A
must-read: Andrew Bacevich at American Conservative magazine puts a
nail through the heart of the new Trump administration National Defense
Strategy, which turns out to boil down to one oh-so-familiar word:
more! Tom
"Here’s what we can say about the Trump
administration’s just-released National Defense Strategy: it’s not a
strategy and its subject is not defense.
"Bearing the
imprimatur of Pentagon chief James Mattis, the NDS—at least the
unclassified summary that we citizens are permitted to see—is in essence
a brief for increasing the size of the U.S. military budget. Implicit
in the document is this proposition: more spending will make the armed
forces of the United States “stronger” and the United States “safer.”
Simply put, the NDS is all about funneling more bucks to the Pentagon.
"Remarkably, the NDS advances this argument while resolutely avoiding
any discussion of what Americans have gotten in return for the $11
trillion (give or take) expended pursuant to the past 16-plus years of
continuous war—as if past performance should have no bearing on the
future allocation of resources.
"Try this thought experiment. The
hapless Cleveland Browns went winless this year. How might Browns fans
react if the team’s management were to propose hiking ticket prices next
season? Think they might raise a ruckus?
"The Pentagon has not
recorded many more wins than the Browns of late. Yet a
trust-us-we-know-what-we’re-doing attitude permeates the NDS. And
amazingly, it’s almost certain that Mattis will get whatever additional
money he wants.
"The NDS contains several extraordinary
statements. Yet none top this one: “Today, we are emerging from a period
of strategic atrophy.”
"What exactly is this supposed to mean?
To atrophy is to waste away. Muscles atrophy from non-use, from too
much sitting around and too little exercise.
"Whatever else one
can say about the United States military, it has not suffered from too
much sitting around and too little exercise. If anything, the reverse is
true. Under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald
Trump, U.S. forces have been constantly on the go. I’m prepared to argue
that no nation in recorded history has ever deployed its troops to more
places than has the United States since 2001. American bombs and
missiles have rained down on a remarkable array of countries. We’ve
killed an astonishing number of people.
"To what effect? In Washington, the question goes not only unanswered but unasked.
"Despite all this extraordinary activism, the NDS tells us we’re in big
trouble. The global “security environment” has become “more complex and
volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.” What the NDS
refers to as a “long-standing rules-based international order” is coming
undone. In short, things are bad and they’re getting worse by the
minute.
"Given America’s dominant position in that global
order, could it be that actions by the United States have contributed to
this worrisome volatility? Could recent U.S. policies—for example, a
penchant for waging preventive war—have undermined the rules whose
passing the NDS laments?
"Rather than reflecting on such
possibilities, the NDS moves quickly to solutions, the most important of
which is to enhance American military might. “A more lethal, resilient,
and rapidly innovating Joint Force,” we learn, will “sustain American
influence and ensure favorable balances of power that safeguard the free
and open international order” from predators like Russia, China, Iran,
and North Korea.
"Hence the need to exploit new technologies to
include “advanced computing, ‘big data’ analytics, artificial
intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed energy, hypersonics, and
biotechnology.” Tapping the military potential of technology, according
to the NDS, will “ensure we will be able to fight and win the wars of
the future”—a theme of Pentagon propaganda extending at least as far
back as Vietnam. Evidence to support that claim has been mixed at best.
But open up your wallet, America!
"When it comes to specifics,
the NDS offers virtually none. Instead, under the heading of “Strategic
Approach,” we get these less-than-reassuring nuggets:
"Somewhat
more concrete is this statement: “The surest way to prevent war is to be
prepared to win one.” That claim is not without merit. Yet preparedness
to fight is not the only way to prevent war, is certainly not the
cheapest, and may not be the most effective.
"One alternative
worth exploring is to use non-violent approaches to reducing threats to
America’s security and well-being: instead of more expensive weapons,
try more creative diplomacy. Yet that approach would entail actually
formulating a strategy. This is what Nixon did in the 1970s with his
opening to China, and Reagan did the following decade when he found
common ground with Gorbachev. Both initiatives were not without risk,
but the risks paid off.
"To judge by the text of this document,
the leaders of our present-day cramped and unaccountable national
security apparatus possess neither the imagination nor the gumption to
undertake anything comparable.
"Who will celebrate the National
Defense Strategy? Only weapons manufacturers, defense contractors,
lobbyists, and other fat cat beneficiaries of the military-industrial
complex."
