Much of North Korea’s population is starving, yet its government pours money into missile and nuclear programs. Such behavior seems to be the height of irrationality. But North Korea is only following the international community’s – especially America’s – example.
Richard Betts (“A Disciplined Defense,” November/December 2007) laments that most “organizations associated with mainstream policy thinking,” instead of arguing for military budget rationality, have been cowed into silence. He refers to recent proposals by my own organization — the Institute for Policy Studies, which has been known over the years for its far-reaching proposals to scale back the military budget — that focus on a set of cuts amounting to only about $56 billion, or 11 percent of the total. Betts is right that this $56 billion is only the low-hanging fruit.
The Iraq War dominated the electoral landscape during the recent mid-term elections. Voters swept in candidates across the nation who vowed for change in Iraq. But making good on his pledge that “I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney [his dog] are the only ones supporting me,” President George W. Bush is readying the largest request for funds so far to continue the war. Even worse, he’s on the cusp of actually increasing troops.
Ostensibly, the growing threat of international terrorism is responsible for the Bush administration’s proposed 2007 military budget, of $439 billion: a 7-percent increase from last year’s record tally. Higher spending, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has indicated, would ensure U.S. success “in the long war against terrorist extremism.”