I share Eugene Robinson’s well-articulated concern in his most recent Washington Post column. The numbers are stark: America’s share of total world defense spending is 46.5%. Second place goes to China at a meager 6.6%. In an age of withering economic hardship at home and growing deficits and debt, why do we continue to subsidize a global stability that many other nations quietly take advantage of, cutting deals for precious natural resources- in Iraq, in Afghanistan- while American soldiers die and extremists cite occupations to recruit for their attacks on American soil? Because, Eugene, as you well know, it’s a business. A profitable business with a powerful constituency of congressmen, corporations, and military brass who in the end don’t care as much about lives, treasure, and America’s global standing. Not when it comes to revenue, re-election, and the welfare of their own military families. This is why we continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, even though we know these two countries are largely responsible for the operational and ideological underpinnings of the jihadist movement that wants to destroy America. This is why we offer a Netanyahu government who we know has no intention of negotiating in good faith with its Palestinian counterparts the bribe of new fighter jets, even as our military leadership says our unconditional support for Israel leads directly to the loss of American lives.
Sadly, the prospect of someone else’s death cannot compete with the needs of the living. America’s defense spending is not a subsidy to the world as much as it’s a subsidy to the American economy and political system, much like other government programs such as unemployment insurance and Medicare that Mr. Robinson has advocated for in the past. The American enlisted soldier- largely low-income and with fewer educational and professional opportunities than higher income Americans- is the primary beneficiary, although, just like Medicare, corporations (insurance companies) and higher income individuals (doctors) also benefit. Pick a line item in the federal budget and it is easy to find a domestic constituency behind it with their hand out.
Of course, defense spending is different than any domestic program for many of the reasons Mr. Robinson articulates. Domestic programs usually don’t violently kill Americans and foreigners. They also don’t have such a direct, measurable effect on our international standing. In the foreign policy arena as with everything else, we must begin to learn how to do more with less. One obvious option is to convince other nations to do more so we can do less. So far, our record on this has been poor. Time after time- in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, to name only a few- our “partners” have gotten a free ride at our expense even while they undermine our goals to boot. There is no use hollering about their duplicity on opinion pages. Every nation has interests that are often at odds with ours even as we find ourselves on the same side of the battle. Pakistan has legitimate concerns about a larger, hostile India that will make it forever reluctant to entirely give up the extremist proxy groups like the Taliban and Lashkar i Taiba that it uses to prevent Indian encirclement. President Karzai has to think about the day when America will abandon its Afghan adventure, as it has done so precipitously in the past. Anti-American, pro-nationalist, pro-Pashtun statements keep local constituencies in his favor for when that day comes. Such are the complexities and paradoxes that make international relations a challenge. We are better off understanding them and working through them instead of against them.
