Searching for America's Next Enemy
You may have thought that the end of the Cold War meant peace. Think again. Washington must occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, attack Iran, confront North Korea, and, most importantly, beat back the yellow horde. In the case of China, the "threat" is primarily a threat to the American empire, not the American republic. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (18)
Before the Vietman war (i.e. before war spending) American military spending was about 10% of G.D.P.
By 1980 American military spending was about 5% of G.D.P.
There was a build up in the early years of President Reagan (although it never reached anything like the levels of Ike or J.F.K.) but already by the late 1980's military spending's share of the economy was in decline.
This continued under President George Herbert Walker Bush and under President Clinton.
Military spending being in 2000 about 3 or 4 per cent of the economy.
There has been an increase in military spending under President George Walker Bush and this is largely to his policy of war in such places as Iraq - butnot to the share of the economy that military spending had under President Reagan (let alone Ike or J.F.K.).
The expansion of the United States government is the expansion of the Welfare State (or "entitlement programs" as Americans say), it is not really a story of the expansion of the military as a percentage of the economy.
Published: July 17, 2006 9:41 AM
Was it George Washington that warned, among other things, to avoid having large standing armies? Kings and presidents tend to use idle resources, and nothing tempts to foreign adventurism like a big military "all dressed up with nowhere to go."
No power has dominated the world like the United States now does. In a way, that is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers. Alas, it is a perverted greatness turned from its intentions. America could go on to burn more brightly as a beacon of freedom. Or America can become the domineering bully that earns the world's animosity, thus marshalling the enmity that destroys her.
China is the most luminous competitor to the United States. The interests of China conflict with the interests of the United States in many areas. Historically, the end results of these situations have very often been war with the intention of destroying the competitor. It is a tragedy when kingdom fights against kingdom against the will of the ordinary citizen, but it is much worse when a democratic nation does so at the collective behest of its citizens.
How can we call ourselves civilized if we elect and uphold leaders who prosecute our economic and social agendas through bloodshed? It is one thing to say that freedom is worth dying for; it is quite another to say that our economic advantage is worth killing for. What kinds of barbarians have we become that we would claim to make the world safe for democracy by contriving enemies to annihilate?
Beyond the dubious morality of waging war for economic, social, or political ends, war is expensive. Those who die lose everything; those who live pay dearly. I've heard that the amount spent on the second world war would have been enough to build schools and libraries for every person in the world. How much better off the world would be if that had been done.
We spend a billion dollars a day on Iraq. I may not like government programs, but almost anything seems like a better investment. And war with China would make Iraq a bargain-basement war by comparison. If it does turn out that there is a war between China and the United States, the American people will turn out to be the greatest of fools. But a fool and his money must be parted.
Published: July 17, 2006 10:09 AM
It would have been more descriptive of the true situation to start the article with:
"War is profitable. How else to explain the search by some conservatives for a new enemy?"
then continued the article from that point of view.
If our renamed (subsequent to WWII) War Department were funded only by a single line of the IRS Form 1040 where individuals added to their taxes what they thought appropriate to defend against threats to our national existence, how many wars would the US have instigated or joined in the past 100 years?
Published: July 17, 2006 10:21 AM
War machinery must regularly conjure up new threats so that its continued existence is justified.
Interest group based economics can probably very well explain why this happens, but of course common sense is all that we need.
There is alliance between some politicians and military personnel plus maybe in intelligence circles.
Published: July 17, 2006 11:03 AM
The Onion got this right in 1998
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28872
Published: July 17, 2006 1:00 PM
The Onion article was great! Thanks for the link! I think to be isolationist, which I advocate, requires humility, which no one in Washington possesses, even in small amounts.
Published: July 17, 2006 1:15 PM
So the U.S. govt "searches for enemies" ... Guess what all the other world govts are doing?
The implication that it would be better to be passive is a really hard case to make. It would be better if we more passive for some things, less for others. After all, a power vacuum wouldn't be filled with liberty loving governments, I can assure you.
I also suggest this warfare seems to be coming on the back of resource competition which follows our unsustainable financial boom: Want to stop war? First get rid of the central banks.
Published: July 17, 2006 1:44 PM
Dear Mr. Bandow:
Your Mises article on China is interesting and convincing, particularly the second half.
It seems you are suggesting that the U.S. has no interest in protecting Taiwan. Is this correct? It seems that you believe that the build-up of China’s naval forces is irrelevant to U.S. interests. Is this correct? Is China’s attempt to bring Latin American and African countries into its orbit and to leverage its huge foreign exchange surplus also irrelevant to U.S. interests? Is China’s huge appetite for energy irrelevant to U.S. interests and not a potential source of conflict?
One of your arguments bothers me greatly. I’m always skeptical of arguments that compare the U.S. spending on defense with that of country X. That is an irrelevant and dangerous, perhaps sophomoric comparison. (a) the correct comparison is between the ability of two competing countries to field forces in the relevant theatre of conflict. The U.S. has global responsibilities; China does not. Therefore China can concentrate its forces in a small theatre, whereas the U.S.’s budget is spread worldwide. (You would have to argue, unconvincingly, that the U.S. does not have worldwide responsibilities, although we could discuss how global they have to be). (b) You seem to be using China’s official figures for defense spending which you certainly know are understated by at least 40%--particularly if you used to work for the Reagan administration. (c) You don’t seem to take into account the difference in purchasing power of Chinese currency which can leverage low-wage manufacturing versus American dollars, where so much defense spending is domestic. You are probably using official exchange rates, which are artificially low. (d) You do not take into account the fact that so much of the U.S. defense budget goes to non-force factors, such as pensions and benefits as well as waste. As I understand it, the waste in China’s defense spending is generally in corruption, not in mandated personnel benefits.
The historical record shows that China has been aggressively modernizing its armed forces even though there is no regional enemy in sight. They generally have modernized faster than our intelligence community has expected. To be intellectually honest, your article would need to deal with these facts instead of simply asserting that the neo-cons are looking for another enemy. To be intellectually honest, you would have to take issue with either the facts or the conclusions reached in the Defense Department Assessment. In fact, it may be true that the neo-cons are beating the drums; but that does not make their arguments less valid.
I think you come to some interesting and valuable conclusions, particularly about Japan and South Korea, but your reasoning appears to me to be very faulty.
It is a problem I have with many libertarians when it comes to foreign policy. Global security is nothing like a “free market.�
I’d love for you to revise your article.
Best wishes,
Ulysses Santiago
Published: July 17, 2006 3:22 PM
JD,
Take note from JIMB.
With this: "If our renamed (subsequent to WWII) War Department were funded only by a single line of the IRS Form 1040 where individuals added to their taxes what they thought appropriate to defend against threats to our national existence, how many wars would the US have instigated or joined in the past 100 years?
Posted by JD at July 17, 2006 10:21 AM
You give further animation to the fallacy that out "tax "dollars"" fund much of anything, let alone various "wars".
The Federal Reserve is the engine that powers the reaching grasp of Gov't--in any form, at any level.
Mr. Santiago's cogent points should be well heeded. The idea that the PROC is some mere lamb in the field of international relations is beyond serious retort. Wolves, there are, in that field, and we would do well by curbing their diet.
Published: July 17, 2006 4:09 PM
I like the first idea of the article; that the US government is looking for his next war.
Unfortunately, further on, the authors looks more like a UN bureaucrat who, while disagreeing with current Washington policy-makers, still thinks that the US government is the American people and that this government should be involved in international politics; How else can I understand the following quote: "The principal US goal should be to accommodate the rise of a likely great power, promoting mutually-beneficial cooperation while ensuring American security."? The principal US goal should be nothing! So we have an author who says he disagrees with Bush but agrees with Bush on the fundamental role of the government and the state. Thanks any way for the title!
Published: July 17, 2006 4:33 PM
At Mises and Lewrockwell I'm always hearing about those evil neo-cons shouting about Iran. But even if they are evil, I hardly ever hear them shouting themselves, just people around here. So here's my bet (no money, I'll just look stupid if I'm wrong): we will not go to war with Iran with George W. Bush in office. And it won't be because people like Hersh are making a big stink about it, it will be because he never actually intended to do so. Hard to prove that second part, although it would be nice to give Dubya some sodium pentathol or hook him up to a polygraph.
As an isolationist, I'm opposed to the U.S sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, but the "terrorist attacks as retaliation for intervention" and "decrease terrorism by withdrawing" ideas don't seem to add up to me. Latin America is where the U.S screwed around the most, so they should be the ones bombing us. Instead they want to mow our lawns and do construction. England is the country that really screwed with the Middle East. I think that way of thinking exaggerates the importance of the U.S and underestimates the aim of the jihadists like Al-Qaeda. The battlefield for them extends to wherever Muslims come into contact with non-Muslim regimes and sometimes people (be they Catholic in the Phillipines, Buddhist in Thailand, Eastern Orthodox in the Balkans, Communist in fewer places now than before not that they yap about it any less in their writings, Hindu in India, Protestant and Animist in Sudan & Nigeria as well as other African countries, and obviously Jewish in Israel) as well as insufficiently Islamic regimes (Algeria and Indonesia are where al-Qaeda franchises have caused the most trouble, but Saudi Arabia and Egypt are their main targets and non-al-Qaeda Islamists have become a large problem in Bangladesh as well).
Published: July 18, 2006 11:08 AM
M E Hoffer writes:
You give further animation to the fallacy that out "tax "dollars"" fund much of anything, let alone various "wars".
The Federal Reserve is the engine that powers the reaching grasp of Gov't--in any form, at any level.
While the Federal Reserve causes inflation, which is a particularly damaging form of taxation (as Hazlitt put it), don't trivialize the 2 trillion plus that the Federal government takes from people's pockets every year.
The Federal government wastes quite a bit, but that 2 trillion goes somewhere. . .whether to war, corrupt friends of corrupt politicians, to any squeaky wheel or special interest group, and even to services that could better be provided elsewhere.
Published: July 18, 2006 3:16 PM
D Coleman,
I understand that "context" may be considered poetic frippery, though, I suggest you view:
"With this: "If our renamed (subsequent to WWII) War Department were funded only by a single line of the IRS Form 1040 where individuals added to their taxes what they thought appropriate to defend against threats to our national existence, how many wars would the US have instigated or joined in the past 100 years?
Posted by JD at July 17, 2006 10:21 AM
With this: "how many wars would the US have instigated or joined in the past 100 years?"
JD is missing the fact that it is the Federal Reserve, CBs, writ large, and their "elastic money supplies" that fuel the potentially of epochs filled with great conflicts.
Beside the point that taxation, today, exists only to give perceived value to our circulating currency, U$D 2 T is Trivial compared to NPV of our current liabilities of U$D 44T, U$D 57T, U$D 66T (take your pick)
Published: July 18, 2006 5:36 PM
I find it hard to believe that China is a serious threat to our national security or welfare, unless we make them so. Assume that the government of the PROC has the goal of building up their military to challenge the military of the US. Leaving aside the time period required, if they allow their people enough freedom to build the wealth required will the people be willing to support such a goal? The people I know in China are:
a: Too busy working and sending 80% of their salary home to their families in Sichuan to care about foreign relations.
b: Trying to get Visas/money to go to Europe/USA for advanced degrees.
c: Trying to figure out how to make more and more money off of exports to the "west".
Granted, I am a "waigouren" or "laowei" occasionally, but I don't see any hostililty towards westerners in general.
Published: July 18, 2006 10:55 PM
Even if communism is out of vogue, nationalism still has its appeal in China. They might not hate the U.S, but on certain issues (Taiwan for example) they will certainly feel we are in the way.
Published: July 19, 2006 11:06 AM
There is simply no easy way for the US and China to go to war when they depend on each other so intimiately. The trade relationship between the two countries is worth TRILLIONS and is only matched by the US trade relationships with Canada, Mexico, Japan and Britan.
This war is simply a way to spend more, waste, more money on defense.
Published: July 22, 2006 10:26 PM
I agree 100%. War is good for the economy, and whats good for the economy is good for my pocketbook. I need a new boat, so send in the troops.
Published: September 18, 2006 11:53 PM
To Ulysses Santiago
I understand your views on china but you must know that china's military spending is actually lower in terns of percentage than before.
Besides, china is trying to modernize it's army, SO WHAT?
It wants an army equal to others!!! Are you saying they should stick with WWII style infantry division?
Besides no country is close to threatening the states for decades so most worries are irrevalent.
America is inexperienced in politics, i only hope they wise up before their sins catch up with them.
Published: September 8, 2008 9:49 PM