Tuesday, May 12, 2009

In Defense of Defense

In order to win the debate over funding, the pentagon must urge the president to reevaluate his duties to the state and prioritize these responsibilities, reflecting their importance in our annual budget. There are rich historical and philosophical traditions which influenced the debate and ratification of our constitution. It serves as the highest authority in the United States, and should serve as a compass in defining our government’s responsibilities as a state. The preamble gives the clearest inventory of the federal governments responsibilities.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Each of these responsibilities is contingent upon the ability of the federal government to defend itself from internal and external threats. We would not be able to guarantee the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our children should we be overcome by a foreign adversary. This includes the defense of our border, as well as the free flow of energy and assets abroad.


As one of the constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, the United States must be willing to reevaluate its spending habits. Though many take issue with the amount of money we spend on the GWOT, its budget is eclipsed by non enumerated responsibilities including social security, federal education, and housing and urban planning. If we are serious about our constitution, our congress needs to reevaluate and ultimately increase funding provided for the defense of the United States as our combatant commanders, not politicians see fit.

On a very basic level, I believe Secretary Gates has a firm grasp on the needs of the United States defense community and tackles the problems in a fiscally responsible manner. His beliefs in a strong balanced approach are consistent with the four goals of the defense community, to dissuade, deter, defend against our enemies and assure our allies. Though in my assessment his views are not perfect,though the thrust of his argument is certainly commendable.

The difficulty is that Gates must face is cabinet level peers are not playing the same game, and are vying for funding in a zero sum game. If Gates does not battle for his rightful share of the pie, the defense of our homeland may become marginalized in its funding because of Washington politics.

4 comments:

Michael May 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM  

In total, I wouldn't worry about defense spending. We are still far outspending China and Russia. What is more concerning is funding for specific programs (like BMD) that are viewed as expendable and/or even hated by many politicians. The issue isn't money, it's allocation of those dollars. Even a drastic increase in spending doesn't guarantee dollars are spent wisely.

Dcentofante May 12, 2009 at 9:02 PM  

While that is true, I also think we need to drastically restructure as well as increase the size of our army and marine corps. We are relying on the reserves and national guard FAR too much these days. These people are serving on elongated tours that they were not expecting upon signing their contract as a soldier. As you probably know - this would not be cheap.

Kagan suggests in his book "finding the target" that we should have about 200,000 troops available for whatever military endeavor we find ourselves in. I tend to agree.

I also think that our cyber command is a long time coming and that it NEEDS to have a large budget to work offensively and defensively.

Michael May 13, 2009 at 4:51 AM  

I don't disagree with anything you say above. I haven't read the Kagan book, but it seems in direct contrast with Rumsfeld's old "lilly pad" strategy. I think we are still trying to recuperate from Rumsfeld's strategy of a lighter military while simultaneously fighting 2 wars (not good).

As to the cyber command, yes, bigger is better. The Chinese are owning us and there is even evidence that terrorists and the DPRK have used cyber attacks. That's not good, especially considering how much our military (and nation) depends on electronics.

Michael July 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM  

David,

This quote:

"...its budget is eclipsed by non enumerated responsibilities including social security, federal education, and housing and urban planning."

How are these programs non enumerated, when in that same opening line of the constitution is the goal of promoting the general welfare?

Defense spending is important, and I wouldn't advocate limiting it-- but at the same time pouring money solely into the pentagon is not the "be all end all" of America's defense problems. Stronger interagency cooperation has to be created between all agencies that have a carrot and/or stick in the game... i.e., and this has been an argument for decades, more money needs to go to State for their civilian efforts. I personally feel that the DoS Office for Reconstruction and Stabilization, Civilian Response Corps could be a great tool in U.S. national security, if it got the funding and attention it needs to succeed.

The National Security System is a large and lumbering beast with many heads that attention and resources cannot be diverted from. I'd recommend you check out the work of the Project on National Security Reform (full disclosure: my employer, although I come here independently). A lot of recommendations on how the whole system should change structurally, not policy-wise, to better tackle today's myriad problems.

Take care and email me some time, it's been a while.

-Michael Drohan
michael.drohan@pnsr.org

Post a Comment

About Missouri State

Missouri State University’s Department of Defense and Strategic Studies (DSS), located in Fairfax, VA, provides professional, graduate-level education in national security policy; foreign policy; arms control; missile proliferation; international security affairs; defense policy analysis, planning and programs; and intelligence analysis.

Disclaimer

The opinions of this blog in no way reflect the faculty of Missouri State University. They are just the incessant ramblings of a few graduate students. They may or may not be currently seeking employment, girlfriends, or free goods and services.

Based on the rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution, and the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are guaranteed the privelage to freely broadcast our opinions. You may or may not be obliged to listen - or care.