If campaign narratives are to be believed, Barack Obama is busy dismantling America’s national defences […] The reality is more complex. US defence spending has almost doubled in real terms since the 2001 World Trade Center attacks. Mr Obama’s cuts would shave 8 per cent from the budget over the next decade – a bagatelle against what is taking place in Europe. But even this overstates the reduction, since Mr Obama’s headline $487bn “cut” is from a 10-year projection that assumed yearly increases.
Such is the state of Washington budget speak that even the most cautious fiscal recalibration can be made to sound draconian. Far better to deal in absolute measures. On that count, Mr Obama is only barely shifting the needle. By 2017, once his cuts are in full flow, US defence spending will be $567bn against what would have been $622bn. That is still almost six times what China spends today and more than the next 10 countries combined […]
In an era of fiscal choices, bolder decisions are needed. Why are there still 30,000 troops in Germany? Why does the US need almost 2,000 nuclear warheads? Under what scenarios does it imagine fighting major land wars? Such debates rumble quietly. On these too Mr Obama is leading mostly from behind. Instead of endlessly praising the soldiers as they withdraw from Iraq and soon Afghanistan, should we not be asking why the US has expended so much blood, time and money to achieve so little? Alas, it remains taboo in America to criticise the army chiefs. Their standing is as high as ever.
-
itsallcomingback liked this
-
leftliberty posted this
