-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 9:22 PM
Share
Obama's plan to cut the Department of Defense's budget request by roughly ten percent is a step in the direction of a more sensible foreign and defense policy. But as one would expect, the proposal has some neoconservatives up in arms, insisting Robert Gates be given the full budget he requested and predicting the worst if he doesn't get it. This view ignores the lessons of the past eight years and the developments of the past six months. And while they might be right that the U.S. military is over-extended, let's not forget that it was the neoconservative policies that these same pundits promoted that got us into our present fix.
Strategy is about relating means and ends. From that perspective, it doesn't make sense to spend as much as we did when the economy seemed to be healthy. Nor does it make sense to pursue the overly ambitious and misguided foreign policy that we tried (unsuccessfully) to pursue under President Bush. Given the results of those policies and our current financial plight, this stubborn defense of the budgetary status quo has a head-in-the-sand quality that would be laughable if the issues weren't so important.
A prominent example is Robert Kagan's recent warning against any attempt to cut the U.S. defense budget. He opposes any trimming even though the United States spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world put together and even though the U.S. economy is facing its biggest crisis since the Great Depression. Salon's Glenn Greenwald has already shown that Kagan's claim that the Obama administration was planning to cut actual U.S. defense spending (as opposed to the budget request) is simply bogus, and the rest of Kagan's argument is no better.
First, he declares that we should maintain the current level of defense spending in order to stimulate the economy. This argument would be more convincing if Kagan hadn't been just as big a fan of defense expenditures back when the economy was growing rapidly. In 1996, for example, in the midst of the Clinton-era economic boom, Kagan and fellow neo-con William Kristol recommended that the United States increase its defense spending by 25 percent! The pattern is clear: Kagan thinks big defense budgets are essential when the economy is in trouble, but he likes them just as much when the economy is fine. For him to invoke a Keynesian justification now is disingenuous at best.
Second, he claims that cutting defense spending will make it harder to get our allies to do more. Does he know about the theory of collective goods and the phenomenon of free-riding? Why should our European or Asian allies spend more as long as Uncle Sucker is still willing to do the heavy lifting? As long as they know we're still from Mars, they're gonna keep living on Venus. The only way to get our allies to do more is to stop trying to do it all ourselves.
Third, he suggests that defense cuts will undermine our bargaining leverage with Moscow on issues like arms reductions and missile defense. This is the old "bargaining chip" theory that we heard throughout the Cold War: we have to spend money we don't have on systems we don't need so that we can persuade the Russians to give up something they can't afford either. The reality is that missile defenses have been a quixotic waste of money for decades, and Russia will be more likely to give up more of its own aging arsenal once they aren't worried that we are building missile defenses in an attempt to gain some sort of first-strike capability.
Kagan also warns that cutting defense spending will inevitably lead the
Senate to authorize cuts in foreign aid. Depending on which aid programs got
cut, that might not be such a bad thing. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
has already
stated that investing more resources in non-military international
affairs programs would actually enhance U.S. security. Working together,
I'll bet he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make a compelling case
for the money. And a dollar saved on defense is a dollar freed up for other
purposes.
National security is obviously important, but the Department of Defense should
not be exempt from the sacrifices that we all have to make over the next few
years. I'm not talking isolationism or radical disarmament here; just the
prudent adjustment of ends and means. A country can't squander more than a trillion
dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
mismanage a lot of other aspects of its foreign policy, and then suffer a
financial meltdown without paying a price. And one of the ways we pay that
price is by scaling back our ambitions and investing the remaining resources as
prudently as we can. I'll bet that's what Kagan would do if he lost his
job and had less money to spend; he just doesn't want the country to follow the
same basic principle.
The good news is that United States is sufficiently strong and secure that we can make adjustments without placing our freedom in jeopardy. If you aren't convinced, remember that we are still the only great power in our hemisphere, we have an array of wealthy and stable allies, we have a sizeable nuclear arsenal to deter any hostile state from attacking our territory directly, and we will have the world's most powerful conventional forces for decades to come. Given that undeniable good fortune, it takes legions of full-time threat mongers to keep the American people nervous, when in fact almost any country would still be thrilled to swap places with us. And if you're still worried, comfort yourself with the knowledge that if the United States spent only half of what it currently spends on defense (that is, if it devoted roughly the same percentage of GDP to defense that the rest of NATO does), it would still be spending 3-1/2 times more than Russia, six times more than Japan, and more than twice as much as China.
As I argued a few weeks ago, there are powerful political forces that will make it hard for Obama to make major cuts in defense spending, unless the economy continues to spiral downward. (And let's hope it doesn't!) But there is also little reason to think that modest reductions would jeopardize U.S. national security.
The sooner Americans came to terms with our present circumstances and start asking the DoD to make the same financial sacrifices that households are making all over the country, the better off we going to be.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Unfortuantely, Nothing is Being Cut
The neoconservatives are just playing the game. Budget proposals are always made to be cut. The Pentagon asked for a comically monstrous increase in their draft budget request in the fall, no doubt fully expecting they won't get it all. The hawks are probably quite happy with what they actually are getting, but are squawking a bit just to lay down a debate marker, get some play on FOX, and tug on the rope in their direction a bit. Now that they are out of power, they need to make some extravagant noises to get people to pay attention.
Unfortunately, Obama is not really cutting the actual budget - which is something we really ought to do. He's increasing it by 8 freaking percent. He's just cutting the requested increase. It's actually a step in the wrong direction; just not as wrong a step in the wrong direction as the wrongest Pentagon wish listers would take.
Strategy is about relating means and ends. From that perspective, it doesn't make sense to spend as much as we did when the economy seemed to be healthy.
Have those security commitments changed that much with the recession?
Plus, I made a post like this over in response to one of David Rothkopf's posts on this issue. I think focusing on the actual budget amount is a red herring - if you want to critique how much the military costs, then attack either the strategy that demands that budget, or the means of implementing it (i.e., the equipment, procurement, etc). Attacking the actual budget number is attacking the end result.
He opposes any trimming even though the United States spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world put together and even though the U.S. economy is facing its biggest crisis since the Great Depression.
You do realize that as a percentage of GDP (which matters more than the absolute number), we're actually at a relative low point in terms of defense spending? Defense spending back in the Cold War in the Eisenhower Period was 10% of GDP, as opposed to the current 4%.
Moreover, the US number is high because we keeps the costs down for other states. The European Union numbers would be much higher if the US wasn't footing the bill for most of their security (plus the whole "being under the US nuclear shield"), and the same applies with Southeast Asia and the Middle East. We also have worldwide economic interests, like open trading routes, assets, and access to strategic resources, which demand a military capable of being active overseas, and potentially on multiple fronts at once.
But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already stated that investing more resources in non-military international affairs programs would actually enhance U.S. security.
Gates said they would help, but didn't say that they were a substitute. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that everyone is just waiting for a diplomatic solution.
we will have the world's most powerful conventional forces for decades to come.
Overall, yes - but there are weak points in our military that other countries are very close to exploiting. There has been a lot of talk about the Chinese and Russians using cyber-warfare, but the Chinese have also been heavily investing into things like submarines (to interdict naval forces in Southeast Asia, including such things as US carrier groups), and ASAT (since many aspects ranging from communication to bomb-targeting in the US military rely on the GPS Constellation and other satellites).
Plus, you can't just take that superiority for granted and fail to make the necessary investments, like replacing the aging F-16 fleets with F-22s, for example. That's the main problem I have with Gates - he seems to assume that the US should re-orient itself to become a Garrison Army with its fingers in every nation-building pie, and use nukes to ensure that the US remains ultimately secure from threats. The US homeland will remain secure from threats in that scenario, to be sure, but what about our interests and needs overseas?
And if you're still worried, comfort yourself with the knowledge that if the United States spent only half of what it currently spends on defense (that is, if it devoted roughly the same percentage of GDP to defense that the rest of NATO does), it would still be spending 3-1/2 times more than Russia, six times more than Japan, and more than twice as much as China.
One reason why the Chinese figures are so low is because a lot of their defense spending is off the books. I've heard estimates that the Chinese are actually spending from 50% to twice as much in terms of actual spending on defense than what shows up in their books, and their on-books defense spending has been going up year-after-year by something on the order of 15% at least.
But there is also little reason to think that modest reductions would jeopardize U.S. national security.
If they end up gutting force modernization so Gates can buy more unmanned Reaper Drones and infantrymen, then yes, they can.
"Then attack either the strategy that demands that budget, or the means to implement it."
Let's do both: 1.The strategy of having an over-extended empire is out-dated and doomed to fail. It creates more problems than it solves/prevents by having other countries resent our intrusion into the affairs of every corner of the Earth. Some of the allies that we choose to lavish our resources on do dreadful things to their own people or to other people and this makes more enemies for us. Plus having military bases in over 100 countries is very expensive.
2. There is a lot of waste in military spending, for example, Star Wars, no-bid contracts in Iraq for services that used to be provided by soldiers in the past for a fraction of the cost.
I think it's a lot harder to change to strategy behind the budget than it is to try to trim the budget whenever the opportunity presents itself. And yes, now that we're going broke, I think it's a good time to cut back on the Pentagon.
The comparison to Defense spending/GDP ratios in previously eras doesn't tell us much; the structure of our economy is different now, there are other entitlements or programs that citizens value, and the real question is not "what share of GDP" but rather are we spending enough, or too much?
Certainly. I was just trying to point out the flaws in what amounts to a common sound-byte among critics of defense spending. The Defense Spending/GDP ratio is only one part of that critique - my main point was that we have worldwide commitments and economic requirements that raise our military costs, and that we keep the costs down for some other states that would otherwise have to spend significantly more on defense (I'm looking at you, European Union and Japan).
I'm also annoyed when someone talks about just chopping a certain percentage of Defense's funding, as if Defense was simply a piece of cheese that would simply be a smaller version of itself if you cut part of it off. It doesn't work that way - if you cut, say, 20% of Defense funding, then procurement suffers, or modernization gets put off, or lots of soldiers get cut loose - or all of the above. The effectiveness of your military suffers, and you end up spending more later on when faced with a military challenge because the fundamental strategy hasn't been changed.
Absolutely correct -- defense money is not fungible.
But the problem is how to force the defense establishment into a wholesale rethink. The problem, in your terms, is that the cheese is moldy.
I am confident that the Pentagon has smart, imaginative people who will rise to the challenge. In general, though, it is rare that individuals rise to meet low expectations.
With all due respect, percentage-based defense allocations make little sense. Historically, the scary thing is how cheaply Germany rebuilt its conventional capabilities in the 1920s and 1930s -- and the patterns of French and British spending are instructive.
The resort to percentage based arguments is a symptom of intellectual drift in defense planning -- defense spending is becoming an entitlement program rather than a response to threat.
A failure to tame the beast ensures that decision making becomes more hidebound and irrelevant to present conditions -- the more defense spending is a response to constituencies and economic stimulus, the less likely we are to be able to respond to our 'peer' competitors efforts to shift the playing field and get better bang for their...ruble?/barrel?... by building asymmetric capabilities.
Meanwhile, we're in the trap of thinking we can maintain conventional capability by buying better of the same: it's kind of the equivalent of buying REALLY GOOD horses for our cavalry in 1910, or REALLY REALLY GOOD fortifications in 1935.
Granted, cuts in defense spending are likely to impact the most important programs first -- e.g. training... etc. But perhaps this is the same mentality that starved the French line divisions in favor of the Maginot project: trucks, AT guns, and rickety tanks were far less sexy, and poorer economic stimulus, than high-tech fortifications.
the only realistic point on this is
The only way to get our allies to do more is to stop trying to do it all ourselves.
the rest is wishfull talk, but then I wouldn't trust those allies given the concept of "state" according to the SATFP;->
Why would you Stephen? While you can't even trust to your own people under the given Constitution to let them do more by stop trying to do it all by mono-hand ?
Grand Sen~or
Note: I have added another axiom (A.14) to the SATFP to clarify the concept of "state":
The Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP). (Updated 2/5/09)
1. There exist states.
2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).
3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.
4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.
13. A States can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision.
14. A State to keep her Internal Balance of Threat, National Interest and National Unity, centralizes all National Power including making and implementing laws on herself and does not share it with any Identifiable National Entity(ies). A state is by definition paranoid of her Identifiable National Entities (INE).
15. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).
End of axioms of the SATFP.
We are lacking in fiscal sanity. As Dan mentioned above, this isn't really a spending cut. Our solution to our huge debt is to borrow more, and this makes no sense. We're not too far from the bill coming due, and then we're really going to have to cut.
Prof. Walt's senseof humour...
Prof. Walt when you count down;->
The good news is that United States is sufficiently strong and secure that we can make adjustments without placing our freedom in jeopardy. If you aren't convinced, remember that we are still the only great power in our hemisphere, we have an array of wealthy and stable allies, we have a sizeable nuclear arsenal to deter any hostile state from attacking our territory directly, and we will have the world's most powerful conventional forces for decades to come. Given that undeniable good fortune, it takes legions of full-time threat mongers to keep the American people nervous, when in fact almost any country would still be thrilled to swap places with us. And if you're still worried, comfort yourself with the knowledge that if the United States spent only half of what it currently spends on defense (that is, if it devoted roughly the same percentage of GDP to defense that the rest of NATO does), it would still be spending 3-1/2 times more than Russia, six times more than Japan, and more than twice as much as China.
a lot of people don't understand your sense of humour Mate;->>
Grand Sen~or
Posts disappearing, what is the deal?
SW, I've had two posts disappear. Was that on purpose?
If so, why?
Chris Kelly has an interesting post on Huffpo re: the F-22.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164148.html
An awful lot of money going to 'preserving freedom' by advertising just how many jobs the Raptor will provide.
It's as if we were trying to cut social security.
More cost-effecient to cut out the war-planning brains
Neither 9/11* nor the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened without the Israel Lobby, and the two wars alone have cost more than 1 trillion dollars. So one of the most cost-efficient things The United States of America could to, would be to cut back the influence of this Lobby, and it may be a lot more straightforward than dealing with the military-industrial complex. If you cut away some of those brains occupying themselves with taking out Israels foes one by one, the risc that wars will occur in the future would be significant diminished, and the prospect of performing cuts in the defense budget one sunny day, would subsequently be much greater.
_____
*) The primary motivation factor behind the attack was US support for Israels colonisation of Palestinian land. The secondary was U.S. troops continued stay on holy Saudi soil after the first Gulf War ended in 1991, despite promises given to King Fahd before the war, that they would be withdrawn after Saddam had been driven from Kuwait, as was the stated war-aim that all in this recordbreaking coalition had agreed on. The man who actively lobbyed for their continued stay, was the super-lobbyist and later US ambassador to Israel, Mr. Martin Indyk. The reason why the lobby wanted the troops to stay was that they should be ready to 'finish the business in Iraq' (ie. the overthrow of Saddam) should the opportunity arise, which it did on 9/11
Stephen, I agree with you that the message you have deleted was partly off topic and un-necessarily personal and I am sure your action was consistent with FP's policies.But, I think it would be more productive to let the Blog to develop the language they use here in such a way that they own the FP policies as much as you do. I know this will be painful like a child learning language but once it masters it excels all other creatures. We have to learn to communicate to make ourselves clearly understood and understand before we fight what we are going to fight for. Otherwise we would be killing each other senselessly, we wouldn't know why we get killed and what we and our adversaries are fighting for.
So, I suggest patience and let us nothing to disappear;-)
Those messages been disappeared from this blog doesn't stop them to appear in another blog anyway;-)
Of course I am telling all that assuming this blog is your blog as much as other bloggers who give their valuable time to it.
Thank you for your patience.
Grand Sen~or
Note : According to my observations, you post messages here to create a brain-storm without much interaction with the bloggers. That causes a lot of un-aswered questions get accumulated and carried over to the new sessions. Maybe eventually the Bloggers will learn that each session is a game by itself which you don't need to interact with the brain-stormers and there is no point repeating the same questions which were not responded, because they will still stay un-responded. They are un-rsponded by choice, not by negligence or being not understood or you don't have time to respond, so most probably they will stay un-responded, no matter how many times they will be repeated.
You see it is not that easy to learn the rules of the game here unless you further clarify them or patiently wait and see how it goes;-) I am not talking about may questions here, because most of my postings and questions posted here not because I beg a response or answer but just as a move,an action in the game;-) I like it like that..you see how I am trying to make myself clearly understood:-)
Maybe the Bloggers get frustrated because they can't hear such clarifications from you then they have to learn it the hard way.
Kagan's Op-Ed was pretty much debunked as soon as it went out. It's just sad that it generates such misconceptions revolving around the Obama Administration. Our Senior Fellow Bernard Finel also took apart Kagan's Op-Ed on our blog: http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/bernard-finel/2009/02/03/defense-budget-follies/
It's also interesting to see America's defense spending compared to the rest of the world. http://www.americansecurityproject.org/theflashpointblog/jim-ludes/2009/02/03/defense-spending-parsing-the-numbers/
I would like to hear Mr. Walt 's assesment as to who's behind
-the missile defense-shield in Europe.
My line of argument have for a long time been as follows: The gentlemen Mearsheimer & Walt choose the title: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", not "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Mid East Policy, as perhaps could be expected. This seems to imply that the Lobby have control not just of Mid East policies, but other policies as well. Obviously, in every aspect where Iran is involved, you would be naiveto think that they don't have a hand in it as well.
Now let me tell you about Russias feelings about having the very area they cleared for Nazis in 1943-45, and the very same area that they willingly ceased around 1990, following negociations based on trust between Shevardnaza and James Baker (also a realist and one of my favourites) fitted with missiles and radar-stations. They don't like it one bit! And it played a part in the crisis over Georgia last summer, you can be sure of it. But there are signs that the Obama administartion has initiated a much more constructive approach.*
The motives for The Israel Lobby seems obvious: They would just love the rest of the world to share Israels, a country with an inhabitable surface-area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil county in Maryland, strategic concerns. And they don't have much regard for Putins Russia. Afterall it was Putin who restricted the Oligarchs piling of wealth for themselves, while the majority ogf russians were living on the bare minimum. In fact that was why he was elected: To deal with this injustice. (sidenote: In boomtime years in The Unites States Vanderbuilt and others could get away with it, since this was a new land, and there was enough for anyone. Russia is older, and with its communist past where wealth were distributed more fairly, there obvious is not the same understanding of individuals piling excessive amiounts of money for themselves).
And the conection to the Israel Lobby and the oligarchs is of course the fact that the majority of the oligarchs share the same etnicity as the members of the Israel lobby.
______________________________________
*) Documentation
BBC NEWS 28. januar 2009
Russia ‘halts missile deployment’
“Russia’s military has announced it will halt its plans to deploy short-range missiles in its Baltic enclave Kaliningrad, Interfax news agency says.
A Russian military official said a change in US attitude had prompted the latest decision, Interfax reports.
The US envoy to Nato, Kurt Volker, said that if true, the suspension would be a “very positive step”, the Reuters news agency reported.
Russia had said the US missile shield plan in Europe was a direct threat.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7855216.stm
I disagree with the implication in this comment
But the shield is only directed against Israel greatest strategic foe. Looking at a map - or rather a globe - will tell you that missiles from North Korea simply will not have a trajectory that takes them over Poland. What is more, North Korea now is in a process to halt its nuclear programme, making the shield even more irrelevant, but I believe that the notion of NK in this context was only included in order to remove attention from real purpose: A shield against Iranian missiles that would help to galvanise european and others opinions, and synconise them with Israeli fears of the same.
In short, Israel strategic goal is to get as many as possible to share its strategic goals. And if Europeans fear Irans missiles, that would help to push for policies that aims to more aggressively deal with Irans nuclear program.
________
In James Bakers day - he who negociated the Russian troop withdrawal from East Germany in what has been decribed as probably the first time in history that a Great Power ceased territory voluntarily, without one single shot being fired - no one would of course had the nerve to offend the Russians in this way. James Baker, Scowcroft and you are realists - the ones that have planned for a missile defense shield in Poland are neo-conservatives, with affiliations to the Israel Lobby.
So while I understand why you feel compelled to distance yourself from it, it does not seem to me as such a far flung idea, to suggest that the neo-conservatives who have planned the shield are at the same time working in Israels interests.
Prof. Walt the further question to be asked here is:
Obviously IL is in interactions with the elements/structures within the State.
What is the nature of those structures which eventually, magically and consistently turn some of IL policy suggestions into the State policy?
Grand Sen~or
Kenneth says:
And the conection to the Israel Lobby and the oligarchs is of course the fact that the majority of the oligarchs share the same etnicity as the members of the Israel lobby.
SW - Can we be direct here and not talk around the point? These conspiracy theories are in fact anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
You remove other off-topic posts (ironically, at the complaint of this very commenter), but let his off-topic anti-Semitic rant stand.
Why is this tolerated here?
Edit: To be clear, I am not saying you should delete the post. I am wondering if you even noticed this and, if so, why did you leave it unmentioned.
1. Much of China's defense budget is not reported.
2. The US spends more on soldiers than anyone else. They enjoy better than any other soldiers in the world. Is this a good thing sure. But the US probably spends 20x as much on each soldier as China does . Are US soldiers better than Chinese soldiers - probably. Are they 20x better?
3.US items cost more.
A F -22 costs more than the best Soviet Mig.
Is it better? Sure. That much better? No.
But it is more than that a boot made in the US costs more than a boot made in Russia. A uniform made in the US costs more than a uniform made in Russia or China. US labor and production costs are much more expensive than those in China or Russia.
3.Last what is the object of the US military? I would say it is to win. Less power means military engagments are more costly and more important less power less effective deterence.
*REAL WORLD EXAMPLE.********
South Korea spends 3x as much on its military as does North Korea. But South Korea isn't 3x times as powerful as North Korea. North Korea still has the power to do a lot of damage to South Korea.
Explain if you can.
But the shield is only directed against Israel greatest strategic foe.
Not necessarily. Although it is set up in a way to help defend against potential Iranian missiles working their way into Europe (and has a small enough set of missiles so that that is all it would really be good for at this time), once you get the basic system in place, you could (as the Russians suspect) scale it up into an ABM system that could be used against Russian missiles.
Of course, don't fall into the trap of thinking that Russia is solely a poor, distrusted victim here with regards to the shield. While having it next door probably pisses them off, they would be bitching about having a missile shield provided by the US covering Europe even if it was located in Western Europe, far from their borders. ABM in general is contrary to their interests, since they over-invested in new ICBMs back in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and the increasing viability of ABM technology and usage (being looked at, by the way, not only the US but European countries, Israel, China, Japan, and even Singapore) will mean that they've effectively wasted billions in defense spending, and will have to spend billions more to develop the other methods of nuclear strikes (i.e. building up a bomber fleet and rebuilding their dilapidated SSBN fleet). Because of that, they're doing everything in their power to slow down the spread of ABM, particularly next door.
What is more, North Korea now is in a process to halt its nuclear programme,
They've supposedly been in that process for the past 10 years, and have generally broken every promise with regards to that issue even while receiving lots of food and funding aid. They tested a not-particularly-good nuke back in 2006, and just recently claimed to have a pile of weaponized uranium ready to be made into bombs.
This, by the way, is part of the reason why several of the Southeast Asian states are looking into ABM.
James Baker, Scowcroft and you are realists - the ones that have planned for a missile defense shield in Poland are neo-conservatives, with affiliations to the Israel Lobby.
What about SecDef Gates, who is also a strong supporter of the Missile Defense in Europe and ABM in general (as well as replacing the US's decaying warheads with new, more modern ones)? He's hardly what I'd call a neo-conservative.
Are US soldiers better than Chinese soldiers - probably. Are they 20x better?
They're certainly much more effective, not the least of which is because of things like the lack of complete mechanization in the PLA (most of their divisions are still light infantry divisions without integration into combined-arms groups and without mechanization or motorization), limited equipment and production capabilities in China supporting the PLA, limited infrastructure to support the military in a manner like the US supports its military, and limited experience with the above (combined-arms group, mechanized divisions, etc).
In terms of ground forces (never mind the naval forces),it's probably a bigger gap than it was back in the Korean War, since while the US had the advantage of better tanks and planes, we didn't have things like computers or real military electronics other than radar and radio, and we had no real "smart weapons" or precision bombing like we do now. The Chinese air force may be a different matter; they have a lot of planes, even if a lot of them are old.
South Korea spends 3x as much on its military as does North Korea. But South Korea isn't 3x times as powerful as North Korea. North Korea still has the power to do a lot of damage to South Korea.
Probably because the Norks, while not funded as well as the the South Korean military, are militarized to a much greater degree (meaning their army is significantly larger than the South Korean military), and they have a ton of equipment (albeit old and outdated in most cases), particularly nasty things like artillery in position to shell Seoul.
Thanks for the reply, Brett - which I saw today for the first time. I would recommend that you use the 'Reply' button directly under the post you are replying to. If you do that, then there is a greater chance that a fruitfull discussion could take off, whereas mixing replies to different posts into one single, stiffles discussion and reduces the chance that anyone would re-reply.
But your replies are high-quality ones, that only can be a boon to any discussion-site, but in my view you need to post them in the right places. For overall lay-out considerations and not least for the benefice of any new visitors wishing an overview of the discussion, it must be the best way to actually use the appropriate buttons that are yhere for the same opurpose.
Secretary Gates statements reveal an understanding of the desire of some for expensive systems at the expense of other requirements. The cry's of spending reductions are coming from Defense Contractors looking to Defend their financial interest in R&D a more profitable endeavor than producing and supplying anything.
Secretary Gates has astutely questioned the need to continue the FY22, FCS and advanced vessels for the Navy at the expense of more urgent near an mid-term needs. Many of the future weapons now funded are more concepts than mature designs, that no contractor would sign a contract to produce at a price for any real schedule. If DoD said it would freeze the design with no changes, and ask the contractor for a firm production schedule and price they would balk.
Those who are yelling about reductions are uniformed about the lack of maturity of many of these so called systems that are more of an idea and dream rather than items that can be produced in the next 10 years, forget our ability to afford them.
Many of the future weapons now funded are more concepts than mature designs, that no contractor would sign a contract to produce at a price for any real schedule.
Except that they are doing exactly that, today, in the case of the F-22. Hell, the F-22 is completely ready for production, and the first batch of them have been made. Making a lot more of them is simply a matter of re-tooling the production line to make more, and having all the necessary components. My personal view is that we should make an order of 600-700 of them, take advantage of the lower unit prices, and start phasing out the F-15s and F-16s. We can mix them up with the F-35s when those are finally ready (by the way, the F-35 is still in the design process, yet Gates is keeping that in its present order quantity).
Future Combat Systems is another matter. It has been slowly strangling itself for the past year or so, and I suspect that it will ultimately die, with some of its better ideas being absorbed into other modernization programs. That's what you get when you try to create a modernization program without a specific need in mind(in the F-22's case, it was the need to replace the F-16s and F-15s).
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(28)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE