Posted by
Patrick Henry on Monday, August 29, 2011 8:10:27 PM
Next to the aggregated entitlements, the biggest driver of U.S. budget deficits is the
Defense Department. America is still involved in three mostly unpaid-for wars, has
at least 702 military bases requiring over a million soldiers and support personnel
scattered in 130 different countries while suffering the consequences of porous,
crime-ridden borders at home. Meanwhile, the debt nears $15 trillion and counting
while congress contemplates yet another trillion dollar plus annual budget deficit.
Is it time to re-think national defense policy? You bet it is!
A good place to start is basic defense doctrine. Prevailing administrative thinking
seems to be a modified version of the "Bush Doctrine," called after the pre-emptive
war preference of President George W. Bush. Coupled with a seemingly unbridled
appetite for international interventionism, the policy in practice suggests that it is
appropriate for American military resources (both human and material) to be
invested without limit in any theater that even remotely interests the administration
in power, and permits us to strike anyone we believe might harbor ill intentions
toward us at any time. Whatever the "feel good" appeal of such a policy, it is
irrational, unsustainable and probably unconstitutional. It is the fulcrum by which
current defense policy must be altered.
"The best defense is a good offense" may work in sporting games, but Viet Nam,
Iraq and Libya have proven that it does not work in the real world. When one
considers that the greatest loss of American lives to a hostile enemy in a single
strike occurred on 9/11 in our own largest city, it seems to strongly suggest that
the best defense is actually a strong DEFENSE. Criminals at America's southern
borders constitute a far greater threat to our national security than North Viet
Nam, Iraq and Libya combined ever did. That would seem indisputable. And
today, the threat of homegrown Islamic-inspired terrorists seems infinitely greater
than that of a badly downgraded, on-the-run al Qaeda abroad.
The point is this: there are, and will always be, a virtually limitless number of
those abroad who for political, religious, economic or other reasons detest our
way of life and will continually seek ways to harm us. A doctrine that hopes to
succeed by identifying them and obliterating them first, stands about as much
chance of success as the pest control company advertising its mission as "to
kill every cockroach in the world." It is practically, logistically and fiscally
unfeasible. Keeping cockroaches out of our own house, and killing those that
sneak in once we have secured it, is quite another matter.
One modest proposal for changing defense policy direction could provide
help to address a wide range of other issues simultaeously. A rapid and
sweeping appraisal of strategic need and priority would undoubtedly yield
a list of foreign military bases that culd be closed without placing either
allies or troops already in the field in imminent danger. Military personnel
from such bases could be repatriated and deployed all along our southern
border, with a charter to secure same by whatever means necessary. By
that one action, the Pentagon could virtually guarantee that a number of
new military-based enclaves -- little towns in their own right -- would
spring up almost overnight up and down that border. Such communities
would require the same goods and services as all other communities,
and would provide instant jobs, not only for military spouses and
dependents but for many who have lost employment during the present
economic recession. Border states would cooperate and assist because
by doing so they (a) gain security at the point most needed, (b) benefit
from the population growth and additional tax revenue, (c) address some
of their unemployment issues and (d) get some relief from the burden
placed on taxpayer funded facilities and services because the flow of
illegals demanding such services is reduced.
Such a simple step would serve the purpose of reducing the nation's
costly and bloated overseas military presence, send a signal to the
world that we mean to focus on defensive rather than offensive
operations in the near term, and send the signal to the government,
citizens and criminal organizations of Mexico that they have pulled
the tiger's tail long enough. This is but one example of a withdrawal
from being the world's police force and focusing on real homeland
defense.
That, of course, begs the next big question. Is it morally, legally and
Constitutionally a legitimate use of the American military to police
conflcts in other nations that do not directly and concretely threaten
American national security. An increasing number argue that it is not.
The conflict in Libya is a prime example. Without a doubt, Libyan
leader Moammar Qaddafi is a quasi-deranged monster. But was he
an immediate threat to American national security? By no vague stretch
of the imagination. The War Powers Act provides a president the
latitude of conducting up to sixty days of armed hostilities against a
transgressing foreign power, after which he must seek congressional
authorization. In the case of Libya, President Obama simply thumbed
his nose at congress, many members of which considered the Libyan
intervention an illl-advised adventure. In do doing he spent millions of'
unauthorized dollars to fight a brief but unauthorized war to depose
a dictator who posed no danger to Americans. The Iraq conflict,
although it had the formal blessing of congress, was entered on the
basis of faulty intelligence. Once it was definitively discovered that
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, that war
should have been immediately terminated, and troops returned to
containment stations. Today, at taxpayer expense, American troops
still fight and die in Iraq.
These two incidents are shining examples that America's first
instinct seems to be to leap into military interventions without legal
or Constitutional justification, and without an extraction plan. The
result is too many wars we should never have fought, an endless
drain on taxpayer money for negligible strategic return, and too many
American warriors perpetually in harm's way. This will persist as
long as the interventionist appetites of American administrations
continue to trump the legal, moral and Constitutional grounds for
war. Once congress and elected officials get a clear message from
voters that we do not approve of limitless worldwide American
police actions, perhaps actual policy will begin to change.
In the next installment on this blog: "Why, How and When We
Fight."