions – if and when they reach them -- to the whole world as if America were a full partner in it even presiding over it. This is typical of people who respond to dogmas they were fed while growing up but remain frozen in time, incapable of thinking for themselves or evolving a smidgen. More about this later but for now let us discuss America's financing of its military machine in relation to the world economy that the three authors say they want America to protect by appointing itself policeman over it.
Right after World War II, the American GDP amounted to nearly two thirds the GDP of the world, and its manufacturing industries represented about a quarter of its own GDP. This means that American industries stood at somewhere between 15% and 20% of the world GDP. Today, America's GDP amounts to a fifth the GDP of the world, and its industries represent about 10% of its own GDP. This means that American manufacturing industries currently stand at about 2% of the world GDP and getting smaller in relative terms due to the rapid industrialization of the developing countries. The consequence of this is that if America got into an arms race with Usama Bin Laden (UBL), America will be bankrupted long before UBL or his sidekicks. And this is not to mention what other actors will do such as the insurgents of Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and the other non-state entities, and of course China which will be the source called upon to supply most of the parts procured by the American military-industrial complex. The reality is that America is no longer the industrial giant that it was. And this is not because: “There are some who think the era of U.S. global leadership is over, and that decline is what the future inevitably holds...” but because this is the way that history has unfolded which is the way that history always unfolds for empires whose time comes and goes.
Let us now look at the habit of responding to dogmas. The authors have this paragraph in their article: “Furthermore, military spending is not a net drain on our economy. It is unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking the size and strength to defend American interests around the world.” There are two sentences here whose sequencing has been transposed. Each sentence represents a dogma that can survive as a stand alone statement but when the two sentences are put together and allowed to give voice to their internal logic, they negate each other. We can see this effect when we write the two sentences in the proper sequence and add the logical connection between them as shown here in square brackets: “It is unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking the size and strength to defend American interests around the world, [besides] military spending is not a drain on our economy.”
The difference between having two separate sentences out of sequence, and having them in sequence as one sentence is that in the second formulation you see the connection between the ideas, you rub them together and you analyze the whole proposition. When you do this, you immediately reject the principle that military spending is not a drain on an economy because you know how president Reagan caused the Soviet Union to go bankrupt. But then after doing some hard thinking, you say to yourself it could be that the authors meant to say only the American economy is not drained by military spending, not every economy. And so you ask yourself if America has the muscle to produce the proverbial guns and butter to live in prosperity and protect the world at the same time. And this has the potential to open a discussion that can branch in many directions, something you try to avoid.
However, the one direction you find most poignant is that taken by the authors where they admit -- if only in a subtle way -- that a choice between guns and butter will have to be made thereby admit that even America cannot have it both ways. As to the choice they make, they choose the guns, and guess whose butter they say they want to cut completely or reduce somewhat. Here is their response as stated in their own words: “Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, lesser entitlements such as food stamps and cash assistance ... These expenditures continue automatically, year after year...” It is not clear what they mean by lesser entitlements but you can safely assume that they include the school lunch program for the American children who go to school hungry because their parents cannot afford to feed them a decent breakfast or any breakfast at all.
But how can three honchos of America's illustrious conservative think tanks justify a situation like this? Here is how: “We should be vigilant against waste in every corner of the budget. But anyone seeking to restore our fiscal health should look at entitlements first, not across-the-board cuts aimed at our men and women in uniform.” Oh yes, that's how. They say it's okay to starve millions of American children to feed the military. Well, guess who else starves their children to feed their military. You guessed it; they are the North Koreans. It is no wonder, therefore, that the conservative think tanks of North America look and smell like the septic tanks of North Korea. But is this what makes the presidents and the directors of those tanks believe they ought to be respected? I guess the fantasy and self-delusion that animate these people are now completely out of control.
I'm telling you guys, get off this train and reconsider your positions. You're not doing your country or yourselves any good by maintaining the course you're on. The best thing for you to do now is protect America from yourselves and those like you. America did much good in her heydays and she deserves better.