Dwight Eisenhower, 34th President of the U.S. and Supreme Allied Commander in WWII, coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" in the early 1960s to explain defense spending in the U.S. Despite his powers as President and knowledge of the subject, he was unable to curb defense spending or rationalize it.
The U.S. approach to terrorism, categorized by some as "find the bomb", involves a huge investment in technology and hardware. This approach reflects the U.S. thinking of the military-industrial complex. The Israeli's, constrained in part by capital availability (and a longer history of dealing with terrorism), use the "find the terrorist" approach. Such an approach involves much less investment in infrastructure and the use of cheaper infrastructure.
I believe that we have to keep the U.S. safe from terrorism, but I think we need to use a more capital efficient solution that questions whether the military-industrial complex approach is still the best approach. Washington is extremely slow to propose new approaches to problems.
The following reading also leads me to conclude that now is the time for a real dialogue on future U.S. defense strategy:
- Conflict or Cooperation, from Foreign Affairs, which discusses three alternative approaches to the emergence of China as a world power
- How America Will Collapse (by 2025), which describes four possible outcomes to the emergence of China
- A New York Times review of the book Why the West Rules--For Now, which questions the U.S. approach to China's emergence
- The American Interest: The Crisis of the American Intellectual
At the risk of being categorized as a mindless liberal, I have also read several books on military strategy in the 21st century. These books generally discuss strategies for fighting the war with China that the liberals generally believe is inevitable....unless Washington changes its approach.
The gloomiest strategic outlook is that we go to war with China and we do not know the reason, similar to the invasion of Iraq and probably Vietnam. Except for preserving our democracy or stopping "crimes against humanity", I do not think a war with China could be justified. Preserving our "way of Life" (Judeo-Christian beliefs, economic well being, individualism, etc) is not sufficient cause. Continued high level military spending will be unaffordable as the U.S. economy most likely goes through severe adjustments for the next ten years. Preparing for such a war using "military-industrial complex" thinking is no longer economically feasible.
The challenge in this position, as every student of history knows, is to not fall into the trap of appeasement. Such an approach doomed Chamberlain with Hitler and most likely would not work with the government of China. (I am not comparing China to the Nazis, but the most recent monumental failed strategy of appeasement involved Hitler.) So to avoid a war and not fall prey to appeasement, recognizing that financial resources will become more limited, this is what I propose:
- We need to secure an uninterrupted supply of necessary commodities from Latin America, which could service the U.S. by land if necessary.
- We need to eliminate the need for oil supplies outside North America and preferably also reduce oil consumption significantly by substituting solar and wind as much as possible (bombed nuclear reactors are a problem)
- We need to form an alliance with key Asian countries and Russia as a counter balance to China; such an alliance will require significant economic support to these countries, which could be paid from more capital efficient military spending
- We need to stop fighting expensive local wars such as Iraq, Somalia, etc which drain the human and economic resources of the country; Afghanistan was justified when it started but it should have ended more decisively a long time ago.
It should also be pointed out that China has an equal responsibility to avoid conflict. Their challenge may be even more complex than for the U.S. Centralized government, emerging military power and nationalism and increasing demands for political rights coincident with economic development suggest China's decision making is even more complicated. With China's lack of experience as a super power, their ability to successfully face these challenges is still to be determined.
I think we need a national dialogue on the topics in this post. We have 10-20 years to prepare for the emergence of China as a full fledged super power and the old thinking in Washington does not look to me as an attractive approach to the issues. Share your thoughts in the comments.
