Mar 10, 2014
Time to Cut the Military Pork
Posted on Dec 13, 2008
By Titus Levi
Other nations have hardly fared better, and many much worse. Civil and border wars in Africa, such as those in Angola, Darfur, southern Sudan and most of all Congo, have cost at least 5 million lives. The long Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s cost a million fatalities with no discernable gains on either side. Various civil conflicts in Latin America killed hundreds of thousands. Border skirmishes between China and Vietnam, as well as between India and Pakistan, have settled little. The spectacularly brutal wars involving the Soviet Union and, later, Russia—in particular the Afghanistan incursion and occupation and the Chechen war—accomplished next to nothing other than visiting abundant death, destruction and misery upon millions. This says nothing of the futures demolished and lands wrecked through war. The long trail of destruction and pain outweighs whatever glory victory once held; in fact, the very notion of wartime victory now seems more like a myth than a reality.
Certainly we can find exceptions. For instance, the Six-Day War concluded with Israel enjoying a stunningly lopsided victory. That country gained territory and seemingly improved its security. But over the 40 years since that war, the West Bank has become a rotting albatross around Israel’s neck. Israel’s relinquishing of much if not all of the territories seems likely, provided that a politically viable means for doing so can be identified and implemented.
In short, while we may quibble over the details of the military budget, cost overruns and effectiveness of the latest technology, we need to remain firmly focused on the elephant in the room: Traditional military spending fails any kind of serious cost-benefit analysis.
In spite of this, appeals for military cutbacks encounter howls of criticism. Those calling for a change in DoD budgeting get slapped with all sorts of invective: words such as naive, idealistic, unpatriotic and cowardly. But given the evidence, who is being naive about the value and possibilities of success that might be enjoyed from massive spending on military procurement?
The old head-to-head nation-state threats seem less compelling as well. The only nations regarded as serious potential opponents, China and Russia, seem unlikely to tangle with the U.S., even if we cut DoD expenditures. Despite overwrought rhetoric regarding tensions between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, the two countries have strengthened their ties, and the general trend has been toward greater cooperation and openness. This development militates against a full-scale U.S. military face-off with China, which in turn suggests that much of the hardware we build may not have a real use. China has very little motivation to engage the U.S. in direct conflict beyond the Taiwan Strait. Even Russia seems unlikely to find a compelling reason to get into a war with the U.S., even a U.S. with more limited forces. And provided that the problems plaguing the DoD can be ameliorated, a cut in expenditures may not result in a commensurate reduction in combat readiness.
The effect of cutting America’s expenditures can be softened by charging the Oval Office and key diplomats with the task of persuading other major powers to cut their military outlays in lock step with our cutbacks. Given the severity of the current economic crisis, this may be possible: Everyone wants to save money and to find ways of supporting fiscal stimulus plans. G-20 countries could implement an across-the-board cut of 25 percent on military spending, which falls in line with Rep. Barney Frank’s recommendation. This would yield savings of about $400 billion globally, with about $250 billion of the savings being enjoyed by the U.S. These savings could be used to cover some of the financial bailout’s costs and spending on fiscal stimulus packages in G-20 countries.
While a 25 percent cut might be considered too ambitious, a more modest cut of 10 percent across the G-20 countries would be more easily attained, although with a proportionately smaller impact on deficit reduction and fiscal stimulus. Savings for the U.S. would decline from over $250 billion to about $100 billion; the cut on baseline defense spending would decline to about $61 billion, down from $152.5 billion of savings under the 25 percent scenario.
Beyond the cost savings, why might other countries in the G-20 sign on for such a scheme? First of all, soon-to-be President Obama currently enjoys tremendous symbolic popularity around the world; a bold plan from the new president would probably have considerable sway with citizens in many countries. While I don’t expect other national leaders to simply roll over, they would respond to constituent pressure. Two possible exceptions stand out: the increasingly right-leaning and nationalistic Russians, and the Chinese, who see themselves as playing catch-up to the other great powers and would be reluctant to derail efforts that expand their military capabilities. Tough negotiations could yield substantive cutbacks. Given that we have a considerable cushion to work with, we could give up considerable allocations without injuring our military preparedness. Willingness to engage on spending would signal the world that we wish to cooperate and demonstrate global leadership on reducing military threats.
Creating a mechanism for sharing the benefits of cutbacks could provide an incentive for balanced multiparty cutbacks. This capital pool could be applied to producing global benefits that could jump-start productivity by improving green technologies and bringing them to market, expanding ecological preservation efforts, ensuring food and water supplies, improving global health delivery and providing real funding to the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. This would spread benefits widely. Although the G-20 is not directly beholden to U.N. directives, pressure from a large number of developing countries could prod larger countries to cooperate, especially if the U.S. supported such an effort through a strong commitment from a credible and effective ambassador to the U.N.
Global spending on development does not help the U.S. directly, but it would vastly improve labor productivity in the faster-growing developing economies. This would help to energize the global economy, which indirectly benefits the American economy. At the same time, living conditions for millions would improve. Taking these steps would not defang those most radically opposed to American policies, ideals and power, but it would probably erode the support and cover that such individuals and organizations rely upon for money, moral and ideological support, safe havens and so forth. In short, military cutbacks would not erode American security. We would still be the dominant power, but we would step away from being, as Colin Powell first put it in 1992, the “bully on the block.” It is high time to craft a new ethos to serve as our cynosure on military policy.
Cutbacks in spending could actually improve global security. In particular, putting a zero-nukes policy at the center of cuts could help to move civilization off the nuclear precipice. The North Koreans would have far less latitude for continuing their equivocations over nuclear weapons and energy development. A zero-nukes policy would back the Iranians into a corner that would undermine their rationale for wanting the bomb. It would also prod the Israelis to come clean on their nuclear weapons program, which would pick a thorn from the side of future efforts to negotiate in good faith over the Palestinian issue.
This still leaves the question of political considerations. Many Americans regard international policy as somewhat remote and uninteresting, so the strategic element seems unlikely to overcome the impact of cutbacks on jobs. Policymakers and Congress could solve this problem by redeploying military funds locally. That is, funds removed from a given military procurement project should remain in or near the district of that project, provided this didn’t fundamentally undermine productive efficiencies. Adding this wrinkle to a cutback in military spending would take pressure off congressional representatives to protect jobs. This turns the pork-barrel process on its head by working against ballooning military budgets.
In short, cutting the military budget makes sense, and for the first time since the start of the Cold War in 1947, we finally have the chance to push back against the military-industrial complex—or military-industrial-congressional complex, given the powerful effect of pork-barrel politics on the perpetuation of this system—which has been murderous and wasteful and is past due for being brought to heel. And while I’m no fan of Grover Norquist, I will borrow a turn of phrase from him here: I don’t want to destroy the military or the DoD, but I wouldn’t mind cutting it to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub one day. Now’s the time to get started.
Titus Levi, Ph.D., is an economist and media consultant. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communications. He blogs at http://www.thatscapital.net.
Previous item: Senate Panel’s Report on U.S. Torture Abuse
Next item: Israel’s ‘Crime Against Humanity’
New and Improved Comments