Monday, February 05, 2007
Defense spending and GDP
The Wall Street Journal's front page this morning features an interesting article (sub. req.), "How War's Expense Didn't Strain Economy." The article focuses on economic considerations and fund flows, but the heart of the matter is this: The wars of the last five years have been very inexpensive as a proportion of our national income, which is the only measurement that matters. As the graph at right makes clear, the twin wars of Afghanistan and Iraq have pushed the share of national income going to defense to around two-thirds of the level that prevailed when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. In fact, we're still spending less than at the trough of Jimmy Carter's post-Vietnam defunding of national defense.
It is incredible that the ridiculous argument that these wars are fiscally unsustainable has worked its way into the national dialogue. I had dinner with a well-informed and (but?) fairly lefty cousin a couple of weeks ago, and she cited the huge cost of the war among her various reasons for opposing it. I made the (to me) obvious point that defense spending was actually still very low by post-war standards and a fraction of the level that prevailed even in the 1980s. Her response: Why doesn't anybody know that? Well, perhaps NPR doesn't dwell on that sort of thing. The New York Times certainly doesn't.
The persistent claim from the left that we cannot "afford" these wars may or may not be true in a larger sense -- the "affordability" of American casualties or lost "prestige" among transnational progressives is obviously a matter of weighing one value against another -- but it is patently false as a matter of fiscal policy. We know we can afford to spend 4% of GDP on defense and still grow the economy more than 3% a year.
57 Comments:
By 
allen, at
Mon Feb 05, 10:11:00 AM:
And proving the money is not ill-spent, consider:
NATO Urges Taliban to Leave Afghan Town
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 10:22:00 AM:
I think anyone familiar with history knows that wars very often are big money-makers, at least for certain segments of the population. I think we can't afford it in the sense of what James Madison said:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Or George Washington:
Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
We're approaching spending $700 billion for the military in this budget (the world military budget is just a little over $1 trillion). I wonder, at what point would the Bush-types think we're spending enough? $1 trillion? $5 trillion?
By ScurvyOaks, at
Mon Feb 05, 10:56:00 AM:
I think many journalists are functionally innumerate. The type of quantitative analysis that is obvious to many of the rest of us never occurs to many of them.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Feb 05, 11:38:00 AM:
hey, shochu john, I have an idea, let's pull the plug on some of the stupid government programs that simply waste our money.
that'll get us back to no deficit in a hurry!
This is what I hear from both John and Dan: We can't afford to protect ourselves but we can afford section 8 housing subsidies.
Let's talk priorities, shall we?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 11:43:00 AM:
We would have fewer military expenses if we allowed our army to loot and pillage like the Vikings.
By 
, at
Mon Feb 05, 12:08:00 PM:
John and Dan live in a dream world.
Consider that there are ten nuclear nations including North Korea and Iran; Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, UAE, Saudi, Yemen have all announced nuclear programs. Making 19 nuclear nations within ten years or less (surely Pakistan or China or North Korea or all three plus the Euros and Russia will supply them for cash).
To this challenge (cheap nukes married with cheap scuds) Dan and John have no answer.
Military spending is a MUST HAVE. It's not optional. America's size and commercial and cultural influence make it a target of Muslims world-wide. If we want to avoid being nuked then called to Islam we must be able to negotiate with Muslims the only way that works: application of overwhelming military force. This means not only a nuclear force that is survivable and overwhelming, but lots and lots of attack aircraft and ships, expeditionary forces.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Feb 05, 12:22:00 PM:
I don't think the pork train is off the rails at all John. Just a new conductor. Watch carefully as the Democrats renege on their "promises".
the prince show was pointless, as was the game, as were the commercials. Yesterday was the first time I'd sat down to watch tv in about four years. My decision to throw out my moron o scope was definitely confirmed.
TV is a wasteland.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 12:23:00 PM:
Re: Looting and pillaging like the Vikings
1. Looting and pillaging makes military recruitment easier.
2. Looting and pillaging reduces military problems in Iraq. You have fewer threats if you take away all of the motor vehicles in the country.
3. Looting and pillaging demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Many Muslim warriors want to return to the Dark Ages. You are granting them their wish.
4. Looting and pillaging would make the world more peaceful. Many modern Muslims would think twice about supporting radical Islam if they realized they could lose all of their personal stuff.
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 12:49:00 PM:
"This is what I hear from both John and Dan: We can't afford to protect ourselves but we can afford section 8 housing subsidies."
The difference being, of course, that the cost of our current military is approaching $1 TTTrillion/year. The cost of welfare is closer to $25 billion/year.
But as I believe I've offered before: I'll gladly cut welfare by 1/2 if you'll cut the military spending by 1/2. Any takers?
Anonymous said:
"John and Dan live in a dream world"
And George Washington and James Madison, you left them out. We all apparently live in a dream world where we think there is a threat in having a massive military used for questionable purposes in unending wars. What anonymous MEANT to say, then, was that "John, Dan, George Washington and James Madison live in a dream world..."
So, in your "real world," I repeat my question: How much military spending do we need to achieve "security"? $1 trillion? $5 trillion? Where would YOU draw that line? How massive is YOUR gov't?
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 12:51:00 PM:
"TV is a wasteland."
On THIS point, Skip and I are in complete agreement.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 01:09:00 PM:
Dan: "How much military spending do we need to achieve 'security'?"
It depends on how many civilian deaths you are willing to accept. "Smart bombs" are more expensive than "dumb bombs."
The people who complain the most about civilian war deaths are usually the people who complain the most about military spending.
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 01:44:00 PM:
I'm not willing to accept very many civilian deaths. Neither are the American people.
Imagine that!
So, given that, how much do you want to spend?
Or, contrariwise, how many civilian deaths and how much money will it take to achieve "security" - in your mind?
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Feb 05, 01:51:00 PM:
it looks like the GOP K street pork train has finally come off its rails.
A new one just hopped on the tracks. Dems just voted for a $400M package of earmark pork a couple of days ago.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 02:15:00 PM:
Dan: "So, given that, how much do you want to spend?"
The more the better. Remember, I sell military aviation products.
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 02:27:00 PM:
$2 trillion? $5 trillion? Is there an amount so large that you wouldn't worry about collapsing the economy?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 02:41:00 PM:
Dan: "Is there an amount so large that you wouldn't worry about collapsing the economy?"
Not even Washington politicians are dumb enough to do that.
Besides, defense spending creates American jobs.
If the U.S. government runs out of money, I can always sell Patriot missile parts to the Japanese.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Feb 05, 02:48:00 PM:
I must agree with DEC. Looting and pillaging is an age old means of achieving a military goal.
Here's my man Henry V:
How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
It think he got it all pretty much rolled into one very real threat. Maybe we should consider a little good old fashioned pillaging. What they hell we're being accused of it daily anyway.
By Jack, at
Mon Feb 05, 03:30:00 PM:
Go even farther back. At the height of the Korean War it was 12%, during peacetime from 1953 to Vietnam it never went below 6%.
There will be huge amounts of fiscal trouble in the coming years, but the problems will lie elsewhere. Spending will skyrocket from 'manditory' entitlement benefits, not from military expenditures.
By Jack, at
Mon Feb 05, 03:33:00 PM:
...And you know our friends on the left aren't going to touch them until the house is falling around our heads.
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 03:54:00 PM:
"Spending will skyrocket from 'manditory' entitlement benefits"
I'll say it again and slowly: I'll gladly cut half the $25 billion we spend on welfare if you cut half the $600 billion (and increasingly rapidly under Bush) we spend on the military.
Don't confuse opinions with facts.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Feb 05, 04:20:00 PM:
No dan, no sale.
Why? Because the government is required to provide for our defense it is NOT required to build huge programs that extract money from productive people and give it to non productive people.
600 billion to provide for the common defense is money well spent. even 1 billion so shaniqua and her three iligitimate children can live rent free is waste, pure and simple.
and don't hand me any "heartless" crap either. Last week you were extolling the generousity of the American people. We are generous, and we don't much care for wasteful ineffective do gooder programs that do more harm than good.
So bring "welfare" to zero and we'll talk. OK?
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Feb 05, 04:39:00 PM:
I'm not willing to accept very many civilian deaths.
But you are willing to accept perhaps a few million if Iraq turns into another Killing Fields scenario should we pull out abruptly?
If Iraq is indeed like Vietnam, then that's what's going to happen and the blood will be on your hands.
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 04:56:00 PM:
"So bring "welfare" to zero and we'll talk. OK?"
No, not okay. So, tell me Skip: How much do you want to spend until you feel safe?
No one's answering that question. Is it not unreasonable to expect that those who want to increase our massive gov't would at least tell their fellow citizens HOW MUCH will be enough?
"you are willing to accept perhaps a few million if Iraq turns into another Killing Fields"
No. Never said I was. In fact, those who advocate massive military responses such as Iraq are the ones who are stopping us from intervening in very real situations such as is currently happening in Darfur and Rwanda and on and on. We are doing NOTHING to stop the very real genocide happening in Darfur today because we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq.
A military solution is way too expensive to use as the model for stopping all the instances of oppression around the world. Those who place most of their eggs in that basket are saying, in effect, "I know that we won't be able to stop all these deaths from happening, but by focusing on killing a bunch of bad guys in Iraq, maybe we can stop it from happening there. It's not worked so far, but maybe it will...Sorry Darfur."
So, don't get confused: It's not those who are advocating a responsibly-sized military that are condemning hundreds of thousands or millions to deaths. It's those who insist we keep trying to spend our way to security via military.
And I'll ask you, too, Purple: How much are YOU going to spend to provide military solutions to "save" the possible millions in Iraq, as well as those in Darfur, Rwanda, Congo, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka...?
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Mon Feb 05, 05:32:00 PM:
I advocate a larger military - to use as a deterrance, not because I'd plan to take that military and run it ragged, as the current administration saw fit to do.
Notice how in the graph that 9/11 occurred near a historical low in military spending as a percentage of GDP. Now I doubt Osama was sitting in his cave thinking "a-ha, the Pentagon's budget's lower than ever! Now is the time to strike!" But it does work against the "peace dividend" style of argument in these comments.
International conflicts won't just disappear if the hated military-industrial complex disappears with it. No, it is not a cure-all for the world's ills. But military capability allows at least the OPTION of its use during diplomatic negotiation, and often allows for the operation of logistical support (such as aid to the victims of the 2005 tsunami).
One of Colin Powell's major complaints as Secretary of State was in the war planning - remember Rumsfeld tut-tutting an infantryman about going in with "army that we have?" An increase in military spending would fix the "broken" military the Iraq War has given us. Better safe than sorry is my philosophy.
And, not to belabor the obvious, but Washington and Madison were leaders of a far different America. We can't go back to being the agarian offshoot of Old World civilization, even if we wanted to.
By Jack, at
Mon Feb 05, 05:34:00 PM:
"Spending will skyrocket from 'manditory' entitlement benefits"
I'll say it again and slowly: I'll gladly cut half the $25 billion we spend on welfare if you cut half the $600 billion (and increasingly rapidly under Bush) we spend on the military.
Don't confuse opinions with facts."
Look in the mirror.
"Manditory" entitlement benefits aren't welfare. They are social security, medicare, and medicaid. $600 billion dollars pales in comparison to what we'll be spending on those three programs in the future.
By Jack, at
Mon Feb 05, 05:43:00 PM:
From the Congressional Budget Office's "Long-Term Budget Outlook":
"The interaction of growth in the retired population and the current structure of the Social Security program leads CBO to project that the cost of Social Security benefits will rise from 4.2 percent of GDP now to 6.0 percent in 2030.
The future growth of Social Security costs, however, pales next to the likely increases in costs for the government’s major health care programs: Medicare and Medicaid. Rising health care costs are boosting spending for those pro-grams to a greater degree than can be explained by increases in enrollment and general inflation alone. Since 1970, all factors (including policy changes) have caused annual costs per Medicare enrollee to grow 2.9 percent-age points faster than per capita GDP, on average—a difference referred to as “excess cost growth” (see Box 1-3 on page 6). If that growth remained high—for example, 2.5 percentage points, as some of the scenarios in this report assume—the federal government’s total spending for Medicare and Medicaid would reach 22 percent of GDP by 2050, compared with 4.2 percent in 2005."
For the record, the entire Federal Budget is today a little over 20% of GDP...
On the other hand, we could worry about a defense budget that has dropped near continuously since the end of World War II as a share of GDP.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Feb 05, 05:50:00 PM:
Dan I believe that our military spending should be based on a sober assessment of the world in which we live.
We didn't learn a thing from our appalling lack of preparedness for WW1. We then repeated that same mistake prior to War 2. According to Steven Ambrose, a noted historian, at the out break of war two America's military was ranked 16th in the world, right behind romania.
We then repeated that exact same mistake after war two. When the north koreans invaded the south we were totally unprepared. Louis Johnson, Trumans' sec def bragged about cutting the military to the bone and then cutting some more.
Now I believe we must do at least two things:
(1) we must be prepared to fight just about anywhere on the planet, and perhaps in space as well. Our preparation must be such that we present a credible deterent to those who would use force of arms against our interests.
(2) We must be capable of scaling up quickly from a "peace time" status to a war footing. The current conflict calls into question the reserve system we're using. These issues must be reviewed carefully and sober judgements made.
What is the price of this Dan? I don't have a problem with our current levels of spending. We're in a committed hot war and thus our expenditures will rise. At the end of hostilities I expect our spending to slowly decline as we regroup and re equip.
Somewhere between say 6 and 10 perecent of gdp seems reasonable to me. This does not mean that if we some how wind up in a protracted arms race our spending shouldn't rise.
Common defense is job one Dan.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 05:54:00 PM:
Dan: "How much do you want to spend until you feel safe?"
For many of us who have put our lives at risk to protect America in the past and present, the money is a small matter. Money is easier than freedom to earn.
My bottom line: Whatever it takes to do the job RIGHT.
Do I think Bush is doing the job right? No. (I don't have a problem with hawks. I have a problem with hawks who lose.)
America consists of suppliers of freedom and consumers of freedom. Which one are you, Dan?
By Dan Trabue, at
Mon Feb 05, 06:14:00 PM:
$10 trillion? $20 trillion?
Do y'all truly believe that by spending $20 trillion/year on military will make you safe and secure? Will stop the genocide in Darfur? What'll it take? $30 trillion and someone to tuck you in at night with a widdle pistol?
Sorry for the mocking, but when you don't answer basic questions raised by what you're calling for, it makes me think that you don't really have any answers.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 06:26:00 PM:
You haven't given your figure, Dan. Or do you, like many leftists, expect others to do all the work?
What would you spend in Darfur, Dan? Tell us how you would solve that problem.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Feb 05, 06:52:00 PM:
How much are YOU going to spend to provide military solutions to "save" the possible millions in Iraq, as well as those in Darfur, Rwanda, Congo, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka...?
More than you're willing to it would seem.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Feb 05, 06:53:00 PM:
What would you spend in Darfur, Dan?
A few AC-130's would have the Janjaweed on the run in about a week.
By , at
Mon Feb 05, 08:00:00 PM:
how is defense spending defined in the graph? does it include funding for iraq?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Feb 05, 08:15:00 PM:
thejoker:
Yes, it includes the cost of the wars.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 08:43:00 PM:
I see no reason for U.S. involvement in Darfur, Purple Avenger. Tribal warfare happens constantly throughout the world.
Several months ago, war between the Dani and Damal tribes flared up in Indonesia's eastern province of Papua. Weapons include spears and machetes as well as bows and arrows. There were hundred of casualties. Few outsiders seemed to care.
"A swimming accident sparked the war," a gold trader told me. "A boy from the Dani tribe drowned while he was under the supervision of a relative from the Damal tribe."
Meanwhile, Ethiopian rustlers frequently kill cattlemen and their families in northern Kenya. The two sides often shoot at each other with AK-47s. People outside Kenya seldom pay much attention to it.
On this planet you are either predator or prey.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 05, 09:03:00 PM:
"There were hundred of casualties" should read "There were hundreds of casualties."
By skipsailing, at
Mon Feb 05, 09:29:00 PM:
I think we can't afford it in the sense of what James Madison said:
and yet Dan it was Mr Madison who took us to war with the only naval super power at that time: england.
What you don't seem to understand is that people KNOW the cost of war and they still engage in it. America really had no chance against the British navy but we also couldn't let them continue to sieze our shipping and press our men.
As dec pointed out, in this world you are either predator or prey. It's really that simple.
Also, Dan, I don't see an answer to dec's question. Are you a provider or consumer of freedom?
By , at
Mon Feb 05, 10:03:00 PM:
Don't confuse the outcome of war and the ability to actually win a war. Those are two different things. The American military is the finest fighting machine that the world has ever seen, and it must remain that way. It might be a smaller force than other countries, but it can engage any enemy anywhere in the world, and left to the military professionals, win the day, probably very quickly.
Some would say that nukes make a strong military a moot point, but I would think that its just the oposite. Countries know we won't start dropping nukes, so they become useless, used only as a last resort, when we are attacked on our own soil. Short of that, who has the will to do so?
Our military is the police dog, the politician and nukes are the politicians. Countries know that the politician won't throw nukes, but he is also pretty sure that the police dog will bit him if he crosses the line.
How much should we spend on our military? Enough that it remains the finest fighting force on the planet. You just don't want to have the worlds 2nd best fighting force if you have to fight the best.
By , at
Mon Feb 05, 11:32:00 PM:
I see no reason for U.S. involvement in Darfur, Purple Avenger. Tribal warfare happens constantly throughout the world.
Darfur is most decidedly NOT "tribal warfare". The whole thing got cranked up right after John Garang inked the White Nile deal with the Brits and disavowed the Khartoum government's 20 year old (abandoned) oil deal with Total.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 02:54:00 AM:
I have no desire to debate definitions, Anonymous. Both sides in the ongoing Darfur conflict are Muslim (unlike in the Second Sudanese Civil War). Both sides are African. Both sides live in the same general area.
To me, the violence in Northern Ireland was nothing more than "tribal warfare," too. I also view the conflict between the Jets and the Sharks in "West Side Story" as tribal warfare.
By , at
Tue Feb 06, 06:58:00 AM:
From Dan at paynehollow:
I've given you all last night and still not one single answer to how many trillions you need to spend on a military to make yourselves feel safe?
The best you can do is: "I don't know Dan, but you haven't told us what you'd spend! So there!"
Not that I'd expect it'll make a difference but here's what I'd do. I'm president of the US and I've convinced the American people of the wisdom of the following:
1. Cut our military budget by 1/2 - Let's say down to "only" $300 billion - still five times the next closest country's military budget. That'll save us $300 billion
2. From the saved $300 million, I spent $50 million on a Dept of Peace. It is this dept's responsibility to creatively and forcibly work for a more peaceful world. We do this based upon, at least partially, the concepts of Just Peacemaking Theory (look it up) whose principle tenet and the reason it works is, Everyone has their own self-interests at heart - find the self-interest of the offensive party and use it against them. This Dept is further based upon the notion that, if we only prepare for war, war is what we'll get. If you want to prepare for Peace, you must prepare, plan and strategize for peace.
3. Invest anotehr $50 billion in law and justice efforts - in paying our dues to the flawed UN and working to make it less flawed. In supporting the International Criminal Court and its efforts.
4. Spend $100 billion on well-publicized efforts to ease the suffering in the world. Education programs. Sustainable farming programs. AIDS programs. Peacemaking programs.
5. Return $100 billion to the American taxpayers.
There you have it: The largest return of taxpayers' money in history and it didn't come from a Republican (technically, not a Democrat either, since I'm more of a Green President).
This budget allows us to:
1. Defend our country. My military budget is 5x larger than the next country's. We don't need a hyper-inflated defense budget to defend ourselves. We only need that size budget if our intent is on global adventurism.
2. Work for peace around the world - including places like Iraq and Iran AS WELL as places like Rwanda and Darfur where we typically are content to watch them kill themselves. Indeed, that is ALL we can do when we're spending trillions of dollars on a military and using that military to invade other sovereign nations for questionable reasons.
There, you have my brief answer. That's all I'm asking for you. Several here are making the statement that we don't spend enough on our military, all I'm asking you to do is make your case and tell us HOW MUCH you'd spend. After all, the American people are not going to write you a blank check, saying, "Here, spend 'whatever it takes' and we'll blindly follow your lead." It ain't gonna happen.
So answer the questions:
1. How much will your budget be to defend the US? AND
2. What about places like Darfur or Rwanda, where genocides are happening, what will you do there?
And if you can't answer these basic questions in even a rudimentary manner, well then you really need to quit advocating that which you can't defend.
Given that it's taken Bush over half a trillion dollars a year just to "bring Democracy" to two run-down, already defeated nations and to take on an insurgency of only tens of thousands, I'm curious how many tax dollars you'll need to spend to achieve security. AND how many civilians you'd target in the process.
Put up or shut up.
-Dan
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 09:42:00 AM:
Dan: "Put up or shut up."
Great peacemaking line, Dan. Maybe President Bush should use it.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Feb 06, 09:51:00 AM:
Don't confuse peacemaking with passivity. If you make dangerous, outrageous claims ("we ought to just keep putting more and more money into our military"), we WILL ask you to back them up or admit that you don't have answers.
And I notice no answers are forthcoming from you, DEC.
By Paul Edwards, at
Tue Feb 06, 09:57:00 AM:
"How much military spending do we need to achieve "security"? $1 trillion?"
Everything can be done with the current military. There is no need to increase defence spending.
"We are doing NOTHING to stop the very real genocide happening in Darfur today because we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq."
The other countries of the world can easily handle Darfur. Pressure should be placed on them to step up to the plate. The US is already doing the heavy lifting in taking down enemies of the free world.
"A military solution is way too expensive to use as the model for stopping all the instances of oppression around the world."
No it isn't. Afghanistan and Iraq were once-offs. In most other countries you just need to change the government and reuse the old military.
"Given that it's taken Bush over half a trillion dollars a year just to "bring Democracy" to two run-down, already defeated nations and to take on an insurgency of only tens of thousands"
It was extremely important to do those countries the way they were done. To avoid a confrontation with the people themselves, by not forcing anything down their throat and simply allowing them to find their own way. The patience shown in Afghanistan and Iraq is not required elsewhere. If the entire rest of the world has not been able to muster the decency to overthrow the Sudanese dictator by the time the US has taken down some more enemy countries, THEN the US should shake its head in dismay at the rest of the world and then do the job itself.
Here's my suggested plan:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/01/war-plan.html
By skipsailing, at
Tue Feb 06, 10:33:00 AM:
Dan, are you lying now?
I answered your question clearly and succinctly. apparently you didn't like the answer so you've ignored it.
By Dan Trabue, at
Tue Feb 06, 11:09:00 AM:
Not lying. Merely an oversight. Thanks for at least answering the question, to you and to Paul.
That's two votes for ~$600 billion/year on military, depending upon contingencies.
And did you answer what to do with the Darfurs of the world? Paul's answer was to leave it to "The other countries of the world." How about the handful of other nations where genocides and oppression is occurring? Or the dozens of other nations where perhaps "lesser" oppression is occurring?
As to your earlier question, Skip: I am a provider of freedom. You?
By skipsailing, at
Tue Feb 06, 11:56:00 AM:
no Dan, that's not what I said. I said somewhere between six and ten percent of GDP. Please get it right.
I also agree with MR Edwards: When will the hand wringers step up and confront these tragedies dan?
don't you think that the former colonists of Africa have some responsibility on that continent? Also, when do the Africans themselves stop killing each other for the hell of it?
part of the reason why I found the movie Amistad so unwatchable was the strength of the tribal motivations these slaves endured. Even in captivity they could not get over thier bias. I turned the movie off, simply because I found this so sad.
so Dan, beyond praying for peace, what have you done for us lately?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 11:57:00 AM:
Dan: "And I notice no answers are forthcoming from you, DEC."
Sorry, Dan, I had to buy fuel for my plane to pollute the atmosphere.
Your kind of belligerent attitude will get your head handed to you in the Arab world, Dan. Patience is an important part of peacemaking. Learn some additional PR skills if you want to change minds.
Me? I have no desire to change anybody's mind about anything.
I already told you I have a financial interest in the outcome, so I cannot give you an objective answer about defense spending. I would make no quick reductions in defense spending. Quick changes would have a disastrous impact on the U.S. economy. The U.S. defense industry employs a lot of Americans. You better retrain employees at defense companies before you toss those voters out of work by reducing the U.S. defense budget.
Further, before I would make any changes, I would spend three years improving the management skills of U.S. government managers, especially outside the U.S. Defense Department. Without a revamping of the federal government's bureaucracy, you are wasting most of your money, no matter what you do.
Your proposal has some good points--especially if you spend money to replace madrassa schools with regular schools in places like Pakistan.
However, a problem in Egypt and in many other places: Students receive college degrees, but many of them are unable to find decent jobs. You have to spend money to build a vibrant, modern free enterprise system in undeveloped and developing countries. (Many of those countries already tried the socialist approach and failed.) Most college graduates around the world don't want to become farmers.
Your new efforts sound a lot like current UN programs. The UN has done a pretty good job delivering food to starving people around the world. But the UN has been less far successful in delivering peace and economic development around the world. Many of the UN's problems are not the result of a lack of funds.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew said:
"A free and fair election is not the best first step to nurture a democracy in a country that has no history or tradition of self government. Without adequate preparations elections will allow a people to vent their frustrations against the corruption and inadequacies of the incumbents and vote in the opposition. That led to Hamas gaining power in Palestine.
"A better start would be to educate their young, especially their women, and give them equal job opportunities. Next, build civic institutions, implement the rule of law, strengthen the independence of their courts, and build up the civic society institutions necessary for democracy. Only then will a free election lead to a more democratic society."
I agree with Lee's comments. One problem with your plan: $200 billion a year is a drop in the buck. You probably can't even fix Indonesia with $200 billion a year for the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, I don't think the American public would allow the U.S. government to spend all that money on overseas development every year while they work at Wal-Mart. Foreign aid generally is unpopular among American voters. The defense industry is responsible for a large number of American jobs. Americans won't want to give up those well-paying defense jobs so someone in the Philippines can open a dry cleaners.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 12:00:00 PM:
P.S. Make that "far less successful," not "less far successful."
By , at
Tue Feb 06, 12:25:00 PM:
What makes you think others want their country "fixed" or changed?
All your talk is nice, but it ignores the reality of this planet. Try replacing a school in Pakistan and you will have a reception that you won't enjoy. Your academic discussion ignores reality, which is a very dangerous thing indeed.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 12:36:00 PM:
Anonymous: "Try replacing a school in Pakistan and you will have a reception that you won't enjoy."
As an American businessman I always gets a wonderful reception in Pakistan regardless of the nature of my suggestions. But unlike most American politicians, I know how to operate effectively in other cultures.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 12:39:00 PM:
P.S. Make that "get," not "gets."
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 06, 01:00:00 PM:
Anonymous: "What makes you think others want their country 'fixed' or changed?"
My overseas travels. I have traveled more than two million miles outside the United States.
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Tue Feb 06, 05:02:00 PM:
Anonymous: "What makes you think others want their country 'fixed' or changed?"
My overseas travels. I have traveled more than two million miles outside the United States.
I doubt others want their nation fixed or changed in the manner of Iraq.
By Paul Edwards, at
Tue Feb 06, 05:48:00 PM:
"I doubt others want their nation fixed or changed in the manner of Iraq."
Others don't speak with one voice. Some want to be liberated, some don't. Something like 85% of Afghans wanted to be liberated. Iraq had a 70% turnout at the elections (compared to 40% in the US).
Who do you want to support? Those who want to be free or those who prefer slavery?
By Paul Edwards, at
Tue Feb 06, 05:53:00 PM:
"Paul's answer was to leave it to "The other countries of the world.""
That is not my position. My position is that the US can't fix all problems simultaneously and needs to topple enemy governments before it starts opening warfronts with neutrals like the dictator of Sudan. While waiting for the US to arrive, it's a chance for the entire rest of the world to show that they are grown up enough to do some small tasks on their own. And if they don't, they need to be held accountable. Unlike the liberation of Iraq, when someone else liberates Sudan, America is not going to try to stand in their way or accuse them of doing it for Sudan's oil.
By , at
Sun Feb 11, 05:16:00 PM:
Get it through your thick skull:
Defense spending is some 17% of the total budget and 4% of the GDP. The dollars in the defense budget are not the problem.
Entitlement spending is nearly half the total budget and expected, by everyone who is paying attention, to skyrocket. Interest on the debt is nearly eight percent and also growing.
Entitlement spending and paying back our national debt are the real budget problems. They're both ballooning and are projected to cause not only a local budget crisis but a worldwide economic collapse.
Alan Greenspan warned about this for years. The current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is doing the same now. This from the Tax Policy Blog:
By 2030, he said, spending under current law on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid could consume as much as 15 percent of the nation's economic output, double the current rate.
Underwriting that could lead to a "vicious cycle," he said, as the nation borrows more to meet its obligations and spends increasing amounts to service that debt, leaving less for investors and consumers and slowing economic growth.
"If early and meaningful action is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011800316.html
Add to that Hillary's, and the rest of the Democrat Presidential hopefulls, belief that we can get National Healthcare to work, and we're assured that healthcare costs will indeed go down - on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer, and entitlement spending will continue to go through the freakin' roof.
That's the real problem.
Your sophomoric proposals for halfing the defense budget to spend on peace initiatives, law and justice and worldwide suffering (like we aren't already spending billions on all the above) are simply inane. More importantly, they're bypassing the real problem - one our descendants are going to have to live with for generations to come if we don't get this Congress off their butts and stop their out-of-control spending and fix our entitlement spending. Yes, the government is too big. The military is not.
