US Defense Budget: More about Politics than National Defense!

In his Farewell Address to the American people in 1961, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued the following warning:

Shouts of outrage, cries of unfairness and expressions of grave concern greeted last Friday’s announcement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of the Pentagon’s Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) plans. And, these emotions characterized the reaction of politicians of every stripe and from every state affected by the BRAC initiative.

The Pentagon’s hit list!

Indeed, the response of Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Democrat Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico were typical:

Sen. Dole cautioned that

“The military base closings must be untarnished by political influence.”

[But she then proceeded to explain why the Navy Reserve and US Army Reserve centers in her own state are so vital to the national defense of America.]

Sen. Snow declared that

“Today’s decision by the Department of Defense is nothing short of stunning, devastating, and above all, outrageous….It is a travesty and a strategic blunder of epic proportions on the part of the Defense Department.”

[Her outrage was undoubtedly provoked by the proposal to close the Portsmouth shipyard in Kittery, Maine which would mean losing some 7,000 jobs in her state.]

And, Rep. Udall lamented gravely that

“It would rip a big whole in eastern New Mexico to have Cannon [Air Force Base] closed.” (Given Udall’s hysteria, one might think that the Pentagon was proposing to drop a 10,000 pound cannon ball in his district.)

But all politicians have vowed to fight (down to the last munitions) to foil any attempt by the Pentagon to close military installations in their respective districts. Naturally, this begs the questions:

Why would politicians react so hysterically to the Pentagon’s proposed cuts in the defense budget when every sane person in America knows that it is bloated and grossly disproportionate to the current requirements for national defense?

During his Congressional testimony almost 15 years ago on the reasons the first President Bush launched the Persian Gulf War, former Secretary of State James Baker distilled the answer to this question in one word, and he repeated it 3 times for emphasis. But it will surely make President Eisenhower rollover in his grave to learn that Baker’s one word rationale for war is the same word politicians are now using to justify their reaction to the Pentagon’s BRAC initiative: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

Yet, it is interesting to note the cognitive dissonance that prompted Congressional reaction to the BRAC and what it reveals about America’s peacetime dependence on its military establishment. Because these politicians are making a mockery of Eisenhower’s dire warning against the “unwarranted influence” of the military industrial complex. And, most Americans seem utterly clueless about his admonition that “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals”.

Indeed, the “proper meshing” of the American military with its civilian economy is today a fatuous notion at best. After all, the US peacetime economy is distinguished by an industrial base that is conspicuously dominated by the manufacturing of arms – as much for national defense as for civilian employment and corporate profit.

Moreover, it is the prospect of being weaned off the byproducts of the military industrial complex that has sent so many politicians into surreal paroxysm of outrage. Of course, their reaction is understandable when one considers that their jobs depend on their ability to hold the American military hostage to providing jobs for their constituents – no matter how irrelevant those jobs are to the defense of the country.

Nevertheless, it redounds to America’s good fortune that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld seem ideally suited to realign the military industrial complex in keeping with Eisenhower’s vision. After all, Bush has voiced no concern whatsoever about the civilian dislocations that will be caused by targeted closings in his home state of Texas. (It helps, of course, that he never has to run for political office again.) And, Rumsfeld – sounding more like the CEO of General Motors than the Secretary of Defense – reiterated again today that the Pentagon considers it a matter of vital national interest to downsize the military to transform it from its bloated cold war form into a lean 21st Century fighting machine.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: With all due respect Congressman, it’s not my job to protect jobs (including yours). My job is to protect the American people; and, closing that base in your district is necessary to do that. I’m sorry…

Yet, one has to wonder why the plain spoken Rumsfeld compromised the credibility of this national security interest by invoking Congressional platitudes about cost savings ($5 billion annually over 20 years) during his testimony today before the BRAC commission. After all, having convinced members of Congress that spending over $200 billion a year on rebuilding Iraq is in America’s national interest, he cannot be surprised by their indignation when he submits a Pentagon plan that essentially requires them to sign their own pink slips to save a relatively paltry $5 billion….

Nevertheless, Bush and Rumsfeld can say to those who may lose their jobs (including anxious politicians) exactly what corporate CEOs having been saying for years to employees whose jobs have been outsourced to places like Mexico and India: Such are the sacrifices some must make for America’s military to become more viable and mission ready to face the global threats of this dynamic brave new world.

Now, who can argue with that!

News and Politics