- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
March 19, 2009
Exclusive: Investing In Defense – It’s Good for the Economy, Too
With unemployment at serious levels and still climbing, “shovel ready” programs seem to be in short supply. Much of the “Stimulus” Bill spending is still far in the future and the focus has been on creating work through what will be, in effect, short term government contracts for laborers, a relatively few “green” jobs and a considerable increase in the size of government at local, State and Federal levels.
While the first category should result in infrastructure improvements which have long term benefits, the necessarily short-term nature of such work will not provide job security for many, even when the start of the projects involved is spread over so many years. The cost/benefit of the “green” jobs significantly reduces the chances of this idea achieving large numbers in sustainable employment. And any increase in government employment, while undoubtedly providing long-term comfort for those lucky enough to get such jobs, will do nothing for the productivity of the country – bureaucrats tend to be neither productive nor efficient – and arguably will damage prospects for growth and prosperity.
However there is one Government Department which is relatively efficient, popular with most of the people and could provide enormous benefits through an increase in personnel. It could also easily increase its number of employees in a productive manner which would provide long-term benefits to the whole country both directly and through the individual human development which experience of such work provides. I am, of course, talking about the Department of Defense (DoD).
I am not suggesting an increase in the civilian employment component of DoD, but rather an increase in the size of the military. There is a known cost to such an increase, and an immediate commitment of relatively modest sums of around $30Bn should enable all parts of the military to increase their manpower establishments by 10%. Recruitment could begin at once and the various training bases could handle such an influx easily. Over the next 12 months this could create an additional 200,000 full and part-time careers (assuming an increase in regular, reserve and National Guard components).
Every single one of the jobs created under such a program would be immediately productive, of considerable benefit to the nation as a whole and would enhance our national defense at a time when new threats are emerging and old threats are either increasing or reappearing. They would also provide a vastly increased pool of personnel who, on completion of duty, have been trained both in specific skills and also, perhaps much more importantly, in self-reliance, self-discipline, respect for authority and the value of teamwork!
Despite an economic crisis in full flood, including severe domestic effects, international affairs remain of vital importance. So whether one believes in the likely efficacy of the various Presidential and Congressional plans for economic recovery, is convinced they are totally wrong or are just waiting and hoping, it remains important to pay some attention to matters beyond those directly economic or domestic. It is therefore additionally worrying to see the predictions of Vice President Biden, made Oct 19, 2008 during his campaigning, that “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy” coming true from such a wide variety of serious actors on the world stage.
In the last few weeks we have had Russia making a variety of less than cooperative suggestions such as that they might place strategic bombers on Cuba and in Venezuela. We also have Iran launching a satellite (and thus proving their intercontinental weapon delivery capability) and continuing their nuclear program undeterred by US, UN or European diplomacy. Further North Korea is threatening a similar “satellite” launch and acting aggressively to the U.S., Japan and South Korea. Then there are a whole host of smaller problems, such as China questioning the creditworthiness of U.S. Treasury Bonds and Syria’s continued support to both Hezbollah and Hamas. And, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan remain of concern. The world is indeed testing President Obama, and now is not the time to weaken our defensive capabilities.
In the light of the strains which the surge in Iraq imposed on our military, the increased deployments under President Obama to Afghanistan and the need to maintain a capability to deploy against other possible threats while sustaining current commitments, an increase in the size of our military would, in addition to providing all the benefits of truly worthwhile careers for a significant number of unemployed Americans, also send a very visible signal to our enemies, foreign and domestic. The message such an increase would signal has many implications: that President Obama is seriously committed to defense, that America is too strong to trifle with, that America is ready to deal with any “tests” which the world may throw at us and that we can deal quickly and efficiently with the current economic crisis in a truly beneficial and effective way.
The official word from The White House is that defense is not being cut. And at first glance this may appear true with a 4% increase from 2009 into the 2010 budget, but such statements and commentary are smoke and mirrors – it trails the 6.7% increase of the overall budget. Not only that, but the future budget forecasting sees actual reductions in the size of the defense budget over succeeding years. These cuts will seriously affect future programs, harming defense industries which employ many hundreds of thousands of Americans as well as reducing future capabilities (something which many foreign intelligence analysts will be working on right now to forecast American military capabilities over the next 10 years in order to allow their masters to plan future moves against this nation) for prolonged periods.
There is also the problem that specific program cuts will quickly impact troops on the ground. One glaring example is the decision to potentially reduce expenditure on Future Combat Systems (FCS). This research includes such vital matters as defenses against Improvised Explosive Devices – the IEDs which have been the main killer and cause of casualties amongst our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cuts in such programs will lead to avoidable future casualties amongst our heroes, but will in return provide funding for such vital civil programs as the Hudson-Fulton-Champlain Quadricentennial Celebrations. Talking of cuts, in a small related aside, if the Democratic Members of Congress gave up their earmarks ($2.6Bn) in the 2009 Omnibus Bill, it would more than make up for the proposed cuts in the Missile Defense Program while the same “sacrifice” by the Republicans ($1.9Bn) would provide the funding for FCS.
Recent history shows that there are optimum levels of spending, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), on the national defense. Under President Reagan it rose to 5.7%, and brought down the Soviet Empire. President Clinton reduced spending to around 3% of GDP, which was shown to be too little. President Bush (43) brought it back up to just over 4.2%, including operational expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama plans to cut back to below 3.7% over the next five years. As expenditure in Iraq decreases, the savings could be used both to subsidize Afghanistan and increase manpower across the board. The difficulties in manning The Surge showed that it would not be prudent to reduce military personnel below current levels. It also appears that about 4% of GDP (as requested by The Joint Chiefs) is both affordable and effective.
If efficiency savings are a key element of President Obama’s plans and he is serious about looking at which Departments provide value for money, then instead of cutting defense spending, he will advocate an increase, accompanied by plans for an increase in personnel. For a truly innovative and cost-effective spending plan, the $787Bn allocated in the “Stimulus” Bill would all go to DoD with direction to increase manning by 110%. In addition to the 1.5 million full-time and 1 million part-time jobs this could immediately create, the effect on the defense industries would also be enormous. And all this would be controlled by people in whom the nation already, justifiably, has a far higher degree of trust and faith than elected politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats – the military!
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Tim Wilson is a retired British Army officer who now works as an independent consultant. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
