Subscribe to ePluribus Media



ePluribus Media Store


Want Headlines via Email?
Enter your email address:


Help Save 1.800.SUICIDE


Wars and Empires

by rcs1

a column by Jeff Huber
for ePluribus Media

America's warfare-centric approach to foreign policy is turning us into a one-trick superpower, and the trick is losing its magic.

Since the early 20th century, war has proved to be a progressively counterproductive means of achieving America's national aims. Granted, some of our modern wars produced good things. Some were unavoidable. Many were noble. But without exception, they also produced unintended and unfavorable results.

Termination of World War I, "The War to End All Wars," laid the foundations of World War II. "The Good War" led to the decades-long Cold War and the third-world proxy wars that accompanied it. More than 50 years ago, we fought North Korea to a tie. Today, though North Korea can barely feed its own people, it still manages to give us security fits. And our 2004 presidential election showed that America still suffers from the aftershocks of Vietnam.


commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!
Like our other modern wars, the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has produced some good things, most notably the ousting of Saddam Hussein from power. But one is hard-pressed to argue that the good has outweighed the bad.

Whatever Brave New Math the National Counterterrorism Center is using to measure global terrorism these days, it's clearly on an uptick. Iraq has become the international center for terrorist recruiting and training, and its progress at establishing a constitutional government has been, to put it kindly, less than confidence-inspiring.

Afghanistan, the "crown jewel" in the GWOT, is once again a haven for the Taliban and has turned into a narco-state, hence a major source of terror funding.

The "democratic domino effect" on the rest of the Middle East has transformed terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas into legitimate, popularly elected political parties.

And the tallest Arab ever wanted dead or alive by a president of the United States is still at large. If that's winning the war on terror, I'm glad we're not losing.

Sticker Shock and Awe

The worst news to emerge from this war is the demonstrated obsolescence of armed force as an instrument of national power. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform have been nothing short of magnificent, and yet....

The "best-trained, best-equipped" force in history did not defend America against the 9/11 attacks, nor did it deter them; and in Iraq, it is presently bogged down by a numerically inferior force of insurgents armed with handheld and improvised weapons.

According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. military spending has increased 40 percent since 9/11 (and that doesn't include the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan). The Congressional Budget Office projects that the combined costs of basic military funding and the expense of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere will be nearly $500 billion in 2006, a figure that will match the military expenditures of the rest of the world combined.

"These increases are needed," Secretary Rumsfeld says. "And, as a nation, we can afford them."

But one has to wonder how much America can afford to spend on a force that doesn't defend the homeland and is at best only so-so when it comes to achieving our aims overseas.

These are fiscally challenging times. America's dominance over the global economy is slipping. The European Union's gross domestic product has caught up with ours, and China's is growing at an eye-watering rate. Combined, their economies are half again larger than ours, and they're not bleeding half-a-trillion dollars a year on defense spending.

We face historic national debt. The once-almighty dollar struggles to keep pace with the formerly laughable euro. The price of oil had already gone through the roof by the time Hurricane Katrina came along.

No one knows for certain what the Katrina recovery effort will cost. Some "experts" put the tab at $175 billion. Others think it will go even higher. Whatever the amount turns out to be, it will not pass "go" on its way to the balance of the U.S. national debt.

What Kind of Gentler Nation?

Empires rise, empires fall. Some land softly, some crash into the back pages of other civilizations' history books. Almost without exception, empires that ended badly failed to understand that the military power that established them was not, in itself, sufficient to sustain them.

If America is to persist as a "first nation," we will have to make some tough decisions about what kind of military we need, how much we need to pay for it, what kinds of wars we need it to fight, and why we need it to fight them.

And we should make these decisions sooner rather than later.

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired), is a freelance writer in Virginia Beach, VA.  His articles on military and political affairs have appeared in Proceedings, The Navy, Jane's Fighting Ships and other periodicals. Several of his essays have been required student reading at the United States Naval War College.  Read more of Jeff's commentaries at Pen and Sword.

ePluribus Contributors and Fact Checkers:  standingup, Sue in KY, JeninRI, and DEFuning



Display:
Maybe you are the person to ask.  Are they (inductees) trained to kill, obey orders, guard the homeland, obey the president, what?  After Viet Nam, politics were supposed to be out of the picture...and the generals in charge of war..but I don't think Rumsfeld is a general.  

Your article hits home with me.  And I am now and have been, very afraid to think about America's future.  No wonder people just check out!  

Thank you for opening the discussion door........we need to understand or things will never change....

by avahome on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 10:15:10 AM EST

AVA;

A pithy joke I've used before: in the "transformed" military, the politicans run the wars and the generals play politics.

I'll be writing more for eP on this subject later.

Thanks for stopping by and posting.

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 01:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]



by avahome on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 02:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[cross-post to http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/14/94252/6487 ]

as commentary on what PNAC set out to do, i did these calculations sometime ago.  the gist of the article seems even more relevant now as we see what diversion of focus and funds to the neoCON goals -- while strangling government in the bathtub -- can mean in the aftermath of a hurricane...

the data and the links are definitely dated so may not be accurate or functional at this point


PNAC 2004 Goal Met Perfectly: 2005 Exceeds by 50%

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
...
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

Executive Summary of PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", pp. iii - iv

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

vs.

Table 1-1 NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET SUMMARY
Total Obligational Authority (TOA) DoD - 051 ($ Millions)

----------------Change ------------------ Change
FY 2003 -- FY 03-04 --- FY 2004 ------ FY 04-05 ----- FY 2005
367,551 -- 13,161 ----- 380,712 ------- 19,567 ----- 400,279
---------------- 3.5% ---------------------- 5.1%

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2004/fy2004_greenbook.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2005/fy2005_greenbook.pdf

...Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions....

V. Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force, in "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", p. 51

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

*******

according to OMB, the 2005 discretionary budget is actually another $38M larger so that PNAC goal is exceeded by an even WIDER margin than they hoped!!

page bottom -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html



by luaptifer on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 01:07:41 PM EST

I too have been watching the admin by matching their metrics according the the PNAC goals.

Which makes me fear for our situation in Iraq.  It's pretty clear to me that the PNAC aim was to establish a military base of operations in Iraq from which they could control the region and its oil.

And I don't think this administration will give up until they achieve that.  

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 01:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

have knowledge of the oft-cited 14 permanent bases supposedly being built around Iraq?  

it'd be very interesting to have some idea of their status (I DO seem to recall that official sources validated that claim).  I'd also like to know more about the embassy construction project that was supposedly to make our consular mission in Iraq the largest and most expensive in history.  I assume that to be true given the likelihood of its central role in intelligence gathering/dissemination and the like.

btw, great article you've written, I'm looking forward to much more perspective like this!!


by luaptifer on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 01:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I may send out some feelers on this issue.  I've seen enough abou them in the MSM to believe they're "real."  

Thanks for reading and dropping a note.

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 09:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The history of anouncements regarding the new embassy in Iraq are interesting in and of themselves. First, State announced they were asking for $35 million (1st Iraq supplemental), then another $60 million (2nd supplemental), then it worked its way up to over $1 billion.

That's a big jump from $35 million to $1 billion +. The US is also building a new embassy in China, for a fraction of the cost of the one in Iraq.

by susie dow on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 12:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great job on the story and I am really looking forward to more.  The quality of the discussion on the site is really becoming qualitatively more advanced than is common on the nets.  An impressive group of people congregates here!

by DEFuning on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 06:20:02 PM EST
Enjoyed reading it. Look forward to reading more.

by susie dow on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:06:59 AM EST

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!

ePluribus Media

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

members


community front page

make a new account


Username:
Password:

create account | faq | search | community front page |