A Radical National Defense Strategy

We have many differing ideas about what makes a good national defense strategy, but they often don't reference the more basic values. In other words, arguments are made as to how to defend the country without asking the important questions about what is being defended and why. This is how we arrive at the nonsense of defending our "freedoms" by attacking freedom through warrant-less wiretaps, and suspending the rights for anyone accused of being an "enemy combatant."

I have a different take on the whole matter. To begin with, I would prefer to see rights protected for all residents of the United States, and in keeping with that principle, avoiding any violation of the rights of others. Though the government is not responsible to protect the rights of non-residents, it should not violate their rights. Apart from the moral argument, there is the practical matter of appearances. We cannot claim the moral high ground if we don't earn it, and if we don't, we tend to develop more enemies.

The purpose of a national defense strategy should be to protect us from the attacks of others. It should not have anything to do with protecting economic interests. If another country chooses to cut off oil to the U.S., for example, we have no right to attack them. Again, this is not a moral issue alone. The history of using the military for the so-called "strategic interests" of our country is one of massive expenditures for small potential advantages.

That approach also demonstrates a lack of economic understanding. Suppose a country refuses to sell oil to us. What do they do with that oil? They sell it to others, who the buy less from other sources, freeing up supplies from those others source to be sold to us. It is like pouring water in a large basin and saying "We're not going to pour any on your side." Don't worry, it will get here.

National Defense Strategy Based on Doing Good

To return to the argument for maintaining the moral high ground. The practical significance of this can hardly be exaggerated. Having fewer enemies makes national defense easier and less expensive. It suggests that if we "do the right thing" we are better off.

Thus, we should take bold steps to show our true intentions, and be sure that our true intentions are good. We could, for example, stop waiting for an agreement among nations that never comes, and unilaterally get rid of all of our land mines. There are more than enough ways to make war without using these horrible weapons that maim children for a generation after hostilities are over. Announce it and do it and encourage others to follow our lead.

We should acknowledge all the crimes that the United States has been a part of. It isn't so important that we apologize, since there are different people in power, and even different residents alive today than at the time of many of the atrocities perpetuated by past administrations. But how can we claim to want to do right if we cannot honestly see and point out what right and wrong consist of? How can we not say, "yes, our past assassinations of democratically elected leaders was horribly wrong," if we are truly interested in what is right? It is a simple matter of credibility.

We should close most of our military bases that are in other countries, and dramatically cut military spending. In a time of war we can gear up quickly - World War Two proved this, and that was starting without a large standing army. I would cut military expenditures by at least 400 billion dollars annually. We live on a continent with an ocean on either side of us and friendly countries to the north and south. We do not need to worry about a massive invasion.

The money freed up can be used for development aid. Jeffrey Sachs and others have laid out realistic plans for eliminating extreme poverty on the planet in the span of twenty years or so, and doing so at a total costs to the wealthy nations of less than 1% of GDP each year (in the U.S. 1% would be about 140 billion dollars annually, less than half of the military cuts I propose). A world without hunger and one that is developing for the benefit of people with the help of the United States, is a world with less violence and instability. Poor countries are great places for terrorists. Stable countries that can feed their people are less likely to tolerate terrorists.

This help is temporary, since within a generation the poor countries will be able to sustain their own growth. Even those who don't approve of saving lives with our money might recognize that it can be cheaper than the military expenditures otherwise needed, and can be a valid national defense strategy based on that. Furthermore, we currently spend as much on the military as all the other countries of the world combined, and do so to maintain an empire - that doesn't look like a country that wants to do the right thing.

Don't confuse the current and past aid and loans with doing the right thing. As John Perkins points out in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, many of the "helpful" schemes of the past were based on lies and meant to exploit - not help - poor countries. We loan money for development that only benefits U.S. interests, for example, and then force the poor to pay the interest on those loans for generations. People in those countries know this, and that breeds new enemies. Helping our corporations help themselves to the resources of other countries at the expense of the poor should not be our goal.

Foreign aid and development aid in general should not be for specific political goals. Thus we should stop giving billions to Israel for weapons based on the Jewish vote in the U.S. Foreign aid should be aimed at truly helping countries develop, and should be used in the most efficient ways possible for that goal. The larger political goal might be to stabilize counties and promote peace, but it is best met by helping the hungry of the world, not by helping only our momentary friends and allies.

Nuclear Weapons

The United States government should head up a movement to eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. It is not an unrealistic goal. We might start by destroying 20% of our stockpile, and then negotiate reductions among all nuclear states, step-by-step. There are many forces we can use to accomplish this.

As for those who try to develop nuclear weapons in the future, the world should stand together in taking whatever action is needed to prevent this. Nuclear weapons have almost no usefulness - even from a purely military perspective - especially for the large countries that have them. They potential consequences are far worse than virtually any benefits we can imagine from them. Once they have been eliminated, preemptive action should be taken against any further development of them.

Do good, do right, walk the talk, and help create stable countries which desire to maintain the peace. This would be a radical new national defense strategy. It may seem naive to say, but the elimination of large-scale wars is possible. Consider - after centuries of conflict in the past - how unlikely it is right now that European countries will go to war with each other and endanger their prosperity and peace. We just need to make the rest of the world's countries into a similar neighborhood, with similarly common interests.