Foreign Policy/National & International Security

[Golazo]

I think the debate on the previous thread raises several issues. I'll address this from a US perspective

1) Is defense spending needed or should it be significantly curtailed?
Here I think Wahoo is looking at the wrong issue. $125 million in military aid is not much compared to how much is lost due to all sorts of problems in what systems are ordered and cost overruns in procurement and production
For one example, look at the F-35: https://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
As well, the US has one of the worst "tooth(actual security capabilities) to tail (all of the support needed for the tooth)" ratios of any developed country. Bureaucracy is a necessary evil, but the Pentagon and other  . So I think theoretically (of course political feasible is another matter, witness why the F-35 or any major project gets spread across so many constituencies) there is room to redirect defense spending without undermining US security.
On the other hand, I think I'm sensing some thought that we don't need a world order held together by the US playing a leading global security role. The US had done a lot of bad in this role, but a global order led by China or Russia would be incomparably worse, as would no global order at all. When you spend time in countries that mostly missing from global order this becomes readily apparent.

2) Do the many offshore missions that the US undertakes actually make the US more secure?

Here I think Polly is making an assumption that military aid and more direct measures abroad help the US accomplish its strategic goals. The Bush administration argued re: the US mission in Iraq that "We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America." I don't think we can conclude that some 6 trillion USD spend in Iraq and Afghanistan have done much to help domestic security--arguably they have made them worse. And that's without considering the impact on Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the region. Security assistance has less cost than boots on the ground but the US has often ended up propping up unpopular at best, murderous at worst regimes for little long-term benefit. So I think we have to apply a lot of scrutiny to what US is doing offshore vs its strategic goals. If we ran Fora university the way the US has ran nat sec policy we would be in the dire straits thread.

In the meantime, the U.S. pledges $125M in military aid to the Ukraine.

Yep. 

We want all combat to occur off US soil because sending money, materiel, and even troops is much better all around for us than dealing with domestic combat.  Failure to recognize that reality is why many academics should not be allowed to make national/state resource allocation decisions because they are lacking vital perspective.

Gosh, Polly.  I've never heard that one before.

Guess it is the Domino Effect all over again, huh?  That paranoia reeeeeeeaaaally worked out well for America and the world.

My job is such that I spend hours every week with the diplomatic and political aspects of global security and national defense in addition to my technical work.

I assure you that unless one works in those areas as one's esearch areas that I am more informed than someone who reads the newspaper and makes comments based solely on that reading.

There are areas of foreign aid, defense, and global security that can use revision for funding allocations based on current research.  It is unlikely that someone who isn't reading the relevant government committee reports (even just the unclassified ones), the relevant white papers produced by academics, and the relevant reports from State and DoD knows enough to have a productive discussion.

Yeah, I'm an engineer by training, but lifelong learning in relevant academic fields has to go well beyond the gen ed courses taken once as a youth in college.

[polly_mer]

The world's a big place and we should definitely be more mindful of the cost/benefit tradeoffs for specific actions.

The experts I know are much more closely following events on the Ukrainian border than anything in Afghanistan beyond the logistics of complete withdrawal, which are complicated and expensive.  There are areas of the world with substantial interest, but Afghanistan isn't the main event outside the mass media.

Where I live, there's a lot concern about having a credible deterrence so we don't have to have fight the war, any war.  We are safer by having a strong enough message backed by recent actions that we can and will respond hard enough that attacking our allies is not worth it.  Part of that credible deterrence is having an active military that  is deployed and doing the mission.  We can do it because we are doing it.

On a slightly different note, the security tradeoff isn't necessarily directly the enemy we're engaging so much as the capabilities we're maintaining and enhancing.  I've seen multiple great talks recently about the problems of $400 drones with easily obtained explosives in the hands of non-state actors as a new way to wage war.

A third consideration is letting our allies be the big dogs for global security means we have to trust them to act in our interest when push comes to shove and be effective in doing so.  Small militaries with small capabilities does not instill the necessary confidence when the nation-states that are worrying have better capabilities and are credibly modernized for the next war.  Percent of GDP spent in the relevant categories is much less useful as a metric than being able to respond with sufficient force with all the allies combined.

Dismissing the military as irrelevantly expensive in modern times just drives me nuts, especially knowing that pre-Covid, the world had the largest number of refugees fleeing war since WWII with much of the European Union saying nope.  Where's that in the daily round up along with the current situations of Venezuela, Myanmar, and several spots in Africa?

We can't fix the world alone, but more education in the US is insufficient to keep us, our allies, and our other responsibilities secure in a world where modern transportation changes what far enough away we don't have to worry means.  Nothing is that far away now, even if we go strictly isolationist.

The Space Force does a lot with cybersecurity because communication is everything in modern warfare and satellites are easy targets.  Just an FYI for those who picture X-wings in the near future of money spent at scale that sounds stupid if your mental picture of war is WWII or Vietnam.

I will also point out that historically paid guards or mercenaries doesn't work out all that well when someone else comes along who can offer a better deal.  Even the joke of 'a good politician is one who stays bought' is still relevant, but increasingly hard to find in a rapidly changing world.

[spork]

1. The U.S. military mission in Afghanistan morphed from "destroy al Qaeda" to "nation-building exercise in a place where all modern-era, foreign-directed nation-building exercises have failed." Given the historical examples of other great powers there and the U.S. experience in Vietnam, it should not have taken $2 trillion to figure out that this endeavor was unlikely to succeed. The resources could have been used more productively elsewhere.

2. At the level of top elected/appointed leadership, much of U.S. foreign policy is mired in Cold War-era thinking, American exceptionalism, and plain old ignorance. For example, Iran has been regarded as a threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East since the 1979 revolution, yet the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from power by military invasion/occupation. Both were enemies of the Islamic Republic.

3. U.S. taxpayers provide ~ $1.3 billion per year in military aid to Egypt. What does the USA get in exchange? Not an equivalent amount in enhanced security. Egypt can't even defend its own territory against religious extremists; the IDF regularly conducts airstrikes in the Sinai with the covert agreement of the Egyptian government.

Meanwhile civil society in several Central American countries, far closer to U.S. borders than Egypt or Afghanistan, has been collapsing for decades due to U.S. demand for illegal drugs, the avalanche of firearms coming from the U.S., political corruption, and climate change.

[dismalist]

1. The U.S. military mission in Afghanistan morphed from "destroy al Qaeda" to "nation-building exercise in a place where all modern-era, foreign-directed nation-building exercises have failed." Given the historical examples of other great powers there and the U.S. experience in Vietnam, it should not have taken $2 trillion to figure out that this endeavor was unlikely to succeed. The resources could have been used more productively elsewhere.

2. At the level of top elected/appointed leadership, much of U.S. foreign policy is mired in Cold War-era thinking, American exceptionalism, and plain old ignorance. For example, Iran has been regarded as a threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East since the 1979 revolution, yet the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from power by military invasion/occupation. Both were enemies of the Islamic Republic.

3. U.S. taxpayers provide ~ $1.3 billion per year in military aid to Egypt. What does the USA get in exchange? Not an equivalent amount in enhanced security. Egypt can't even defend its own territory against religious extremists; the IDF regularly conducts airstrikes in the Sinai with the covert agreement of the Egyptian government.

Meanwhile civil society in several Central American countries, far closer to U.S. borders than Egypt or Afghanistan, has been collapsing for decades due to U.S. demand for illegal drugs, the avalanche of firearms coming from the U.S., political corruption, and climate change.

Completely agree. But there's more: It's the cash which the military-industrial complex can continuously squeeze out of taxpayers that makes conflict and threat of conflict welcome politically.

[Parasaurolophus]

On credible deterrence and "safety": it seems to me that the most important factor that keeps you safe is having a very large (geographically and in terms of population) country in a geographically pretty isolated location. You control too much territory too far away from anyone else with anything like comparable resources. The logistics of an actual invasion or a war fought in the US are hellish, and not worth anybody else's time, energy, or treasure.

Even ignoring your horrific military bloat, the few countries that could attempt it if you were nearby are... very far away.

Afghanistan was never particularly militarily powerful. But it's far away from most of the empires which have invaded it, and there's not really anything there making it worth the cost of trying to subjugate it. That distance is a huge protection, and when the shoe is on the US's foot, it only gets better for you. Nobody is coming across the water, up the isthmus of Panama, or down from the barren wastes of the true North strong and free.

[polly_mer]

Even ignoring your horrific military bloat, the few countries that could attempt it if you were nearby are... very far away.

The US is part of NATO.  Does the US have no responsibilities to our NATO allies?

How much of the board game Risk or comparable military strategy games have you played, especially ones where players have to take into account infrastructure and internal logistics?

Modern warfare isn't mostly about boots on the ground.  That's WWII thinking.

[Parasaurolophus]

Even ignoring your horrific military bloat, the few countries that could attempt it if you were nearby are... very far away.

The US is part of NATO.  Does the US have no responsibilities to our NATO allies?

How much of the board game Risk or comparable military strategy games have you played, especially ones where players have to take into account infrastructure and internal logistics?

Modern warfare isn't mostly about boots on the ground.  That's WWII thinking.

Right. The safety threats that do exist at this time can be managed with much, much, much less military spending, because you don't need to worry about boots on the ground. That was the point.

As for NATO... frankly, at this point it's a pretty big safety risk all on its own.

[polly_mer]

Even ignoring your horrific military bloat, the few countries that could attempt it if you were nearby are... very far away.

The US is part of NATO.  Does the US have no responsibilities to our NATO allies?

How much of the board game Risk or comparable military strategy games have you played, especially ones where players have to take into account infrastructure and internal logistics?

Modern warfare isn't mostly about boots on the ground.  That's WWII thinking.

Right. The safety threats that do exist at this time can be managed with much, much, much less military spending, because you don't need to worry about boots on the ground. That was the point.

Soldiers with guns are cheap.

All the effective modern warfare aspects are expensive and can't be run with uneducated farmers's sons after a few weeks of training.

What are you reading that informs your views, because I encounter those views only in the mass media?

[Parasaurolophus]

If you aren't trying to invade anyone then you don't need most of the arsenal either, let alone a million billion more aircraft carriers than anyone else.

[dismalist]

... a million billion more aircraft carriers than anyone else.

Deterrence.

[Parasaurolophus]

... a million billion more aircraft carriers than anyone else.

Deterrence.

From what?

Sure, there are threats. So rationally identify them and tailor your responses to them. The rest is bloat.

[dismalist]

... a million billion more aircraft carriers than anyone else.

Deterrence.

From what?

Sure, there are threats. So rationally identify them and tailor your responses to them. The rest is bloat.

Decision making under uncertainty.

[polly_mer]

If you aren't trying to invade anyone then you don't need most of the arsenal either, let alone a million billion more aircraft carriers than anyone else.

The expensive part is not directly materiel. 

DoD is heavy into cybersecurity because communication is everything: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Features/story/Article/1648425/dods-cyber-strategy-5-things-to-know/

Professional scientists doing basic research is imperative: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/08/dod-must-modernize-infrastructure-to-support-cutting-edge-technology-research/

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/National-Defense-Strategy/

https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-arms-control-and-international-security-affairs/bureau-of-arms-control-verification-and-compliance/

In addition, complex machines also spend a lot of time being serviced.  Having only exactly what you think you might need means losing because only a portion is available.

[polly_mer]

... a million billion more aircraft carriers than anyone else.

Deterrence.

From what?

Sure, there are threats. So rationally identify them and tailor your responses to them. The rest is bloat.

Decision making under uncertainty.

Flexibility to respond is the core of the nuclear triad: https://www.defense.gov/Experience/Americas-Nuclear-Triad/

There's a lot of discussion on modernization of the US DoD:
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2571576/dod-modernization-cant-happen-alone-defense-official-says/

The question is how to be more effective with our resources, not whether we need a competitive military in an increasingly contentious world.

One possibility is having to fight multiple fronts in widely dispersed geographic areas (WWII is a case study for this instance).  Having a small force and hoping is going to be worse if push comes to shove than being able to field in every ocean and still have a reasonable dry dock reserve.

[Parasaurolophus]

That's fine, but the cybersecurity budget is ~$10 billion, the cyberspace budget is ~$10 billion, and the new tech budget is ~$107 billion (and, frankly, it probably doesn't need to be so high).

Estimated total military spending (excluding wars) is what, $934 billion? There's a lot of fat you can trim if you rethink your priorities. I doubt you really need to spend three times more than China or ten times more than Russia. You probably also don't need all your facilities to operate at 21% excess capacity

But it all depends on your priorities, doesn't it?