On the other hand…
by tdaxp ~ January 16th, 2009
If this is what the Republicans call an economic recovery plan, they should stay out of the economic idea business altogether:
The Weekly Standard
This idea is just starting to gain steam, but as yet there’s been no real argument made against such a program. Defense spending, as Donnelly explains, “not only make economic good sense, but would help close the large and long-standing gap between U.S. strategy and military resources…[and] would also satisfy the stimulus principles advanced by President-elect Obama: Military service and employment in the defense industry are jobs ‘that pay well and can’t be outsourced.’”Adding a defense stimulus to the package would seem to have obvious political benefits for Obama as well. The people who would support such a program are among the most suspicious of an Obama presidency — here would be a chance to allay their concerns, and perhaps co-opt their support, from practically the first day of his administration. Likewise, those who would oppose a defense stimulus are precisely the voters who are least inclined to grumble about Obama administration policies in the early going, and also the people whom Obama has the most to gain from antagonizing.
I assume that by moderninizing and improving our armed forces, the Republicans mean save the expensive, next-generation jets designed to fight our allies.
We need a pro-growth foreign policy, not a moneypit that sets us up to spend billions on wasteful projects, alienate our allies in the new core of the global economy, and divert our attention against nation-building and counter-insurgency.
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
January 16th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
“I assume that buy moderninizing and improving our armed forces, the Republicans mean save the expensive, next-generation jets designed to fight our allies.” (tdaxp)
“We need a pro-growth foreign policy, not a moneypit that sets us up to spend billions on wasteful projects, alienate our allies in the new core of the global economy, and divert our attention against nation-building and counter-insurgency.” (tdaxp)
We need to make sure that we’re always the most powerful air-force in the world. We also need guaranteed free movement on the world’s oceans. We can loose a COIN war here and there, but loosing the ability to control the world’s oceans, and not having air supremacy, is totally unacceptable.
We also need to start investing much more in our space-based systems. This is where I see George Friedman as being way ahead of everyone. With The use of microwave technology, along with our dominance of space, the US has the potential to be the energy provider to the world. If we do things right!
Its much more important to spend our limited resources accomplishing space dominance, than loosing anther half trillion trying to “interconnect” some people who don’t even show signs of wanting it.
The only reason I see Iraq as an important war is our need for energy as we approach peak oil. The way I see it, we went to war in Iraq to ensure energy until we control the earths energy supply through space. The biggest threat that we faced was the possibility of an alliance between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
Although I can’t prove, don’t be surprised if one day we hear of a secret meeting between these nations with exactly this plan in place? Regardless, just the possibility of this happening was too dangerous, so after 9-11, the US had to act. By invading Iraq, Saudi Arabia was in no position to turn away from the US, and Saddam would be out of action.
We need 40 years to have our space based energy platforms ready, and this is close to when the oil should dry up. Once we have the moon-based solar panels shooting energy down to earth via microwave technology, the oil countries can do what they want with the oil. In fact, we shouldn’t even touch the oil is Alaska until the world’s supply is dry and then sell to whoever remains that can’t use our solar energy.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to “shrink the gap.” It just isn’t as high on the priority list as space dominance. We learn how to build better spacecraft by building better aircraft.
Total space dominance is the ultimate “pro-growth foreign policy.”
January 17th, 2009 at 5:35 am
44 Senators have written a letter to Obama to keep buying the F-22, which proves the health of the Military-Industrial Complex… at least for the time-being. [1]
There’s something to this logic… but why not extend it?
If losing COIN wars here and there are acceptable, because they only cost a couple thousand American lives at a pop, why isn’t losing a plane here and there acceptable?
The F-22 is roughly 10 times as expensive as the F-16. Is the F-22 really ten times more effective? You would rather have 10 F-22s than 100 F-16s?
Whether or not microwave energy goes here, I think it is TM Lutas who has been pointing out that only a SDI-like system can offer protection against hijacked upper-atmosphere flighs that turn into kamikaze raids.
Further, SDI allows us to re-invent nuclear weapons, by once again promising a world where we can issue a massive launch with only minimal blow-back.
It’s a sensible system.
Doesn’t it strike you that if we create a securitys situation where a foreign sponsors can easily kill thousands of Americans because of our weakness in COIN, but cannot do so conventionally because of a space-based system, then all you have guaranteed is that future conflicts will be focused around COIN and not space-based systems?
Really? Saddam, the Islamic Republic, and the Kingdom?
Three countries locked in a balance-of-power nightmare spontaneously form an alliance under the hegemony of their own good intentions?
Normally, I hear this sort of utopianism from deep believers in the UN system.
I would say ending conventional wars are pretty high on the list of priorities.
You seem to support the goal in principal (with your space-based system), though your approach guarantees an increase in the mistery, disease, and death experienced, by both us and them, from unconventional wars.
Given the choice between
a) getting into an arms race with allies
b) keeping the gap as a petri dish of disease and terror it exports to us
c) a provacatively weak coin force
or
a) further making war impossible with our allies
b) preventing the export of disease and terror from the gap
c) a COIN force strong enough that we will not be intentionally provoked into using it
I would rather have the latter — peace through strength — than the former — war through weakness.
[1] http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senators-urge-obama-to-buy-f-22s-2009-01-16.html
January 17th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“If losing COIN wars here and there are acceptable, because they only cost a couple thousand American lives at a pop, why isn’t losing a plane here and there acceptable?” (tdaxp)
Loosing any war is unacceptable. But given the choice between controlling the oceans and air, and expanding COIN capabilities,(something we don’t have a great track record of) I choose control of the air and sea. This guarantees global hegemony.
“The F-22 is roughly 10 times as expensive as the F-16. Is the F-22 really ten times more effective? You would rather have 10 F-22s than 100 F-16s?” (tadxp)
I don’t know a lot about this subject, but I want air supremacy. If that requires the F-22, then yes, we should have it. If we still have supremacy over the air with the F-16, then maybe we can do without? I really know very little about aviation accept when I was an infantryman in Iraq, I liked the feeling of total air supremacy.
Really? Saddam, the Islamic Republic, and the Kingdom? (tdaxp)
“Three countries locked in a balance-of-power nightmare spontaneously form an alliance under the hegemony of their own good intentions?”
(tdaxp)
Yes, and we can find even stranger alliances if we look to history:
The racialist 3rd Reich, the “Union of workers” USSR, the Corporatist Italians (who were Germany’s enemies in the last war, and who changed their minds again in the WWII).
“Normally, I hear this sort of utopianism from deep believers in the UN system.” (tdaxp)
NO, utopianism is believing that States are going to give up their interests for globalization. Utopianism is believing that Americans will accept foreign troops patrolling their country. Utopianism is believing the world’s people will give up their ancient folkways and geographic areas for the concept of comparative advantage.
“I would say ending conventional wars are pretty high on the list of priorities.” (tdaxp)
Conventional wars have pretty much ended due to nuclear weapons, and America’s capability to destroy everyone who tries. The first Gulf war showed the world what would happen if they want conventional war.
“Whether or not microwave energy goes here, I think it is TM Lutas who has been pointing out that only a SDI-like system can offer protection against hijacked upper-atmosphere flighs that turn into kamikaze raids.” (tdaxp)
If we get into space before way before anyone else, we’ll make sure that no one else can.
“Given the choice between” (tdaxp)
a. If you’re in an arms race with someone, then they’re probably not your ally?
b. The only way we can protect ourselves form the negative flows from the gap is by building resilient communities.
c. America doesn’t have the will to truly be successful at COIN. Political correctness guarentees our failure.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Seerov,
Thanks for the comment.
This may be true, but it does not answer the question I had.
As far as I can tell, the reason for purchasing a smaller number of F-22s rather than a larger number of F-16s is that more F-16s would be downed in a battle than F-22s. This is the old quantity v. quality trade-off.
But presuming that, say, 100 F-16s can get the job of 10 F-22s done, at 10 times (or whatever) the fatality rate, then we have a question
a) do we optimize for low death-toll in a conventional military fight, losing 1 F-22 pilot instead of 10 F-16 pilots
b) do we optimize for low death-toll ina COIN fight, losing 1000 troops instead of 5000
It strikes me if your goal is to reduce casualties, you invest in where you can save the greatest number.
Certainly.
Why does it require the F-22?
Again, it strikes me as a kN, quality by quantity, function. If we presume that death toll discourages America from taking action, and that the impact of death toll rises with the length of engagement, reducing death-toll in small/long wars is of greater importance than reducing death toll in big/quick wars.
This is my thought.
The logic of the F-22 seems to be institutional: much higher margins for the defense contractors, much more prestige for the 4-star ordering them.
In the same way, it’s a lot cooler to have 1 GM Humvee than 10 decade-old jeeps.
If I was in a fight, though, I’d probably take the 10 jeeps.
This is stranger if we focus in ideology, but I was emphasizing the realpolitikal struggle.
Italy and Germany, like Germany and the Soviet Union, only obtained land borders after buffer states had been extinguished after the alliances had been formed.
KSA and Iraq, and Iraq and Iran, however, already possess large land borders.
The third is continually happening around the world, though adjustments are made, by the social conservatives and economic liberals (where these groups are in opposition, the adjustments are weaker).
The second will be interesting to see. Certainly I wonder what FEMA plans are if another very large hurricane happens.
The first is granted. States wish security. This concern drives them, whether they ally with distant enemies against near enemies, or form continental alliances based on economic integration.
The events of August belie this. [1]
Many parts of the world rely on an implicit guarantee that America will prevent any conventional war — an implicit guarantee that is now empty. [2]
Now, perhaps we can proliferate nuclear weapons to every sovereign government, or launch a nuclear strike against Russia and take the millions who die on our side as the cost of doing business. Both of these seem to be dangerous ways of attempting to end conventional wars, however.
Far better is to expand that core of globalization — those countries who generate wealth and hence rely on openness with other wealth-generating states.
Doubtless, presuming the ratio of our GDP to WDP does not decline, and we are able to maintain large balance-of-payments surpluses.
I don’t think either of those conditions are likely, however.
Certainly. Then why provoke one?
If we would build weapons systems whose only conceivable use would be to, say, sink the British navy in the North Sea and English Channel, I imagine our alliance with Britain would grow increasingly strained.
Perhaps, but a sensible immiigration system would help, as would rolling back the gap.
Is your argument that Iraq is currnetly controlled by the Ba’ath Party and/or al Qaeda?
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/08/08/russia-invades-georgia.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/11/18/supplier-failure.html
January 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“Is your argument that Iraq is currnetly controlled by the Ba’ath Party and/or al Qaeda?” (tdaxp)
We do seem to be doing better in Iraq? But are you prepared for more Iraq operations in the future? We’ve spent like a trillion dollars in Iraq? And my sources in country tell me that the key to our recent success has been basally paying our former enemies there to stop attacking us. Perhaps we can set up a transfer payment system to the whole gap?
The way I see it, the only way to truly “shrink the gap” is to use methods this country (or the West in general) is no longer capable of. People like to use the spreading of America Westward as an example of how the gap will be shrunk. Its important to remember that the West was won by disease and brutally. I don’t think most Americans are capable of doing this anymore?
The reason for building better airplanes is due to other people doing the same. If no one else was building better aircraft then we could get away with using the f-16. But China and Russia both are building better and better aircraft and we can’t let them get ahead of us? As a rabid anti-Russia hawk I’m surprised you haven’t thought of this?
But again, I hope I’m clear that I’m not against “spreading the core.” I just don’t think its worth giving up global hegemony for it. I consider myself an American Nationalist first (not to be confused with a white nationalist). I don’t care if the gap is miserable or sad, I care about America’s relative power. In general, a powerful America is a rich America. I see spreading the gap as desirable becuase it opens up markets for American products. It may or may not make us safer. Building resilient communities is the best way to make us safe. Resilient communities are guaranteed to make us safer. A world wide COIN strategy is not guaranteed to make us safer.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes to have both increased COIN and the newest big ticket items. I see no reason why defense spending can’t be 10% of GDP? Of course, this is unlikely, so we have to choose.
January 19th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Hey Dan,
I think I understand what you’re saying about risking more air casualties in order to allocate more resources to ground forces engaging in COIN. However Seerov is right in my opinion, though I have reasons in addition to air dominance. In order to get to COIN the Leviathan has to destroy the regime, and with the Russians willing to export to rogues like Iran and Syria we will need the F-22 to knock down the door as the fighter pilots like to say. The 1973 Arab-Israeli War showed what an advanced air defense could do to fighter jets even with well-trained pilots. Furthermore, the soldiers that manned those defenses required much less training. Maybe there are other ways of getting around those Russian SAMs, but if not it means perhaps half or more of those 100 F-16s would get downed, before completing their sorties or even having to scrub the mission altogether. Besides, I doubt the present airforce leadership would be willing to take such losses whereas all of the 10 F-22s could survive and finish off the SAMs providing openings for other non-stealthy aircraft.
However the better comparison would be with the F-35 which is supposed to replace the F-16 and F-18. The F-35 is not as stealthy and may not be able to evade the likes of the S-400 Triumf, nor despite much posturing to the contrary is it evident that it can stand up to Russia’s most advanced fighters such as the Su-35. As one analyst put it, the F-35 can’t climb, can’t turn, can’t run as fast as its adversaries. If it’s such a performer why did we bother developing super-cruise and thrust-vectoring for the F-22? Furthermore, it is way over budget and much delayed. Thus I agree with your position of killing the F-35. We’d be better off with building more F-22s and outfitting existing as well as building more F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s with the advanced avionics being developed for the F-35. This would enable quality over quantity for the rogue takedowns and quantity supplementing quality for potential conflicts with other major powers. In the mean time a cheap, unmanned jet fighter that is stealthy and more maneuverable than the F-16 should be developed. Concerning other great powers, I think you and Tom Barnett are making a similar mistake to presume that strengthening our Leviathan with respect to China will make conflict more likely. On the contrary our growing weakness with respect to them could potentially invite aggression against Taiwan in a worst case scenario either because of domestic turmoil or a rash declaration of independence by Taiwan.
As far as Seerov’s concern about whether we should be shrinking the Gap at all, if we have the will, and what that means for US global hegemony, I think a lot of Americans feel the way he does about it, especially after Iraq. I must say even I have soured on it quite a bit, and believe we should establish more modest goals for the next 2 Presidential terms. But I believe people’s perspectives will change over time especially if the Iraqis are able to forge a relatively free and stable society. Moreover the hegemony of which he speaks has already significantly eroded during Bush’s tenure—not solely due to his actions—with the rise of the New Core and even the European Union. So it is not completely ours to lose, and it has further to slide before we “bottom out” and a possible rejuvenation occurs as I believe it will. Growing the Core will expand the market as you stated and that will be important as we deal with the retirement of the baby boomers which is one reason for our relative decline. This also offers us the opportunity to sharpen our diplomatic and public communication skills, which have weakened since the end of the Cold War precisely because we could act alone most of the time. Look how badly we managed the run up to Iraq—even right from the outset of Bush’s first term—and how we are now viewed around the world as a result of such incompetence. I think we’ve forgotten that the hegemony we’ve enjoyed since 1945 and especially after the Soviet breakup has not always been the case. We started out weak and had to use more of our wits to survive and succeed, playing the European powers off one another. Even during the Cold War we had to manage an alliance with some rather finicky partners who had their own ideas about how to deal with the Soviets. I guess my point is that our relative position is not some straight line trajectory. If I had to chart it I’d say we had a relative maximum in 1945 having a monopoly on the a-bomb, but with a countering superpower. We declined slowly (and not without intermediate reversals) against the USSR until the early 1980s increasing towards an absolute max in 1999 becoming the hyperpussiance as a French Foreign Minister put it, winning the Kosovo War without a single casualty. After that peak we again slowly declined which will probably continue until some time around 2040-2050. From now until then it’s a more multipolar world with the US still being strongest, and I think Barnett’s key insight was not to fight this. Rather we should use the rise of China and India to shrink the Gap since as you pointed out it is an immense task—a labor intensive one, hence the reason we should work with those 2 giants. Barnett never supposed the US would do it almost all by itself as it turned out with Iraq—a result of our failed diplomacy. (Remember India considered sending 17,000 troops to Iraq but their parliament said no.) I think the mix he proposes for the Sysadmin is 20% US and 80% everybody else. The Leviathan’s mix would be the reverse.
One final point. Seerov’s belief that America doesn’t have the will to do COIN is not the whole story. Sure, we don’t like it, but we can do it if we feel it’s worth it and being carried out competently. Also, his statement assumes that an intense insurgency will necessarily crop up. This is something supporters of the Iraq War never pushed back on enough. The disaster Iraq become was not inevitable. The endless cataloging of Bush’s mistakes I think is fairly decent proof of that. We had most of the population including the Sunnis on our side, at least initially. The die hard Saddam supporters in Tikrit did not have the numbers to put up a 5 year long insurgency, but when it became clear that we couldn’t provide security and basic services like water and electricity the Sunnis went with the insurgents. I believe our losses could have been kept to Dan’s 1,000 if we had put forth the resources in manpower commiserate with the task. Thus we have to find the balance such as the one I outlined at the beginning between maintaining the hedge against Great Power War and funding COIN adequately, and at a rate less than Seerov’s 10%.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Greg,
Agreed. Air dominance is critical, as well as control over the sea.
This involves some mix of high-tech expensive new systems (the new fighter jets), more of systems we already have, and more low-cost high-tech systems (drones, etc.)