Moment of Truth: Missile Defense or Stopping Genocide Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Every once in awhile, those of us who follow defense issues here in Washington will catch a dreamy glimpse of pre-9/11 days in wonkdom. Back then, optimistic progressive types, though bummed by the election results, were beginning to find some hopeful ways to co-exist with the Bush Administration. One of those Hobbits-in-the-Shire flashes came to me last week when I saw that the House Democrats backed up with an official request a statement that Secretary Rumsfeld made while visiting the missile defense interceptor site in Alaska in August. He asked for an "end to end" test of missile defense. That means a comprehensive and realistic test of a limited system. 100 billion dollars into this system, the tests thus far don't approximate any realistic scenario. (you wouldn't know how much skepticism is deserved by reading, um, just about any major newspaper after a "successful test") In contrast, you would think that true shock and awe might result for the decades of accumulated failures of the single most expensive weapons program in our budget.

Back in 2000, I felt conflicted by our new Sec Def. I did not view him as a neo-con, but, rather, as a corporate conservative who would knock some heads together in the defense establishment and finally purge the most egregious Cold War leftovers. As a bona fide conservative, Rumsfeld could pry some of those gold-plated barnacles off of our defense budget and persuade the defense industry and Congress to get on with post Cold War priorities. Sadly, 9/11 derailed those possibilities.

Which is why the House Democrats throwing down the glove about realistic testing is important. As we move past the half trillion mark in defense spending, perhaps their request will begin the vital discussion about tradeoffs within the defense budget. Maybe now we can move past that old political trap of "guns versus butter" and get on with the "guns versus guns" debate. In budget item terms, this is the fight over military resources dedicated to technology versus human beings. Maybe, with counter insurgency's comeback and the recognition that all the techno gadgets in the world can't find a political solution for Iraq--the human resources issues within the military will get a boost.

This reality does not make the defense industry happy, however.

The flying sprocket lobby has a lot invested in the status quo. Last year saw $32 billion in mergers and acquisitions in the global aerospace, defense and information technology sectors. And they are moving into new markets. Monday's Washington Post included an article about the firms competing for border security contracts. The American firms--Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing-- were offering up mostly high-tech super expensive gadgets (UAVs, blimps and drones) Meanwhile, the Swedish firm Ericsson put its pitch in for human-centric relatively low tech communications system, off the shelf type personal digital assistants. Let's see who wins this one. Will it be the ones who have become experts in post Cold War peacekeeping OR the ones who are learning a devastating lesson about the limits of democracy by force?

Wouldn't it be great if one of the silver linings of our Iraq experience is to reinvest in the human resources side of defense? Certainly after all they've sacrificed, the men and women in our armed services deserve this type of support from civilian elected leaders. But there's more at stake here. Unless we put a stop to this ever-escalating belief in salvation through technology, we're not going to deal with real needed security policy changes--like the unregulated nature of ongoing military privatization and stopping the death and destruction in the Sudan. Giving up on the techno-fix means so much more than lucrative contracts for the industrial barons of the Cold War, who, at this point, are building additions on the additions of their mansions in Fairfax County. It will be an idealistic, utterly American shift to a more hopeful and better way of getting on in the world. And it will save a lot of lives.

Comments

[Lane Brody]

If the nation needs missle defense, infantry equipment, and replacing all the trucks and helicoptors that move the infantry then the nation is going to have to pay for it. It's an illusion that less on missle defense means more for new rifles. The money could just as easily go to keeping the C-17 line open which is also rather important and exactly what you need to get to Darfur.

On a political level it's probably not a good idea to tell voters that congress has decided the extremely limited missle defense system in place now is not going to be made more effective so if you live within range of North Korea you're on your own again. Telling Japan, our largest SDI partner, that we are pulling out of the joint program would have far ranging repurcussions. The AEGIS portion of missle defense is both effective, in use today, and is operated both by the USN and Japan. Missle defense is not just one particular program.

The nation is simply spoiled. After dropping down to almost 3% of GNP it seems like a lot of money to go back up to around 4% today. JFK spent around 10% and Reagan 5-6%. It's not that the Pentagon can't spend money more intelligently, this will always be the case, but how much money is in the budget. If you need new rifles, boots, trucks, and missle defense then you buy them. Not buying them today means more wear out and you need more next year. This is exactly the procurement dynamic that got the nation in trouble in the 1990's.

If one really wanted to save money in DoD then one might consider that with every service, including the USCG and SOCOM, having it's very own air force that 6 seperate air forces is inherently wastefull. Cut one. Start with the USAF.

As for Darfur the US is busy right now. If the rest of the world including the UN and Europe can't take care of this then they are useless and we should all stop pretending they matter. The only mission most Europeans seem to support is peace keeping and even then they can't agree on Darfur. If only the goverment of Sudan would agree to take a UN force instead of the African Union forces then everything would work out... Isn't the entire point that the goverment of Sudan is behind the genocide?

[Don Bacon]

The "defense" budget has gone from $300 billion to $500 billion at a time when the US is threatened by no other country. It's just another form of corporate welfare. Then, with all this military laying around, we have to use it to invade some other country "spreading freedom" (the latest justification) and further increasing corporate profits. Next will come a major expansion of the army, being pushed by Senator Clinton and others and a draft disguised under a "national service" movement at a time when we don't really need any army at all. Yes, the nation is being literally spoiled with the spiraling debt necessary to pay for all this nonsense. Ironically, the Pentagon's expensive nuclear carrier groups, missiles and attack forces are planned with a war on China in mind, the big one, and China is lending us the money to do it. As Rummy would say, goodness gracious that's really funny.

[Cal]

The nation is simply spoiled. After dropping down to almost 3% of GNP it seems like a lot of money to go back up to around 4% today. -- Lane

Why hawks use percentage of GDP as a useful measure of defense spending is beyond me. (I assume this line is put out by the defense industries to justify the price tag). No one would say we have to spend 5% of GDP on healthcare no matter what the circumstances. Healthcare spending fluctuates depending on need -- which is affected by the age of the population, urban density, technology etc. Defense spending should also be based on need, and not some percentage of abstract production.

I do agree with Lane about Darfur, however. There are humanitarian crises right now in Afghanistan and Iraq, conveniently located near our armies. If liberals think the military can prevent malnutrition and ethnic violence, we should start there.

[Lane Brody]

The US military is too small, period. Many democrats say this all the time. The army needs at least 2 more divisions.

Much of the equipment in the US military needs to be replaced. Much of it is being used ten times or more every year than is normal. Trucks, helicoptors, Bradley's, etc., are wearing out, period.

With a military lacking in proper force structure and and not having enough basic equipment for the too small force they do have to then say enough is being spent is absurd.

As a percentage of the budget or GNP or however else one would like to measure it defense spending is too low. Whatever the dollar figure the nation does not have enough trucks, planes, and ships for a force far smaller than it used to be. Indeed during the Reagan buildup 20+ years ago there were around twice as many Army divisions. To talk about absolute dollars without GNP is to talk about nothing of relative importance.

There are ways to spend money better and get more bang for our buck. The military is in desperate need of fundamental restructuring. They also need more money for trucks, planes, and ships. The nation bought almost none of these things in the 1990's.

[J Thomas]

I am not an expert in government budgeting.

Is it true that military spending is only 3% of GNP, and was 10% under Kennedy? Aren't there black projects that are kept out of the budget, or attributed to the Department of Agriculture etc?

If so, how do we guess how big the military budget is? It's secret. How do we guess how much waste and corruption there is in civilian agencies? If the numbers are contaminated then their real budgets are secret too.

I tend to think we need more military spending too, but it would be good if a lot more of it could be dual-use. Military spending is normally a total drain on the economy. The resources we use for the military -- oil, steel, wood, concrete, engineer-hours -- are used up and provide nothing toward the compound-interest growth of the economy, they are lost except to provide "protection". The more our military can use COTS technology, the better.

[Don Bacon]

Lane: Why does the army need two more divisions? Given that US military spending equals that of the rest of the world, why is it too low? Why do you compare cold war military spending to present times, when it's impossible to even pretend that the US is currently threatened by other military forces?

[Don Bacon]

As for Darfur, our military doesn't belong there. Intervening in another country's civic unrest with our characterisic "shock and awe" (i.e. killing civilians) would only exacerbate matters as it has elsewhere. Think Iraq.

I agree with this excerpt from the CAP publication Protecting Democracy: International Responses

First Chapter: The Theory of Collective Response

edited by Morton Halperin and Mirna Galic
first chapter by Charles Sampford and Margaret Palmer

Although early thinkers conceded a right of unilateral intervention in cases of gross abuses of human rights, the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states is well established under the UN Charter. While some argue for a right of intervention in the event of widespread human rights abuses, the consensus has been that even in the most egregious cases, the charter prohibits intervention without the consent of the relevant state unless the intervention is done in self-defense or the Security Council has determined that there is a threat to international peace and security. Apologists for the nonintervention norm point out that in the post-World War II international system prescribed by the UN Charter, "[w]ar is to be renounced as an instrument of national policy. Human rights are to be affirmed. But in its substantive provisions, the Charter clearly privileges peace over dignity: the threat or use of force is prohibited in Article 2(4); protection of human rights is limited to the more or less hortatory provisions of Articles 55 and 56."
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=841487

[Dan Kervick]

The US military is too small, period.

Too small for what?

As a percentage of the budget or GNP or however else one would like to measure it defense spending is too low.

Too low for what?

[Don Bacon]

Worth asking twice

[Cal]

The US military is too small, period. Many democrats say this all the time. The army needs at least 2 more divisions. -- Lane

Let's say you're right. The limiting factor here isn't necessarily the money -- it's volunteers. We've lowered standards to the minimum and we still can't find enough recruits.

I presume you would agree that a draft is politically impossible, since you think just cutting the missile defense budget is politically impossible.

Therefore, the army stays the size that it is, regardless of what the hawks of either party might think we need.

It's time to adjust our ambitions accordingly.