Don’t Let Super Committee Destroy America’s Global Safety Net
Posted on
This commentary was penned late last week, when it looked likely the Super Committee would fail in its appointed task of cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal budget. Well, it has failed. All signs are that Congress has taken the easy way out and will let this stew until after the election. Theoretically, the Defense Department now faces the prospect of mandatory and unplanned cuts of another $600 billion. Read on to learn what one influential Republican fears may happen. The editor.
Buckle up, boys and girls. Once all is said and done on the defense budget front, the United States could well be left with a military that makes our future dramatically different from our past.
After World War II, the U.S. military began acting as a check against intentional or accidental escalation that could have turned a long Cold War into an intense, history-ending hot one. With American military power protecting freedom worldwide, the pace of globalization — which had collapsed after World War I — picked up.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the levels of political violence followed a path of consistent decline. At the same time, the size of the U.S. economy skyrocketed. But now that the capability of the U.S. military to secure “freedom of the commons” (the sea, air, land and space where travel occurs) and check regional conflicts is in jeopardy, we may wind up losing the economic freedom and security that we’ve all come to assume will always be there.
Arguing that America could become a second-class military power is not hyperbole. The U.S. is a global power with global responsibilities. If America’s competitors no longer fear that the U.S. military can be a first class military power anywhere it needs to be, then America will be seen as just another second-rate power everywhere.
The House Armed Services Committee did a credible job laying out the potential reductions in forces we’d see if the automatic budget cuts called for the 2011 Budget Control Act occur. What is shocking is to translate those reductions into the potential loss of U.S. military capability. What Americans take for granted today won’t be true tomorrow.
America already has the smallest navy in its history since before World War I. True, U.S. ships today are far more capable, but the world is the same size. The additional loss of one or two carrier battle groups will further compromise the Navy’s capacity to defend the freedom of the seas.
And with the smallest and oldest Air Force in our nation’s history, the long-held assumption that the U.S. will have air supremacy in any future conflict will come into question too.
In addition, reductions in amphibious ships will leave with us with a Marine Corps force that can’t be as effectively deployed and sustained.
After 9/11, the Army spent at least $40 billion procuring the people and equipment to conduct sustained deployments without breaking the force. That investment will be thrown out the window with reductions in troop numbers and dollars for maintenance and training.
The tragedy is, these cuts won’t come close to solving Washington’s budget problem. That can only be done by getting entitlement spending under control. On the other hand, these cuts are virtually guaranteed to put into jeopardy American security and prosperity by creating new opportunities for mischief-makers all over the globe to exploit the vacuum left by the withdrawal of American military power.
There is a clear alternative — “dance with the one that brung ya.” Washington can start by not abandoning the key military capabilities that built the world we have known since World War II.
That means, first off, maintaining military forces that can ensure freedom of the commons. Second, we must retain adequate capability to deter global conflict. In the post-Cold War era, that was initially defined as the capacity to engage in two major regional conflicts-deterring war by never letting a potential enemy hope that if the U.S. were distracted by a conflict in one part of the world, we could be blind-sided in another.
Third, defend the homeland. That includes deterring and defending against strategic attack, but also having the forces to respond to catastrophic disasters here at home. Fourth, have the forces to work with and build up the capacity of friends and allies so that U.S. has dependable, capable enduring alliances.
This alternative vision is both achievable and affordable. Smart budget deals can balance the budget, not raise taxes, reign in federal spending, leave every class of Americans better off and fully fund defense.
Winston Churchill got it wrong when he said, “Americans will always do the right thing, after having exhausted all other options.” For all our foibles, missteps and mistakes, we have generally gotten grand strategy right since World War II. But rather than build on that success, will Washington now pull away the safety net and just hope it all turns out okay?
James Jay Carafano is director of the Heritage Foundation‘s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.