Cutting Military Spending Now Would Be Progressive — and Catastrophic

By Aaron Kliegman China will likely defeat the US in a future war, if one erupts. That’s a difficult fact to accept for many Americans, but it’s the truth. America has a more powerful military now, to be sure. But mounting evidence points to a coming Chinese victory — unless Washington takes bold, aggressive steps today to maintain its dwindling edge. The foundation of these steps is to increase the Pentagon’s budget. Progressive Democrats would have the US take the exact opposite approach, however, and slash military spending to alarmingly low levels. Some of the most powerful leaders in the Democratic Party — the so-called moderate establishment — are now adopting the same dangerous position. But, first, how could China win? After all, pundits and politicians often — and correctly — call the American military the best, most capable fighting force in the world, if not in history. It’s true that Washington spends more on defense than any other country. It’s also true that Washington has superior military capabilities, especially air and naval power. Plus, America boasts the most lethal, well trained soldiers in the world. Above all, though, the US has dozens of allies that allow it to project military power around the world. Without these allies, America would simply be unable to win a war outside the Western hemisphere. To quote Dr. Brad Roberts, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, America’s conventional military supremacy is true “only if you give us a lot of time to bring things from long distances … and all of the access we need to bases in the region to get things there.” It is much easier for China to seize and defend nearby Taiwan, for example, than it is for America to re-take the faraway island. If China can cut off the support of America’s allies, through either threats or actual force, then it will most likely defeat America in a war in East Asia and the Western Pacific. (The same goes for Russia, Iran, and North Korea in their respective regions.) If the US keeps fighting despite such efforts, then China will attack American and allied forces as they arrive (if any are there). They will make it as difficult as possible just to get to the fight. Then, if America still presses on, Beijing will threaten the American homeland with nuclear weapons. And this is all dependent on US leaders even having the initial will to confront a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan with a bloody counteroffensive. And that depends on whether the American people would be willing to send their loved ones into another foreign conflict. Neither outcome is guaranteed — in fact, China is banking on Washington backing down, recognizing that its interests at stake are less important than Beijing’s. This is China’s theory to achieve victory against the US in war. Critically, Russia shares the same theory. But let’s move past theory to practice — or as close to practice as we can get. America doesn’t do very well in war games fighting China and Russia. In fact, the US “gets its ass handed to it,” according to David Ochmanek, an analyst at the RAND Corporation. This has been the case for years. “Over the past decade, in US war games against China, the United States has a nearly perfect record: We have lost almost every single time,” Christian, Brose, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, writes in a recently published book. How can America perform so poorly? China and Russia have been studying the American way of war and reforming and modernizing their militaries with major investments. In a war with China, for example, many American forces “would be rendered deaf, dumb, and blind,” to quote Brose. This is because China has spent years developing the capabilities to disable American satellites and attack the digital connections and systems in America’s battle networks. China has also invested in anti-ship ballistic missiles known as “carrier killers,” which are meant to render American aircraft carriers ineffective by keeping them far away from the fight. Claims that America spends so much on defense that it can cut its military budget without fear of consequence are hogwash. A recent report by the Heritage Foundation found that, according to figures from 2017, China’s military budget is 87 percent the size of America’s military budget. One must account for labor costs, purchasing power, and what the Chinese government doesn’t publicize about its budget when comparing the two countries. To make matters worse, studies repeatedly show that the US is on the verge of losing its military and technological edge to China. A new report by the Center for a New American Security says this could happen within the decade unless the Pentagon takes a series of “bigger and bolder” steps. That’ll be impossible with less funding. A 2018 report by the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission concluded that America’s “military superiority — the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security — has eroded to a dangerous degree.” The commission also said that America’s “ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt.” Remember, China and Russia’s rhetoric and actions have only become more belligerent in recent years. So, too, have the rhetoric and actions of Iran and North Korea, which are both advancing their nuclear and ballistic missile programs, along with their conventional military capabilities. In this hostile environment, the US would be insane to cut its military spending. The Pentagon’s main job is to plan for wars, deterring them and being prepared to fight them if necessary. As China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea build up their strength and lash out, and as the global jihadist threat remains, the US needs to invest in the tools that will help it win the wars of tomorrow. And yet, progressives in Congress — led by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Edward Markey (D-MA), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) — are now pushing for a 10-percent cut to the Pentagon’s budget in the annual National Defense Authorization Act. This would mean $74 billion less for America’s troops and military leaders at a time when they need it the most. The money would be redirected toward providing health care and housing to those in poverty. Given Sanders and like-minded progressives’ propensity to try to spend the taxpayers’ money on countless domestic projects, it’s curious that they would choose to shift money from the Pentagon rather than just spend other money from elsewhere. Of course, it shouldn’t be surprising that progressives want to gut the military. After all, they see American power as the source of most of the world’s problems. More dismaying is that the Democratic Party’s leadership is embracing this view rather than opposing it. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced on Friday his support for the massive cut to the Pentagon’s budget, which is due for a vote later this month. “I proudly support the amendment,” he tweeted. Whether Schumer thinks this is good policy or just good politics, it’s clear that the Democratic Party is submitting to its loudest, more radical voices on the progressive left. The US is at an inflection point where it will either maintain its military edge or be surpassed by China. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to slash 10 percent of the military budget at this time. But then again, many of the same voices advocating this cut also seem to be content with efforts to defund police departments across the country. It seems they don’t want security at all -- at home or abroad. No one gains more from such weakness than China. Order Newt's Latest Book: https://www.gingrich360.com/trump-and-the-american-future

INNER CIRCLE MEMBER CONTENT

Should taxpayer's money be used to house Biden's illegal immigrants?