| By U.S. Representative James Barcia
1998Without question, America is the most powerful nation on the planet. In accordance with this position, Americans enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than any other citizenry in the world. However, often lost in our social and economic debate is that which enabled the United States to become the economic, and political superpower it is today - a strong military presence.As many nations in Europe can attest (Sweden is probably the best example), simply maintaining a robust economy does not influence global decision making. Moreover. advances in technology have now afforded influence to smaller nations, whereby mere size was once the determinant for global clout. As best demonstrated by the United States, the third, and most important elementestablishing economic and political leadership is an advanced, wall trained military.How else could our relatively small nation become the most powerful on earth. Had we not the military presence to back up an aggressive economic and political agenda, would the United States have had the ability effectively dictate global policy? Of course riot. Americans have a right to bold, effective leadership from their, government. With the Cold War over, there is increasing debate centered on our military, and whether or not proportional reductions should be made to the "perceived- threat. Make no mistake, this is not a debate on the utility of our national forces - this is an economic debate.Simply put, many people question whether the dollars spent on our armed forces would see a greater return should those dollars be spent on social programs. As such, decreasing federal budgets are forcing a perverse competition for these scarce dollars. However, every day we Americans enjoy in peace is not a day we have overspent on defense. On the contrary, it is because we have established such a formidable defense that we may enjoy the present peace.The Quadrennial Defense Review recently concluded stated that while our military should maintain its highly visible presence abroad, the defense budget would be capped at $250 Billion for the foreseeable future. Simply cutting defense budgets to ostensibly satisfy an increased demand for social spending is naive at best, and every one of the 120,000 GIs out in the current QDR does not, and will never translate into 120,000 people receiving better health care, retirement, housing, etc.The United States armed forces must be judged by the complexity and extent of its mission - something not taken into account by the latest QDR. In competing for federal dollars, military commanders are having to make decisions that pit unit readiness, funding modernization shortfalls, and addressing quality of life issues against each other. This crisis-management approach to readiness is not only short sighted, but risks the long term viability of our all-volunteer force.In contrast to the QDR, the Chairman of the House National Security Committee, Floyd Spence, released Military Readiness 1997: Rhetoric and Reality . This report noted that the declining defense budgets, smaller force structures, fewer personnel, and aging equipment, taken in the context of an increased pace of operations, are stretching U.S. military forces to the breaking point.Clear in both the QDR and Spence report is the need to make the price of military support affordable to the taxpayer, while maintaining our position as a superpower. Given that national defense does not, in reality, compete for the same dollars as entitlements or discretionary spending, there are two ways this can be accomplished; 1. maintain the supply while reducing the demand for American military presence, or 2. increase the supply to meet the current demand for our military abroad.What makes this dilemma so difficult is the role America, as an undisputed superpower, must play in developing an effective foreign policy. Altruism aside, the decision to deploy peacetime troops is soley motivated by the need to protect our Increasingly political and economic interests abroad. Reducing the supply increases the strain on troops and equipment, and in turn, jeopardizes the quality of the mission. Further, decreasing our presence abroad does not necessarily reduce the demand for military influence, it decreases the demand for United States military influence - a demand surely to be met by nations with similar political and economic interests.Could it not be reasonably inferred that if every dollar spent on military strength is a dollar not spent on domestic problems, every dollar taken from our national defense is a dollar lost in political capital or economic agreements? This is not to assume, however, military size is proportional to trade balances - just look at our relationship with Japan. Yet it is interesting to note the proportion of military might to the value of the commodity. While America is unlikely to deploy troops in support of simple trade positions, the Gulf War demonstrated both the political and economic value of energy. What would have happened had the United States chose not to meet the demand, or lacked sufficient supplies to meet the demand for military action?Ultimately, the economics of today's military readiness debate do not serve our long term interests abroad. Maintaining present demand with declining resources has a negative impact on any endeavor - especially military activities. A recent General Accounting Office report on units undergoing continuous deployments illustrated the strain on our troops, citing increased divorce rates and decreased retention. Further, GAO concluded that 30 per cent of these units were not combat ready.
As we enter the next millennium, it is important to recognize the economic and political impact a strong military provides, and the fallacy of stretching dollars between military and social ends.
|
