Despite Eisenhower's warning, the military-industrial complex consumes a substantial chunk of America's money every year.  According to some reports , "The United States remains the global leader in defense spending, surpassing the next closest country by more than eight times."  If we were at war with the next closest country, this type of spending might make more sense; however, the Department of Defense's budget seeks money for provisions established over 60 years ago in some cases.  For example, a U.S. military base in Okinawa housing 15,000 troops has been brought up as a possible area for reducing spending. 

Congressman Frank suggests , "We don't need 15,000 marines in Okinawa – they're a hangover from a war that ended 65 years ago. And Japan now ought to be able to defend itself.  No one thinks you're going to land 15,000 Marines on the Chinese mainland to confront millions of Chinese military."  Barney Frank also sees room for military spending cuts in Europe when he said, "NATO was a great accomplishment 61 years ago, I don't see why we need troops...in Germany [or] why we need troops in Italy."



You might experience a knee jerk resulting from the suggestion that the military's portion of the U.S. budget is too large, but fight the urge.  Just ask yourself, is it honestly possible to be fiscally conservative while pretending military costs are not a realistic impact on our budget?  How is it possible increased military spending doesn't increase the size of government?  The military is run by the government after all.  How is it possible that government involvement is bad, yet the military is a model of efficiency?  How is it possible we will make our own citizens suffer so someone in Europe can have better health care and more vacation days since their government didn't need to invest as much into their own security? 

This is the crux of Congressman Frank's argument.  He's suggesting we can cut military spending, without affecting the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and still maintain a strong posture internationally.  As Mr. Frank puts it , "The notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good."

In a letter sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Senator Ron Wyden, Congressmen Walter Jones, Ron Paul and Barney Frank have pledged "to oppose any proposal that fails to" reduce military spending as a means of reducing the overall budget deficit.  In their letter, they argue the U.S. is currently borrowing money overseas in order to provide security to foreign countries overseas only to then pay interest overseas for the borrowed money we used to protect "our" overseas interests.  The letter goes on to state that in the current economic climate America cannot afford to keep doing this for all of the areas to which we are committed.  Nowhere in the letter, or in any presentation I've heard, is there talk of reducing spending in Afghanistan or Iraq.  There is no talk of pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq.  Some key points made in this letter  include:

• the U.S. has 460 military installations in 38 countries overseas, not including Afghanistan or Iraq;
• closing 200 bases would save us $12 billion;
• and the U.S. taxpayers pay for approximately 44% of all defense expenditures in the world.

Having convened a group of military experts called the Sustainable Defense Task Force, these experts have been tasked with the mission to identify military spending cuts which would not make the U.S. unsafe.  Congressman Frank reports, "The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged"

CSPAN presentation  by the Sustainable Defense Task Force (including Q & A)




The Sustainable Defense Task Force's detailed report  is entitled "Debt, Deficits & Defense: A Way Forward."  The views of this task force do not appear to be too far from views held by high ranking U.S. military officials.  "In a recent speech  to the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space Exposition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates...[said]...Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined...[and]...overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners."

It is a sizable report which requires a substantial time commitment to read; however, it might make a good companion reader for the Department of Defense's FY2011 Budget Summary .  The DoD's budget summary has twice as many pages as "Debt, Deficits & Defense..."  The DoD's report is, at the very least, a must skim.  Take for instance the following quote:

"As a global power, the strength and influence of the United States is deeply intertwined with the fate of the broader international system.  In this century as in the last, the United States has strived to protect our people, promote stability in key regions, provide assistance to nations in need, and promote the common good." (page 2-1)

As a global power, strength and influence are essential.  When the world is viewed from Conan the Barbarian's perspective there is nothing more glorious than getting power and holding onto power.  When the Department of Defense report says the U.S.'s fate is intertwined in the international system, there is a sense there that the United States is no longer being considered just a country with borders.  "Our people" in this scenario could be anyone across the world.  This is not a philosophical debate either.  This is the U.S. Department of Defense laying down its spending philosophy for fiscal year 2011.  "Our people" is the U.S. Department of Defense's way of justifying a ton of cash being used making commitments to wave upon wave of foreigners.  Not only will we in general protect them, but we will also promote their common good.  If it hasn't been said clearly enough yet, take the following quote for example.  The DoD report also says "America’s interests are inextricably linked to the integrity and resilience of the international system. Chief among these interests are security, prosperity, broad respect for universal values, and an international order that promotes cooperative action." (p 2-2)

It is critical to keep in mind, the Department of Defense is a Department of War.  It is the department responsible for managing artillery and nuclear weapons.  Their budget summary makes it sound like they're a Department of Diplomacy though.  And maybe they are our government's diplomacy since we give them so much money every year and engaging with others seems to be a primary occupation for them.  According to the budget summary, "The distribution of global political, economic, and military power is becoming more diffuse.  The rise of China, the world’s most populous country, and India, the world’s largest democracy, will continue to shape an international system that is no longer easily defined— one in which the United States will remain the most powerful actor but must increasingly rely on key allies and partners if it is to sustain stability and peace." (p 2-1)

If we look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as diplomatic calculations directed toward China and India, American hospitality appears to be well on its way in the Asian continent.  It would be foolish to assume the Department of Defense simply plans one year ahead as it would equally be foolish to think they would come right out and discuss their future intentions publically.  Entering a new phase of engagement with "the world's most populous country" and "the world's largest democracy" is a tremendous opportunity of great importance to the United States of America.  It's at times like these we should stop and reflect on a few questions.

Is it wise to be aggressive or hospitable toward the world's most populous country? 
Should we extend our hand to the world's largest democracy and offer extensive partnering opportunities? 

We could reflect upon these questions or we could reflect on diplomacy like moves in a Risk board game.  We begin to move our pieces on the Risk board for reasons.  One country at a time, we move to where we eventually want to be or we get extinguished along the way- that is the Way of Risk.  We amass armies in the countries from which we will strike.  We might try to be sly, slowly increasing troop levels somewhere to distract from another area on the board.  Deceit is the Way of Risk.  Looking at an Asian map like a game of Risk, a sweep of Iran looks like the next logical step if Iraq and Afghanistan can ever be conquered.

It's nothing personal Iran really!  It's just the Way of Risk.

The United States of America, historically, hasn't had a large presence on the Asian continent.  Since the 1990's, at least, the U.S. presence on the Asian continent has somewhat proliferated on the west side of Asia.  If Iraq and Afghanistan could be conquered, Iran and Pakistan are all that stand between US and China/India.  If only we could secure Iraq and Afghanistan, then we have only to worry about Saudi Arabia turning on us.  We might have to take them over too, but again, it really is not personal.  It is just good strategy, but that's all low priority stuff right now though.  It's easier to conquer in the game of Risk because insurgents don't exist.  Showing no concern for the populace is the Way of Risk.  Promoting "the common good" doesn't exist because the interests of the populace don't exist. 

That is the Way of Risk!

Eisenhower was probably right; therefore, this task force will probably be downplayed by corporate media.  It is not in their interest to see profits fall in their investment portfolios.  It is in every Americans interest though, to see military spending and strategy critically reevaluated.  Would you take a lesser retirement check as opposed to seeing 15,000 American Marines return home from Okinawa?  I mean it's a beautiful place to get stationed, but then so is home.  Cuts in Social Security will be suggested loudly before we hear anything about removing U.S. forces from Italy or Germany.  And as long as this is allowed to continue, new bombs designed to melt everything but the fillings in their teeth will receive taxpayer funding while our education budgets decrease across the nation.

Where are my followers of Christ on this one?