Excessive defense cuts raise national security risks
Both the Obama administration’s proposed defense budget and new military strategy deliver a dangerous message to the world: American foreign policy will no longer be driven by the question “Should we do something?” but “Can we afford to do anything?” What’s more, the plan to reduce force size while reducing investments in both our naval fleet and our fleet of aging aircraft suggests the administration is hedging risky bets while casting a blind eye to key geopolitical developments.
Given the push to reduce the number of troops the U.S. could deploy to address new threats, the president’s national security agenda appears to ignore the increasingly confrontational posture of Iran, which could quickly destabilize perhaps the most critical region in the world in terms of America’s strategic interests. It ignores the tremendous “known unknown” that is the new regime in nuclear-armed North Korea. It ignores the massive investments in traditional war-fighting technologies being made by China. And it ignores creeping tensions in our own hemisphere, manifested by the widening influence of Hugo Chavez and his allies in Tehran throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
The White House is also clearly ignoring the very real potential that in the post-Arab Spring era we could see not only a growth in violent extremist movements across the Middle East, but also an expansion in state sponsorship of Islamic terrorist groups.
The assumption America will benefit from transforming our force projection capabilities in a manner that allows the U.S. to engage in only one major conflict is purely irresponsible. And despite abundant indicators that America should remain prepared to deliver concurrent large-scale responses to multiple threats, this assumption is central to the Obama administration’s vision for America defense posture — and our future role in the world.
During a recent U.N. Security Council session, we witnessed an important harbinger of things to come as China and Russia blocked an official condemnation of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown on opposition movements in Syria. Although such actions do not directly reflect confrontational postures toward the U.S., Beijing’s and Moscow’s positions on this issue highlight the fact that, in terms of our values, deep divides will continue to exist between America and each of these ascendant world powers. Moreover, this situation should remind policy makers there may come a time when America’s hard power resources are the only deterrent to the advance of interests that could stymie, if not altogether reverse, the advance of democratic principles across the globe.
Regrettably, the president’s national security agenda offers few assurances that preserving America’s position as the world’s pre-eminent superpower represents a reasonable goal — or a priority for our commander-in-chief. Dually, the president’s proposed defense budget lends our enemies and “frienemies” alike more than just hope that they will be able to deliver America’s demise in the 21st century. Simply put, if accepted by Congress, the administration’s defense budget will provide our foes a great deal of cost savings, too.
It is obvious that President Obama would benefit from a frank discussion with America’s national security managers about the implications of his agenda. For, and as Ronald Reagan once observed, “We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.”
America’s role in the world is a unique one. The president’s agenda is an exceptionally flawed one. It is time for Americans and our elected representatives in Washington to speak up.
Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, USMC (retired), is a Medal of Honor recipient.
