Increase, Decrease, or Stay the Same?

I suspect that Doug Bandow’s latest piece in 1945 will cause some people’s faces to turn purple and their heads to spin. He says that defense spending should be decreased:

Washington spent the succeeding three decades with an inflated sense of power and destiny—believing the endless cant about America being the unipower, essential nation, indispensable power, and more. Yet contrary to former secretary of state Madeleine Albright’s self-serving claim that she and fellow members of the Washington Blob “see further … into the future,” they intervened foolishly yet promiscuously. They ravaged multiple nations, caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands, or even more, of others, wasted money prodigiously, about $8 trillion, on “the global war on terrorism” alone, and left destruction and poverty in their wake.

Yet the bipartisan Washington War Party continues to engage in perpetual fear-mongering, claiming that the world is more dangerous than ever for America, as if the nation had not suffered through the Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Cold War, Korean War, and World War II. In fact, the U.S. is the most secure great power ever, utterly dominating its own region and enjoying the protection of vast oceans east and west, and weak, pacific neighbors north and south.

along with this:

Change Washington’s behavior and most of its enemies would shrink if not disappear. Even before Russia’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine, Moscow posed no threat to the U.S. Russia and America had no clash of vital interests: to the contrary, Vladimir Putin once had adopted a friendly stance toward Washington, being the first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush after 9/11. In any case, Moscow lacked a truly globe-spanning military and had no means to attack the U.S. other with than nuclear weapons, which would result in its own destruction.

and this:

Which leaves China. It does not directly threaten the U.S. Beijing doesn’t plan a nuclear strike. It isn’t going to stage an amphibious invasion or burrow through the earth to launch a surprise attack. If there is going to be war with China, it will be over Washington’s determination to treat the Asia-Pacific as a U.S. sphere of interest. The American people should debate whether they believe imposing their will on that region is worth war and are willing to accept the high costs and risks of doing so, potentially forever.

In any case, the primary responsibility for defending the region should be borne by the nations located there.

I think he fails to understand the “grand strategy” that some have been quixotically pursuing for the last 30 years at least and probably going back all the way to World War II: keeping the U. S. secure by ensuring that it has the only military. Russia and China aren’t the only threats. So are our notional allies especially Germany and Japan. That they should be prepared to defend themselves flies in the face of.

Some consideration should be taken of the wargames I mentioned yesterday. One of the key findings was that Taiwan must be willing and able to defend itself for some period in the event of a Chinese attack. That’s in direct conflict with the “grand strategy” that’s dominated U. S. thinking for the last half century.

I also fail to understand the thinking of neocons and hawks. As I’ve said any number of times before U. S. military strength is downstream from U. S. economic strength and, simply stated, we can’t maintain that economic strength while buying most of what we consume from China.

I don’t know whether we should increase defense spending, decrease it, or keep it the same. I do think it should be re-oriented in directions other than its present course. Less spending for a standing army and more for a better, more resilient and durable navy and air force. But, of course, we’ll need to rebuild the stocks we’re dispatching to Ukraine. I doubt we can do that and reduce spending at the same time.