Grover Norquist, the
influential conservative activist, recently made some very frank and sobering
remarks about the U.S. military budget. Unlike many conservatives, Mr.
Norquist understands that American national security interests are not served
by the interventionist foreign policy mindset that has dominated both
political parties in recent decades. He also understands that there is
nothing "conservative" about incurring trillions of dollars in debt
to engage in hopeless nation building exercises overseas.
Speaking at the Center for the
National interest last week, Norquist stated that "We can afford to have
an adequate national defense which keeps us free and safe and keeps everybody
afraid to throw a punch at us, as long as we don't make some of the decisions
that previous administrations have, which is to over extend ourselves
overseas and think we can run foreign governments."
He continued: "Bush decided
to be the mayor of Baghdad rather than the president of the United States. He
decided to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan rather than reform Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. That had tremendous consequences... Richard Nixon said that
America's national defense needs are set in Moscow, meaning that we wouldn't
have to spend so much if they weren't shooting at us. The guys who followed
didn't notice that the Soviet Union disappeared."
When a prominent DC
conservative like Grover Norquist makes such bold statements, it shows that
public support for a truly conservative foreign policy is growing. The
American people simply cannot stomach more wars and more debt, especially
with our domestic economy in tatters.
The American people should
reject the hype about so called defense "cuts" from both side of
the political spectrum. When the Obama administration calls for an 18%
increase in 2013 military spending, those who propose a 20% increase portray
this as a reduction!
Even the supposedly draconian
cuts called for in the "sequestration" budget bill would keep
military spending at 2006 levels when adjusted for inflation, which is about
as high in terms of GDP as during World War II. It's also more than the top
13 foreign countries spend on defense combined. Furthermore, sequestration
only cuts military spending for one year after taking effect. In future years
Congress is free to reinstate higher military spending levels-- so under
sequestration the most drastic case would mean spending $5.2 trillion instead
of $5.7 trillion over the next decade.
Is there any amount of money
that would satisfy the Pentagon hawks? Even if we were to slash our military
budget in half, America easily would remain the world's dominant military
power. Our problems don't result from a lack of spending. They result from a
lack of vision and a profound misunderstanding of the single biggest threat
to every American man, woman, and child: the federal debt.
