The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

A Conservative Defense Agenda

By from the October 2012 issue

Reconciling great power responsibilities with economic stagnation.

The first duty of the sovereign, therefore, that of defending the society from the violence and injustice of other independent societies, grows gradually more and more expensive, as the society advances in civilization.

—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

THE GROWING COST OF DEFENSE that Adam Smith foresaw 236 years ago now poses a familiar challenge for American conservatives. The “guns versus butter” debate goes back at least to the Lyndon Johnson era. But then our economy was strong, and our enemy—the Soviet Union—was visible, personified by its odious leaders, and a clear threat.

But now our economy is weak, made so by President Obama’s hyper-expansion of government and debt. It has apparently lost its ability to grow, and without growth there cannot be recovery or prosperity. President Obama’s military build-down has already imposed massive cuts on the Pentagon’s budget, resulting in a significant reduction in our current and future military capabilities. The fiscal realities—with which Congress refuses to deal—make more cuts inevitable.

Our economic weakness comes at a time when the world is highly unstable and when most of our allies refuse to spend what is necessary to provide for our mutual defense. And defense is more expensive than ever, because many of the threats we face are cheap for our adversaries to mount but enormously expensive for us to counter. A state can buy an effective cyberwar capability for very little, but the price to defend against it is enormous. It costs a lot less to launch an ICBM than it does to intercept one before it can deliver its warhead.

Combined with the wrongheaded diplomacy of the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Obama’s military build-down has made us poorer in our ability to defend ourselves and affect world events than we have been at any time since before the Cold War.

We are abandoning our role as a superpower, and we are already unable to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, affect the postwar future of Afghanistan, or even stabilize the most minor of potential conflicts, such as the revived British-Argentinian dispute over the Falkland Islands.

Conservatives thus face two existential questions: First, do we want to resume a global role? Second, what kind of military, intelligence, and diplomatic policies must we undertake to ensure our national defense over the next decade?

GOP leaders such as vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and former Virginia Governor James Gilmore (now head of the Free Congress Foundation) have already charted paths to economic recovery. Some combination of their proposals—and those of a President Romney—will be pursued if President Obama is defeated in November. If Obama is reelected, economic growth will be postponed indefinitely and the pressure on our national security spending will only increase.

Superpower or Not?

A SUPERPOWER IS A NATION that has the ability not only to protect its homeland but also to defend its interests and allies globally. As former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers told me:

The world is looking for some certainty in security, and the U.S. has been the pillar that the world could count on for pretty much all of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. If we give that up, the question is, what takes our place? Is it going to be the United Nations? Is it going to be some other alliances? I don’t know about this ‘indispensable nation’ notion, but I do know how important the United States has been to world security and stability for a long time.

Myers hit the nail on the head. If the United States shrinks to a regional power, nothing—no nation, no international body such as the United Nations or NATO—will fill our shoes.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) Told me that our leadership isn’t looking out for America’s national security as it should. “We’re already heading in the direction of not being a superpower,” he said. “And our allies and friends have seen that. Our enemies have seen that.”

It’s not possible to separate the concept of economic security—which includes stability in the conditions that permit prosperity—from that of national security, because each is dependent on the other. Today, the threats to U.S. economic and national security are essentially identical. Regardless of whether we choose to continue as a superpower, we must invest in essentially the same intelligence and military capabilities to answer those threats.

Page: 1 2 3   Last ›

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) |

nathan| 10.10.12 @ 7:44AM

A lot of food for thought here but let me focus on just one thing he says here.

America’s ideological arsenal contains many of our most effective—and least expensive—weapons. What we say, and the principles for which we stand, are enormously effective against ideologies that offer only poverty, enslavement, and suicide.

You see he the problem is throughout the Bush administration and even the current one, but especially the Bush years, our ACTIONS didn't match our words. WE could talk about "enhanced" interrogation, the rest of the world saw "torture" and saw us for the hypocrits we were and still are. Matthew Alexander senior interrogator in Iraq wrote a piece in the Washington Post. He asked foreigners who got involved there against us, why are you here? The answer he got TIME AND TIME AGAIN was, detainee abuse on our part. It was a HUGE recruitment tool for the bad guys. The estimates are that the death toll due to that alone may be as high as 911 itself. You see folks, you have to WALK IT THE WAY YOU TALK IT and we never did and thousands died because of it and are still dying now. Col. West in that room, how many more recruits did he create when HE misbehaved? How many more died DIRECTLY because of his illegal actions? He should not be re-elected on that basis alone. Babbin's right, but it has to be more than "talk".

Bob K| 10.10.12 @ 10:12PM

Where has our press been on this? Could it be Nathan, that these ACTIONS also took place under Democratic administrations and democrats there also misbehaved like Col. West did?

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 10.11.12 @ 5:49PM

A defense tax is what we need, but it wont happen.
But as long as you don't ever conscript again, that's all I care about (we are not going to have true democracy in the world because there's no consensus).
Recall how radical chic began when LBJ drafted the boys to send to 'Nam, and ended when the draft was abolished. So don't conscript again or your asses are grasses; next time it wont be as it was last time 'round.. next time there'll be an Arab Spring in America, as no one respects you anymore so they wont fight for you.

You will have to fight your own wars from now on-- if nothing else to take the bullets meant for others.

Von Mises Jr| 10.10.12 @ 8:00AM

There is much truth and good analysis from Mr. Babbin in his critique.
But I would simply state that he sets up the scenario as if the Soviet threat of the seventies and eighties is different than the economic threat we face today. I would argue that they are the same. Both threats are socialism and "One World Government."
In the seventies and eighties, it was the USSR that aimed at creating a military to defeat the United States. Today, we have socialist in our government that wish to destroy the United States Military from within.
The point is that both are threats from socialism aimed at our fine military and nation.

Al Adab| 10.10.12 @ 9:38AM

As you note, not all threats are of a military nature although they too exist. A strong, growing national economy is just as critical to security - dependence on foreign oil imports anyone? - as a military which deters aggression. In all these aspects the current administration is failing the nation and its citizens making the world a more dangerous place. The delusions of The Left include a disarmed world or total harmony. We will not see that this side of Heaven. Not all nations, leaders and peoples act in rational ways subject to discussion and compromise and not all issues between them a subject to the same.

We can for long times agree to disagree and when both parties accept that state of being all is well. When however one or the other decides that one must prevail or harm the other different dynamics call for different actions.

c. j. acworth| 10.10.12 @ 8:41AM

I reject the whole premise on which the entire "guns vs. butter" debate rests, which is, that the Federal Govt. has a duty to provide both, so how much of each do we get? I don't see anything about butter in the Constitution, but plenty about national defense.

Al Adab| 10.10.12 @ 11:18AM

Correct C. J. :
It is a false choice promulgated by the adherents of the social welfare state who believe (quite wrongly) that government is the provider of our wants and needs. This is why they so aggressivly pursue cuts in defense spending to our national detriment.

Quartermaster| 10.10.12 @ 12:51PM

The Social Welfare state is unconstitutional. Both parties have supported it because both parties are lawless. They honor the constitution only when it is convenient for them to do so.

Mike W| 10.10.12 @ 8:49AM

Bush 2's foreign policy was not conservative. It turns out his domestic policy wasn't conservative either but that is another issue.

Invading and occupying a country that did not attack us, costing me 2 trillion of my tax dollars and thousands of dead Americans was not a conservative act.

Skippy| 10.10.12 @ 4:44PM

Bush was right even if the intel was wrong.
Marching into the ME with no intention of leaving soon was just what the region needed.
Killing thousands of jihadis was a bonus.
Conservatives should not wait until the enemy is at the gates before acting.
WMD's?
WGAS?

Red Phillips | 10.10.12 @ 9:09AM

"great power responsibilities"

America DOES NOT HAVE "great power responsibilities." That is revolutionary Jacobin nonsense. America has a responsibility to protect America. All this latter day Jacobinism has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism properly understood.

Derek Leaberry| 10.10.12 @ 12:04PM

Exactly right, Mr. Phillips. If a conservative could win the office of president, American troops would leave Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan and Germany and come home. Crusades would end. The carriers would be reduced to eight at most. Bases within America's borders would be closed. And troops would be sent to the border with Mexico. But a conservative is not going to win the presidency in 2012 or any time in the near future. The modern Republican Party is a hybrid of big business plutocrats, neo-conservatives, a gaggle of media twerps, and religious folks who are fooled into believing that the Republicans will help social conservatives in the culture wars.

Al Adab| 10.10.12 @ 1:01PM

The GOP simply promises better management of the Administrative, Social-welfare State not its rollback, control or demise. It has been thus since Tom Dewey. Only The Conservative Movement holds hope for a return to limited, Constitutional government. What obligations of loyalty Conservatives have to the GOP is an open question given how often the GOP ignores and takes for granted that loyalty.

Ryan| 10.10.12 @ 3:53PM

Would you support extensive intelligence operations to predict attacks?

Abdullah| 10.10.12 @ 9:14AM

I'm working for one of the top three defense contractors. Nobody's doing a thing lately; everybody is waiting for the pink slip, but nobody knows what program will be gutted and who personally will be booted. Conservatively, 15-20 Billions will be waisted right there. Once the program is cancelled, all investments into the program are written off. Most of the programs for the DD have 10-15 years cycle. Make your own calculations. One more thing. Making a warfare system engineer is 10-12 years effort. Most of the engineers and researchers in the Industry are extremely specialized. We are talking 500,000 families loosing their breadwinner with no hope to get back into workforce for years, or ever. We are talking of loosing Trillions of $$ of knowledge waisted. Keep in mind, that major defense contractors virtually stopped hiring recent graduates at least three years ago (we hire 1/10 of what we used to). Who in his right mind would want to spend his youth studying nuclear engineering and other hard subjects? We are loosing the next generation of scientists and engineers, and that is, my friend, a crime of treason.

Red Phillips | 10.10.12 @ 9:42AM

Abdullah, I recognize the economic impact defense cuts would have. The area where I live is hugely dependent on a local base. But it hardly helps a conservative case to argue as if defense is some sort of pork jobs program.

Skippy| 10.10.12 @ 4:47PM

National defense is one of the very, very few things the Fed Govt should do.
90% of what they do now is in direct violation of the US Const.
More guns; less butter.

Red Phillips | 10.10.12 @ 5:20PM

I agree, but the key word there is defense. "Global power responsibilities" is not defense. It is exporting revolution. Since we are on the subject of the Constitution, we could defend this country with "well regulated" state militias.

Occam's Tool| 10.11.12 @ 12:02AM

You really are an idiot, aren't you, Red?

Militias have not ever been useful defensive weapons in US history.

Just imagine how much easier our foreign policy problems would be right now if Teheran were melted.

MacWell™| 10.11.12 @ 2:38AM

So wisely put Mr. Tool, as usual.

Red Phillips | 10.11.12 @ 4:58PM

"Just imagine how much easier our foreign policy problems would be right now if Teheran were melted."

And you really are blood thirsty aren't you Occam? Iran is none of our concern. If we "melted" Tehran we would face blowback unprecedented in history.

I ask you again, who is poised to invade us?

Abdullah| 10.10.12 @ 10:10AM

Red, you can argue for, or against military base-related expenses. I'm talking about R&D specifically. Most of military R&D projects are critical not only for Defense, but for general purpose industries. Take, for example, ARPANET (Internet), Global positioning systems (GPS), nuclear power, satellites (weather maps and forecasts). And the list is going on and on. I side with the economists, who estimate military R&D net-positive.

JP| 10.10.12 @ 10:41AM

You cite ancient history. And ARPANET was a joke. It took private industry (Bell Labs, IBM,SCO, and Novell) to standardize and improve a very narrow set of ARPANET communication protocols in order to make them ready for prime time.

During the last 2 decades, most of the DOD projects have been nothing but fiscal disasters. Cost over-runs, mishaps, and technological disasters are the normal things coming out of the DOD. We're living off the inherited fat of the post-war years, and that fat has been gnawed to the bone.

Abdullah| 10.10.12 @ 11:38AM

JP, talk is cheap. Specifics please. What program was a a disaster? F-35? CV-22? MEADS? K-MAX? Aegis? I think you are FoS.

JP| 10.10.12 @ 1:48PM

To start with - both the Raptor and F-35 programs. For nearly three hundred billion dollars in R&D and production costs - we had a period when both these aircraft were grounded for either safety or operational reasons. When it's all said and done, we will eventually pay $1.2 trillion for these Edsels.

Then there's the Army's Crusader Artillery system ( initial price tag $11 billion for starters. Thankfully Rumsfeld killed the program); or the the new Army's modern assault rifle prototype the XM-25 (each new rifle will be in the thousands of dollars and probably will fail field conditions).

Almost all of our major weapon systems were designed and/or built in the 1960s or 70s. I think you're living too much in the past. The DOD isn't what it used to be. It no longer drives technology. It hasn't since Bush41 left office.

Al Adab| 10.10.12 @ 3:38PM

We tend to be overly enamoured of technology. A couple hundred more F-18s or F-15s would make the difference in any contingency. Nonetheless, the equipment this nation fields should be the best and most efficient money can buy. R&D spending is required to keep that edge intact. Lead time for development is long.

Skippy| 10.10.12 @ 4:48PM

Let's get those B24's fueled up.
They worked great in 1945.

MacWell™| 10.11.12 @ 2:51AM

What many of these (so-called), experts don't understand, is just what it takes to invent new technology. I worked for a big defense contractor for about 7 years and I saw, and understood why hammers could cost 10 X what they should. The coffee makers that go into space come with a foot thick batch of (testing) data, required by the gubment of course. It was staggering to me redundant testing and over testing that had to come with, each and every piece sent out the door. Much of the testing was so over estimated it was almost funny. I left with the understanding that the tools we use to protect America are the best, only because we have the best minds in the world. There were more Dr.'s there a given day than all the AMA conventions combined. Some of the people I met while working there were scary smart, but all of them were kind and caring and patriotic.

nathan| 10.10.12 @ 11:50AM

Tom Coburn a leading senate conservative has called for a DOD audit. Long overdue. Readers of Aviation Week recently saw a scathing report about how the F-35 continues to have problems. The litoral combat ship went from 250 a copy to over 500 a copy but is not meeting its design spec. We can go on and on.

A key problem and the writer gets at better than most for this publication, is what is all this money being spent on? What is the threat? We outspend virtually the rest of the world combined. Do we need 700 bases around the world? Do we need to be in half the countries in the world? Are we repeating the mistakes of Vietnam in the sense of making a strictly local conflict where no true national interest was involved into our fight? There are "bad guys" everywhere but how many of them in how many countries really care about us versus just the local guys they're up against? Do we have to intrude in EVERY SINGLE CONFLICT? And how has that worked anyway? Not very well since the end of WWII. Certainly overthrowing Mossedegh in 1953 was a mistake. Supporting other human rights violating dictators the past 60 years like we did Mubarak is starting to come home to haunt us. We need to step back and see if a neocon imperialistic foreign policy really helps us or endangers us more.

Al Adab| 10.10.12 @ 3:34PM

Now the administration announces it is sending troops to Jordan. If the foreign policy being pursued by these people makes sense, please explain it.

Skippy| 10.10.12 @ 4:50PM

Prince Bambo will do anything to "butch up" prior to his defeat.
"See? I know how to be a tough guy, Clint."

Warrior| 10.10.12 @ 5:56PM

I wonder if he agreed to the deployment while polishing his Nobel Peace Prize?

rkt17| 10.10.12 @ 10:22PM

It must be so nice, warm & cozy almost, to see things as Mr. Babbin does--so simple, bordering on naïveté.
I think we as a nation have to face up to the realities, two major wars in a decade (with no plan to pay for them) and a recession unseen since the Great Depression. And somehow, people still believe we need to spend more on national security and throw our weight around via more international intervention. We as a nation and world leader obviously can't afford to revert to isolationism as it appears some readers favor. Yet as recent history shows, poorly planned intervention doesn't guarantee long-term success nor stability and can many times make a situation worse.
Our defense capability is supreme and goes unquestioned--no one fights us conventionally. But battleships, tanks and nuclear weapons do not counter terrorism or win asymmetric fights. We obviously should not lose our current capabilities or our technological advantage. But in this day and age it is absurd to argue we need an overabundance of nuclear weapons.

Of course it is far easier to blame the person in office for everything but it's just as easy for them to blame the Bush years for their share in the ever hemorrhaging US debt. This partisan dissonance is exactly what is hurting the situation now in Congress and if left unchanged will signal the sequestration ticket come Jan (no matter who is elected). Hopefully not though.

MacWell™| 10.11.12 @ 3:01AM

Well rkt, I dissagree, and here's why.
America has been blessed more than any country in history, in 1/10 the time. We have a responsibility to the world in general to make it safer every day. The way I see it, how can we, as Americans, look ourselves in the mirror when tyrants are popping up all over the world, and free men are being put down at an alarming rate. Churches being burned, people being murdered for daring to believe differently. We will never be truly free as long as we ignore evil in this world, or do nothing to stop it.

bobbymike| 10.15.12 @ 8:22PM

There is only one thing wrong with this article's premise, defense is not more expensive when measured as a percent of GDP.

Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations", well defense, as a percentage of this wealth, averaged over 7% of GDP since the end of WWII now is about 4% including current war spending.

More Articles by Jed Babbin

More Articles From Feature

Hannah and Her Friends

May 14, 2013 | Matthew Walther

Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times

April 26, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Black Sea Changes

April 25, 2013 | Matthew Omolesky

The D Team

April 12, 2013 | Matt Purple

Margaret the Magnificent

April 12, 2013 | Maurice Cranston

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/10/a-conservative-defense-agenda

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|27 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|22 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|20 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|9 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|4 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|6 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|13 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.