Phokus
Lifer
Now most of you probably know about Bush's initiatives to increase our military spending by another 48 billion dollars, but is this really necessary? How much of our current military do we actually use for defense?
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0204/libsolutions.html
<< [March 15] Better safe than
sorry. That's what some people
are saying about President
Bush's bloated 2003 budget,
which contains the largest
increase in military spending
since the Cold War.
Specifically, the president calls
for $379 billion in military
expenditures -- a whopping $48
billion over the 2002 level -- much of which is earmarked to
fight the government's War on Terrorism.
Defenders of the buildup argue that if more weapons, more
artillery, and more military personnel are necessary to defend
America from attack, that's a price the American people
should be willing to pay.
But will a more expensive and expansive military actually
make America safer?
Libertarians understand that the armed forces serve a
necessary function: To defend American citizens from foreign
invasion or missile attack. After all, if a country is not secure
from external threats, liberty inside its borders is impossible.
Unfortunately, politicians often use the military for purposes
far removed from national defense. In fact, the Cato Institute
estimated that America deployed U.S. forces abroad on an
astounding 48 different peace-enforcement and combat
missions in just the last decade -- few, if any, of which were
related to the national security of the United States.
Remember Haiti in 1994? After a military coup unseated its
sitting president, the United States sent in 20,000 troops and
$2 billion in aid to "ensure democracy." We later abandoned
that mission, leaving the country mired in dictatorship and
violence.
How about Bosnia in 1993? Ethnic warfare prompted the U.S.
to dispatch 16,000 troops on a "temporary" mission. Today,
the United States still has about 7,000 troops stationed in the
country.
Kosovo in 1999? The U.S. launched a massive bombing
campaign to end the "genocide" the Serbian majority was
perpetrating against ethnic Albanians. Today, more than
2,000 U.S. peacekeepers are stationed there -- although
regional reports say the Kosovo Liberation Army has driven
out over 90% of the native Serbian population.
Other countries where America has deployed its military in
the last quarter-century for purposes other than defending
U.S. soil include Somalia, Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Grenada,
and Panama.
Our government's promiscuous foreign policy has stretched
our defense resources thin. The Founding Fathers' idea of an
America free from entanglement in perpetual overseas
squabbles is now but a distant memory.
To turn the tide of America's current busybody military policy,
here are a few reforms that should be immediately
implemented:
* Withdraw American troops. Tens of thousands of U.S.
troops are currently stationed in more than 140 countries and
territories around the world, according to the Cato Institute.
For example, about 100,000 American troops are stationed in
the wealthy nations of Western Europe. Their purpose? To
defend France, England, the Netherlands, and other such
countries against an invasion from a now defunct Soviet Union
and its Warsaw Pact allies.
Other countries where United States troops are stationed
include South Korea, Bosnia, Japan, Cuba, Macedonia, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Bahraine.
American soldiers are not pieces on a chessboard, and there
is no good reason to keep them deployed in any foreign land
-- unless those troops are involved in missions that directly
relate to the defense of the United States.
That's clearly not the case with the industrialized nations of
Europe, which should defend themselves with their own
troops, rather than look to the United States as the global cop
of first resort.
* Exit NATO. Created in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization was formed to deter aggression from the Soviet
Union against the war-ravaged countries of Western Europe.
The Soviet Bloc has since crumbled, but NATO lives on.
Ironically, it took NATO more than 40 years to get involved in
its first shooting war. And when it did, it had nothing to do
with the Cold War. Rather, its initial military operation was the
bombing campaign in Bosnia -- and troops are still stationed
there under NATO auspices.
In 1997, the alliance actually expanded to include the formerly
communist nations of Poland, the Czech Republic, and
Hungary. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
bolstering the defenses of these new members (and stationing
NATO forces in those countries) could cost America an
additional $125 billion over 15 years.
The United States should extricate itself immediately from
this needless burden, and insist that Western European
countries foot the bill for their own defensive alliances.
* Institute a missile defense system. In 1980, President
Ronald Reagan charged the Department of Defense with
developing and implementing a missile defense system. Over
20 years and $100 billion later, however, the system still does
not exist.
But what can you expect when you leave such a project to a
government bureaucracy? As former LP presidential candidate
Harry Browne has said, "The Department of Defense is just
the Post Office in fatigues."
Instead, Browne said the government should offer a reward of
$50 billion to the first private company to develop a working
system. It's a classic Libertarian solution: Allow the creativity
of the market to address the problem, not a stale government
bureaucracy.
The LP Platform advocates the termination of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pave the way for such a
defensive system -- but the truth is the treaty has already
become obsolete. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists,
that treaty is effectively null and void.
To defend the American people against foreign dictators and
other countries with nuclear capabilities, including China and
North Korea, the government should institute an effective
missile defense system immediately.
* End Selective Service. Concerned about the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan, President Carter instituted peacetime draft
registration in 1980. At a cost of about $25 million per year,
the Selective Service program requires all American males to
register for the draft at 18 years of age.
The draft not only violates fundamental libertarian principles, it
is wholly unnecessary. Just ask the Pentagon. In 1993, it
issued a report stating that Selective Service could be ended
with "no effect on military mobilization requirements, little
effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no
measurable effect on military recruitment."
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, HR 1597,
that would repeal the Military Selective Service Act. The bill,
currently pending in the House Armed Services Committee,
should be enacted into law without delay.
Exactly how big would the military be in a Libertarian
America? That's a genuine point of contention among even the
most resolute supporters of limited government.
However, considering that America accounts for one-third of
world military expenditures -- more than double that of Britain,
France, Germany, and Japan combined -- it could certainly be
made considerably smaller without jeopardizing our national
security.
In 1997, when the U.S. military budget was nearly $270
billion, Cato's Doug Bandow proposed cutting it to $170
billion. Harry Browne theorized that a military budget of $100
billion would be sufficient.
Whatever the ultimate number, most Libertarians would
probably support an immediate one-third reduction -- after
withdrawing our troops from almost every corner of the globe --
saving U.S. taxpayers over $100 billion per year.
If the American military is used to police the planet, it
certainly does require a huge, ever-growing budget.
But if the military is used for the sole purpose of defending
American citizens -- as was intended -- the defense budget
can be substantially reduced, without jeopardizing the safety
of America. >>
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0204/libsolutions.html
<< [March 15] Better safe than
sorry. That's what some people
are saying about President
Bush's bloated 2003 budget,
which contains the largest
increase in military spending
since the Cold War.
Specifically, the president calls
for $379 billion in military
expenditures -- a whopping $48
billion over the 2002 level -- much of which is earmarked to
fight the government's War on Terrorism.
Defenders of the buildup argue that if more weapons, more
artillery, and more military personnel are necessary to defend
America from attack, that's a price the American people
should be willing to pay.
But will a more expensive and expansive military actually
make America safer?
Libertarians understand that the armed forces serve a
necessary function: To defend American citizens from foreign
invasion or missile attack. After all, if a country is not secure
from external threats, liberty inside its borders is impossible.
Unfortunately, politicians often use the military for purposes
far removed from national defense. In fact, the Cato Institute
estimated that America deployed U.S. forces abroad on an
astounding 48 different peace-enforcement and combat
missions in just the last decade -- few, if any, of which were
related to the national security of the United States.
Remember Haiti in 1994? After a military coup unseated its
sitting president, the United States sent in 20,000 troops and
$2 billion in aid to "ensure democracy." We later abandoned
that mission, leaving the country mired in dictatorship and
violence.
How about Bosnia in 1993? Ethnic warfare prompted the U.S.
to dispatch 16,000 troops on a "temporary" mission. Today,
the United States still has about 7,000 troops stationed in the
country.
Kosovo in 1999? The U.S. launched a massive bombing
campaign to end the "genocide" the Serbian majority was
perpetrating against ethnic Albanians. Today, more than
2,000 U.S. peacekeepers are stationed there -- although
regional reports say the Kosovo Liberation Army has driven
out over 90% of the native Serbian population.
Other countries where America has deployed its military in
the last quarter-century for purposes other than defending
U.S. soil include Somalia, Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Grenada,
and Panama.
Our government's promiscuous foreign policy has stretched
our defense resources thin. The Founding Fathers' idea of an
America free from entanglement in perpetual overseas
squabbles is now but a distant memory.
To turn the tide of America's current busybody military policy,
here are a few reforms that should be immediately
implemented:
* Withdraw American troops. Tens of thousands of U.S.
troops are currently stationed in more than 140 countries and
territories around the world, according to the Cato Institute.
For example, about 100,000 American troops are stationed in
the wealthy nations of Western Europe. Their purpose? To
defend France, England, the Netherlands, and other such
countries against an invasion from a now defunct Soviet Union
and its Warsaw Pact allies.
Other countries where United States troops are stationed
include South Korea, Bosnia, Japan, Cuba, Macedonia, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Bahraine.
American soldiers are not pieces on a chessboard, and there
is no good reason to keep them deployed in any foreign land
-- unless those troops are involved in missions that directly
relate to the defense of the United States.
That's clearly not the case with the industrialized nations of
Europe, which should defend themselves with their own
troops, rather than look to the United States as the global cop
of first resort.
* Exit NATO. Created in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization was formed to deter aggression from the Soviet
Union against the war-ravaged countries of Western Europe.
The Soviet Bloc has since crumbled, but NATO lives on.
Ironically, it took NATO more than 40 years to get involved in
its first shooting war. And when it did, it had nothing to do
with the Cold War. Rather, its initial military operation was the
bombing campaign in Bosnia -- and troops are still stationed
there under NATO auspices.
In 1997, the alliance actually expanded to include the formerly
communist nations of Poland, the Czech Republic, and
Hungary. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
bolstering the defenses of these new members (and stationing
NATO forces in those countries) could cost America an
additional $125 billion over 15 years.
The United States should extricate itself immediately from
this needless burden, and insist that Western European
countries foot the bill for their own defensive alliances.
* Institute a missile defense system. In 1980, President
Ronald Reagan charged the Department of Defense with
developing and implementing a missile defense system. Over
20 years and $100 billion later, however, the system still does
not exist.
But what can you expect when you leave such a project to a
government bureaucracy? As former LP presidential candidate
Harry Browne has said, "The Department of Defense is just
the Post Office in fatigues."
Instead, Browne said the government should offer a reward of
$50 billion to the first private company to develop a working
system. It's a classic Libertarian solution: Allow the creativity
of the market to address the problem, not a stale government
bureaucracy.
The LP Platform advocates the termination of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pave the way for such a
defensive system -- but the truth is the treaty has already
become obsolete. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists,
that treaty is effectively null and void.
To defend the American people against foreign dictators and
other countries with nuclear capabilities, including China and
North Korea, the government should institute an effective
missile defense system immediately.
* End Selective Service. Concerned about the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan, President Carter instituted peacetime draft
registration in 1980. At a cost of about $25 million per year,
the Selective Service program requires all American males to
register for the draft at 18 years of age.
The draft not only violates fundamental libertarian principles, it
is wholly unnecessary. Just ask the Pentagon. In 1993, it
issued a report stating that Selective Service could be ended
with "no effect on military mobilization requirements, little
effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no
measurable effect on military recruitment."
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, HR 1597,
that would repeal the Military Selective Service Act. The bill,
currently pending in the House Armed Services Committee,
should be enacted into law without delay.
Exactly how big would the military be in a Libertarian
America? That's a genuine point of contention among even the
most resolute supporters of limited government.
However, considering that America accounts for one-third of
world military expenditures -- more than double that of Britain,
France, Germany, and Japan combined -- it could certainly be
made considerably smaller without jeopardizing our national
security.
In 1997, when the U.S. military budget was nearly $270
billion, Cato's Doug Bandow proposed cutting it to $170
billion. Harry Browne theorized that a military budget of $100
billion would be sufficient.
Whatever the ultimate number, most Libertarians would
probably support an immediate one-third reduction -- after
withdrawing our troops from almost every corner of the globe --
saving U.S. taxpayers over $100 billion per year.
If the American military is used to police the planet, it
certainly does require a huge, ever-growing budget.
But if the military is used for the sole purpose of defending
American citizens -- as was intended -- the defense budget
can be substantially reduced, without jeopardizing the safety
of America. >>
