-
Obama’s Drone War
May 23, 2013 | 16 comments
-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
Feature
A Conservative Defense Agenda
Reconciling great power responsibilities with economic stagnation.
(Page 2 of 4)
Although there is no guarantee when and if it will do so, we should assume that our economy will recover at some rate. It may take a decade or more to return to a pre-Obama level of prosperity and growth. What, then, shall we do in this period of transition to ensure our nation’s security?
National security is the product of a wide variety of economic, military, diplomatic, and industrial variables. There’s no mathematical formula to compute it, because those variables change constantly. Think of it as a bubbling pot of chemicals that is kept unstable by the constant addition and subtraction of ingredients by us, our allies, and our adversaries.
The Obama Doctrine
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NATIONAL SECURITY doctrine is stated in terms that are almost Churchillian, but it is executed in ways that are at odds with facts, U.S. interests, and what had been American principles.
The president’s defining moment occurred in June 2009 when the Honduran supreme court ordered the removal of President Jose Manuel Zelaya for violating the Honduran constitution by trying to stay in power past his elected term. Obama didn’t stand with freedom-loving Hondurans and for American principle. Instead, he sided with Cuban President Raul Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, condemning the “coup.”
Obama pushed through Senate confirmation the New START arms control treaty with Russia, which is highly disadvantageous to the U.S. While agreeing to cut our nuclear force, Obama conceded an “interrelationship” between missile defense and strategic arms reduction—a stance the Russians had sought from us since Reagan announced his plan for missile defense decades ago.
Having said the United States has too many nuclear weapons, Obama is now rapidly cutting our nuclear capability. McKeon says it is a major concern to him that our nuclear force is being reduced to the point that it will be too small to accomplish its missions of deterrence and defense. Obama canceled the ground-based missile defense system President Bush promised Poland, and he replaced it with a theoretical sea-based force that the Navy has neither sufficient ships nor missiles to provide.
Throughout Obama’s tenure, American diplomacy has been defined by compromising our interests to other nations’ ambitions. Prime examples are the misbegotten “Law of the Sea Treaty” (which Senate Republicans are confident they can block this year) and the new UN small arms treaty that would erode Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
After his first defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that America had no national security interest in Libya, Obama nevertheless chose to join in the French-British military intervention that helped overthrow Gaddafi.
He has presided over a build-down of our defense capabilities,
imposed by cutting budgets and cancelling investment in future
weapon systems, which has resulted in the smallest navy in a
century and the smallest air force since the Air Force was created.
It’s not a simple question of spending. Obama’s choices, propelled
by his two defense secretaries and his CIA directors, are reducing
our military and intelligence capabilities without regard to the
threats we face.
Obama and his congressional cohorts insisted that the 2011 debt ceiling deal threaten “sequestration”—a statutorily imposed decade-long reduction of defense spending authority—in the event that the so-called “supercommittee” could not agree on a comprehensive debt reduction plan. Because Obama insisted that any larger deal include massive tax hikes, the supercommittee failed. Starting in January, unless Congress changes the law, $600 billion in defense spending will be “sequestered” over the next 10 years, in addition to the over $400 billion in cuts Obama already orchestrated.
Before being muzzled by his political bosses, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said that the sequestration budget cuts could cause the U.S. to lose its status as a global power. Obama has repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation to relieve the Pentagon of those massive cuts. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta claims the Pentagon is unable to plan for the cuts: The legislation requires an across-the-board reduction that would result in breached contracts and canceled weapon systems. Sequestration doesn’t differentiate between reducing fat and cutting muscle.
Buck McKeon told me he sees nothing that will prevent sequestration, which will hollow out our military and be “just devastating.”
Despite these dangers, Obama announced a new global military strategy that appears sound on its face, but that is divorced from reality by the budget cuts he has already imposed and worsened by the future cuts he supports. In the introduction to the Defense Department’s January 2012 white paper entitled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” Obama wrote, “As we end today’s wars and reshape our Armed Forces, we will ensure that our military is agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies.” The paper’s strategic guidance promises growing strength in the Pacific region, investment in Future technologies, and emphasis on primary missions that range from countering terrorism and projecting power to improving capabilities in cyberwar and space. But these goals are directly contradicted by sequestration and the president’s refusal to pay for them. Obama’s defense strategy is a concatenation of false promises.
A Conservative Defense Strategy for the Next Decade
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) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/10/a-conservative-defense-agenda
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
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.