Silver Lining in America's Purported Decline

Recent news from Down Under shows once again why Australia should be considered an international grown-up. Responding to a study that projects American dominance to decline in the region by 2030, Australia is, shockingly, taking steps to bolster its capacity to defend itself:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Saturday: "Some have argued that in the global economic recession we should reduce defense spending to ease the pressure on the budget. But the government believes the opposite to be true. In a period of global instability Australia must invest in a strong, capable and well resourced defense force."

Imagine that. Australia had for decades been able to depend upon the US for much of its security. I don't know whether our decline or shifting priorities will indeed lead to disengagement in that corner of the world, but it makes a great deal of sense to prepare for it regardless. We see here the unfortunate side of our Cold War defense of Western Europe. It's not that we should have left them to themselves, but that we defended them so well has encouraged our allies to neglect military reality altogether.

At least our own massive spending increase will reflect the good Prime Minister's approach by including robust defense spending, right? Oh, perhaps not.

Comments

[Hunter Baker]

Yes, if I understand correctly, America controls the Pacific. In fact, if George Friedman is right, America controls the oceans of the world and international airspace and will control space. He believes our military superiority will continue through the sheer operation of the laws of geopolitics. The Australians are clearly not so sure.

[Kevin J Jones]

The American defense budget is half a trillion dollars. For comparison, Iran's is about $6 billion. Russia - Russia! - puts in $50 billion.

Military spending often becomes a form of corporate welfare. High taxes to pay for it discourage business and young families. High U.S. military spending also encourages politicians to play with the expensive toys to pad their "legacy" at the expense of people's lives in unnecessary wars.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> The American defense budget is half a trillion dollars. For comparison, Iran's is about $6 billion. Russia - Russia! - puts in $50 billion. <<<

And these are expenditures for what year? 2007? 2008?

Even if we ignore the fact that in (for example) 2007 the US, unlike Iran and Russia, was engaged in two wars half-way across the world, the difference in monies spent can also be explained by different national military stategies, treaty obligations, and international goals. I fail to see the usefulness of comparing numbers without providing a context for comparison.

>>> Military spending often becomes a form of corporate welfare.... <<<

"Military spending," by the US or other nations, can also protect the borders of one or many countries, can defend trade routes and trade between nations, and help stabilize a world situation where fairly fragile political and economic ties can be disrupted at any moment, sometimes with devastating results. One wonders how discouraged a business or small family would become if Iran decided to mine the Strait of Hormuz.

[James Kabala]

I hope this post isn't a sign that the new contributors are going to bring to Touchstone the war cheerleading that has already done such damage to the credibility of First Things.

It also seems as if the Wall Street Journal has adopted the same position on defense that the Democrats tried to put forward on Medicare back in 1995 - namely, that a slower rate of growth is equal to a "cut."

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

"War cheerleading"? Dear me, if proponents of a strong military based on this nation's historic commitments to a system of free trade and the promotion and defense of democracy (flawed and uncertain as it often has been) can be subsumed under the phrase "war cheerleading," then perhaps we should worry that "weakness cheerleading" is taking over this posting site as it has MoveOn.org, DailyKos, Democratic Underground and other outposts of the far left. But, I guess I'm not worried.

[Micah]

And the previous comment is a prime example that someone, in this case Cyranorox, thinks he/she is right, and I am mistaken, and Cyranorox can adjudicate the status of right and wrong. Cyranorox then psychoanalyzes me without explaining how he/she is exempt from the same charge by which psychoanalysis would explain how Cyranorox enjoys being right and pointing out others wrong (much as I enjoy conferring adulthood on nations!). Emotivist heal thyself.

One criteria for national "adulthood" is taking responsibility for one's own defense. Not a sufficient condition, but necessary. One can't, of course, define every underlying premise, much less in a blog post, but I would have thought that premise would have been fairly obvious.

[Judy K. Warner]

>>>America is of course a very junior nation, though a longstanding government; rich, and full of a conceit of moral authority: we are Good, and we have the muscle to prove it. <<<

Whereas it is obvious (1) that we are bad, or (2) that there is no such thing as good and bad, or (3) that no one is qualified to judge whether we are good or bad. Which is it, Cyr?

I don't have too much trouble seeing that a country which has saved Europe twice, spent much blood and treasure keeping much of the world from falling to communism, overthrew Saddam Hussein without designs on the oil in Iraq, has saved millions of lives of AIDS sufferers in Africa, and performed other unselfish and expensive deeds, is good, by motivation if not a hundred percent by results.

[LinkTheValiant]

>>>I hope this post isn't a sign that the new contributors are going to bring to Touchstone the war cheerleading that has already done such damage to the credibility of First Things.<<<

With respect, how does praising the taking of responsibility for one's own security equate to "war cheerleading"? Do we not praise young people for taking self-defense classes, learning how to be situationally aware, and taking part in anti-crime activities?

I don't see any calls for war here, merely an acceptance that IF war is to occur, it is a good thing that Australia is prepared.

[Bob]

Judy, save yourself the trouble and maybe he'll go back to calling us "wingnuts" elsewhere and then disingeuously pretending to be offended by the use of the abbreviation "libs." Will anybody miss his attempts to sound educated by peppering his posts with nonsense and thesaurus mining? Probably not.

[bonobo]

The American defense budget is half a trillion dollars. For comparison, Iran's is about $6 billion. Russia - Russia! - puts in $50 billion.

2007 Russian Federation GDP was almost exactly 10% of US GDP. $50bn x 10 = $500bn. Ergo, the US spends proportionally equal to the RF militarily.

BTW, Iran comes up light, thankfully!

[Rob G]

Note: it wasn't "Rob" that used the 'cheap shot' -- it was "Bob."

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

OK, I'll bite: Nation X conducts an unprovoked, aggressive attack on Nation Y for the purposes of territorial or economic gain. Nation Y "judges" Nation X to be an aggressor and "punishes" it to the best of its ability by resisting the attack and, if possible, arranging other circumstances so that such attacks will not recur. Given that Scripture tells us rulers are put in place by God to maintain order, protect the citizenry and punish evildoers, why is that not a totally "moral position" on Nation Y's part, assuming the objective facts are as I posited them?

Of course, we could always have the case where Nation Y receives intelligence that Nation X intends to attack it soon, and decides to take action to preempt the attack. That would be a matter of the quality of the intelligence, but would also seem a moral conclusion to reach if the data are solid. How can you say, Cyranorox, that nations never can act morally in their judgments of other nations?

[Rob G]

I have to agree with C-Rox here. Nations have no right (and no business) inflicting punishment on each other, if by punishment we mean punitive retaliation for past offenses. To do so presumes a hierarchy which doesn't exist. As far as "judging" goes, it dependes by what we mean by the word. One country certainly has the right to deem another country's actions unacceptable; the first country is thus exhibiting judgment. But the fact that Country A finds Country B's actions unacceptable does not give A the right to "judge" B in the sense of imposing some sort of sentence on it. Again, that presumes a nonexistent hierarchy.

**Nation X conducts an unprovoked, aggressive attack on Nation Y for the purposes of territorial or economic gain. Nation Y "judges" Nation X to be an aggressor and "punishes" it to the best of its ability by resisting the attack and, if possible, arranging other circumstances so that such attacks will not recur**

This doesn't seem to be punishment, but simple self-defense.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> in prospering i include conservation of forms of decency that the last administration, the neocons [a neutral word? if not i'll use another] and the Nixon cabal redivivus, apparently cannot even perceive. <<<

Since when is BASENESS a form of decency? For if former Pres. Bush, supported by Congress, had not attacked Iraq and overthrown the tyrannical and duplicitous rule of Saddam Hussein in early 2003 -- after over a year of fair warning -- I would have been convinced of my government's BASENESS.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> O benighted, you are euonymous. <<<

O Cyranorox, you should read the "Ground Rules, Revised." Again.

>>> I see that you desire to appropriate the frame of noble versus base, but you do not succeed. <<<

I merely want to point out the tendentiousness and vacuity of arguments that smear men as lacking in decency without bothering to address the history of Gulf War II. Labelling Congress, and the President and his cabinet, as indecent Neocons and likening them to a Nixon cabal isn't argument, it's slander.

>>> That war is ignoble, unjust, and foolish; decency yet resides in not firing first. <<<

Gulf War II was very much a continuation (and an attempt at resolving) Gulf War I. We're talking about a period of about 10+ years of intermittent conflict (remember Clinton's missile attack on Baghdad in '93? Hussein's firing shots over the No-Fly Zone? Operation Desert Fox back in '98?) Deciding "who fired the first shot" is an arguable point, and may even be an irrelevant one. Do you have an argument to make?

>>> It does not depend on Hussein's character, but on ours. <<<

If Hussein had stopped playing political theater before March 2003 and had allowed for the "transparency" that he agreed to in the 1991 ceasefire, instead of continuing his policy of playing games with the UNSCOM inspection teams, an invasion at that time would have been much less likely. His strategic decisions, not his character, were key.

"Our character" should be assessed by a reasoned discussion of what happened, and what led up to it, not by indulging in calumny.

[David Gray]

>That war is ignoble, unjust, and foolish; decency yet resides in not firing first.

That is an absurd untruth. US forces were regularly fired on during the cease-fire following Desert Storm. We would have been well within our rights to resume hostilities at any point following any violation, which occurred regularly.