Time for a Defense Policy that Defends America

By Doug Bandow
Courtesy Of Campaign For Liberty

The American empire is in shambles. U.S. soldiers and Marines who expected flowers and candies in Iraq were cut down by bombs and bullets instead. Afghanistan is spinning ever further out of Washington's control. Russia, China, and even Europe increasingly resist U.S. demands.

At the same time, America stands on an economic precipice. The national debt is currently $10.6 trillion, almost $35,000 per person. The deficit for 2009 will exceed $1 trillion. Congress is preparing to spend almost another trillion dollars to "stimulate" the economy. And America's long-term unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare exceed $100 trillion.

In other words, the U.S. is effectively broke at home and increasingly unable to control events abroad.

Yet the new administration looks almost identical to the old one when it comes to foreign policy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised to use "smart power" to achieve the administration's ends, but her objectives looked little different from those of her predecessor. The U.S. must micro-manage affairs around the world, only more competently and sensitively. Wars must still be waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, NATO must still be expanded into Georgia and Ukraine, countries like Iran and North Korea must still be threatened, and allies must still be protected around the globe.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that promiscuously intervening in countries and initiating conflicts is dangerous. After fighting bloody insurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it should be obvious to all that there are few easy victories in such Third World battles. After confronting Russia over Georgia and threatening to challenge China over Taiwan, it should be obvious that small wars risk turning into big wars. After suffering terrorist attacks on America's homeland, it should be apparent even to the most enthusiastic international meddlers that there is a price to be paid for making endless enemies overseas.

Attempting to play global policeman, protecting prosperous and populous allies as well as remaking failed states, also is extraordinarily expensive. As then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell observed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he was running out of enemies—down to just Fidel Castro and Kim Il-Sung. Even adding Osama bin Laden, America's opponents are a pitiful few. Toss in China and Russia, and America still outspends all its potential adversaries on defense by three or four times.

Indeed, the U.S., which is allied with most every other advanced industrial state, accounts for roughly half of the world's military spending. No other nation compares. Some hawks worry about China's military build-up. Yet this year Washington will spend upwards of six times as much on "defense." And America starts with a far larger base force: for instance, Washington deploys 11 carrier groups, while China has none.

In short, Beijing doesn't threaten the U.S. Rather, the U.S. threatens China. What China is doing now is attempting to create a military sufficient to deter American intervention. But even Beijing's modest increases in defense outlays lead to calls from hawks in America for yet higher military expenditures here.

What do Americans receive in return for their government's constant meddling abroad? The satisfaction of having taken sides in conflicts in which no participant has clean hands. The pleasure of having created grievances which cause terrorists to target Americans at home and abroad. The joy of subsidizing well-heeled trading partners, which then can invest their resources in economic development rather than bigger and more weapons.

Advocates of promiscuous intervention abroad talk as if Washington has no choice but to police the globe. That's nonsense, of course. America's very power and influence allow it to react with benign detachment to most events overseas. That doesn't mean Americans need be indifferent to tragedy overseas—ordinary people have been organizing and contributing to help the hungry, sick, and victims of war for decades. But the U.S. government's duty is far narrower: providing for the common defense, as authorized by the Constitution.

This isn't "isolationism," the usual swear word tossed by those who demand that Washington routinely visit death and destruction upon one country or another. Rather, it is non-intervention, a policy that limits the U.S. government's political demands and military assaults on other nations while encouraging Americans to interact peacefully with the rest of the world. It is a policy that rests on the belief that war is always a last resort and never a matter of choice.

Such a strategy would not be a radical jump into the unknown. After all, this was the Founders' foreign policy, continued by the early Americans. At the Constitutional Convention delegates rejected proposals to replicate the British king, who could unilaterally take the country into war. When leaving office George Washington warned of foreign entanglements and permanent attachments in his famous Farewell Address. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams later rejected proposals to aid Greek freedom fighters against the Ottoman Empire. The mere fact that the U.S. is more powerful today does not mean that it should be more warlike.

It has long been obvious that America's pretense to empire costs far more than any benefits which result. Now it should also be obvious that the U.S. can no longer afford to play global policeman.

Only a change in foreign policy can match America's capabilities with its objectives. Washington should adopt a policy of nonintervention, dedicated to keeping America free, prosperous, and at peace. This is, in fact, the only approach consistent with remaining a republic dedicated to limited government and individual liberty.