by Donald Devine
A recent Fareed Zakaria Washington Post op-ed nicely summarized our new reality:
There is a debate within the Republican Party. Some senior figures, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and former vice president Mike Pence, are vigorously making the case for an active and engaged America. But the party’s base seems to be with the isolationists, as can be seen in the tilting stances of the weather-vane speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy (Calif.). From Donald Trump to his copycat, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and the party’s most powerful media ideologist, Tucker Carlson, conservatives are increasingly contemptuous of America’s support for Ukraine and its strong alliance with Europe. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) told the New York Times that although some Republicans remain staunchly interventionist, “That’s not where the voters are.”
In a speech reprinted in National Review, former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton attempted a resolution to the debate by quoting George Washington’s warning that Americans should have “as little political connection [to foreigners] as possible” and support only America’s interests. But then he pivoted to add a long list of countries where U.S. values must be defended: “China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all qualify.” Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua require our active engagement. Defending NATO’s 30-plus European members is deemed essential. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were proper involvements and deserve attention. Ukraine is now essential, and — now ranging rather far from Washington’s warning — “among others, Japan, Australia, Singapore, and Israel for starters” are so important that they all should be added to NATO.
The US Stands Alone in Defending Its Ideals
We cannot attempt a resolution here, but we can try to add what must be considered. Bolton supported a worldwide defense of U.S. values by citing Winston Churchill. But world realities have changed much since U.S. power was so dominant in the post–World War II world. Ideals like democracy, freedom, and the rule of law are important for the United States, but reality says that much of the world not only will not defend them but also is opposed to these ideals and even dislikes us because of them.
India is number one in world population with a very different Hindu version of the three ideals. Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Brazil follow in population size with very different Muslim and Christian views, not U.S. versions of democracy, freedom, and law. There is a “Clash of Civilizations” rather than wide agreement on ideals.
Even within NATO, where there is more agreement, Bolton notes that its secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has urged that members should raise their goal to contribute 3 percent of GDP to defense. But Stoltenberg refuses to consider that only seven meet today’s 2 percent goal. There is a supposed moral necessity for NATO members to “shoulder their responsibilities,” but no confidence that they will. I heard an earlier European Union president in a restricted meeting concede that they never would. Can the U.S. pay all? Bolton finds that defense has been cut too much already, but he can only urge a highly unlikely large increase.
The US Military Is Stretched Too Thin
A limited Ukraine support with weapons certainly can be defended, but carefully. Calling Russia’s Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” merely increases the paranoia of a leader who has more nukes than we do. And proposing further expanding NATO to the world cannot help keep those nukes in his silos. As far as China, the fact is that the U.S. simply cannot move sufficient naval power to fight an invasion of Taiwan or to break an enforced embargo, and even Japanese help is tenuous. Experts concede that the U.S. cannot fight two wars at one time and cannot protect the homeland against a serious Russian or Chinese nuclear attack. In both cases, only engagement balanced by actual resources and reality can work.
Today, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force all fall far short of their recruiting goals, even with bonuses up to $50,000. They only require 160,000 recruits to meet the goals, and there are 30 million prime-aged persons to choose from. Still, the main fighting force of the Army is one-quarter short of its goals and expecting the same next year. The Navy is short too, with better ships than China but fewer in a war where numbers would count. Shortages for ammunition and equipment exist throughout the armed forces because of our limited Ukraine involvement, with the whole munitions strategy of “just in time” production, otherwise successful in the private sector, just not working to build inventories for multiple government wars.
With recruitment failing, how about a draft? America barely survived the campus riots over Vietnam, and there is no reason the reaction this time would not be considerably worse, given today’s colleges. And we lost that war. The four most recent presidents who could have served in that war avoided it. When we did send troops in the past, we half lost Korea, lost Bay of Pigs, lost in Vietnam, Lebanon, the Iran desert, Kosovo (?), Afghanistan, and probably Iraq. The 1980s Left predicted, What if the U.S. called a war and no one came?
What about the rest of the world? Zakaria notes that India’s chief supplier for weaponry is Russia; it has refused to sanction Ukraine and would not militarily support us against China over Taiwan. Brazil has supported the Venezuelan dictator against the United States and seethed against the U.S. dollar. South Africa has opposed Ukraine sanctions and held joint exercises with Russia and China. Even NATO member Turkey’s interior minister promised to protect its interests against “American military” threats and warned Turks who “pursue a pro-American approach” that they “will be considered traitors.” Zakaria concludes that the poorer rest of the world is “rising” and can no longer be assumed to support U.S. interests.
The US Economy Can’t Support Increased Military Spending
Any serious expansive agenda rests upon increased military spending. How? Even the mainline media are quietly conceding that entitlements must soak up any large new government funds. Total official U.S. debt is $32 trillion, compared to $27 trillion total U.S. GDP. The Bank for International Settlements — the only honest one — has just revealed that even this totally disregards so-called foreign-exchange swaps (mostly held outside the United States) now totaling $65 trillion in hidden dollar debts — up from $37 trillion before the 2008 recession. And it is not even clear if anyone knows who actually holds it, what it is, or what to do about it.
– – –
Donald Devine is Senior Scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during the president’s first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 10 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator.
