I promised Joshua of Post Libertarian almost a month ago that I would post this. As you can tell I’m rather far behind. You have no idea the complications you can run into in a circuit with less than 20 parts. Magnetic components will do that to you.
In any case here are Joshua’s views:
====
A couple weeks ago Simon said he was planning to vote for Ron Paul to “tweak the establishment Rs” even though he believed Paul’s foreign policy would be disastrous – particularly his plan to close down our hundreds of military bases around the world and bring all those troops home. I don’t agree with Paul on everything, either, but this particular position had always seemed like common sense to me. After reading Simon’s post I realized things might not be so straightforward. I found myself searching for reasons to defend Paul’s position, and Simon has graciously allowed me to do so in a guest post. Please note that I am not completely convinced of my argument, and I admit that Simon probably knows far more about this issue than I do, but I want to explain the reasons I am very skeptical of what seems to me to be “alarmist rhetoric,” in the hopes that Simon will respond and allow me to more properly evaluate my position.
They say power abhors a vacuum, and removing our troops from around the world would let another entity will fill that vacuum – perhaps one we don’t like. But that assumes our bases are still actually projecting power. What if they’re just taking up space?
Following the second devastating world war, global violence has been vastly declining. Stephen Pinker notes that “the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year” in the 2000s (in addition to great declines in homicides and genocides). As technology increases and democracy flourishes across the globe, many countries decide they would rather trade with each and become richer than fight and destroy resources (modern Keynesianism notwithstanding). Thomas Friedman has the “The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”, which used to say that “no two countries that both had a McDonald’s had fought a war against each other, since each got its McDonald’s.” It was technically proven wrong when NATO bombed Serbia, but Friedman argued that the war ended very quickly because of the capitalistic connections. It’s also mostly true that two democracies have never gone to war with each other, at least in recent history – although it depends on how you define “war” and “democracy”. The overall point is that as democracy increases and markets innovate, people would rather enjoy the fruits of the market than risk violence. People would rather go to McDonald’s or check Facebook than go to war.
But does all of this mean we no longer need thousands of troops stationed in bases around the world? There are plenty of countries – like Iran and North Korea – that are resisting the global tide. Even the Arab Spring is not guaranteed to yield democratic flowers in the world’s garden. Besides, some may even argue that our global bases caused the decline in violence over the last 60 years (though like most historical events with multiple factors, it might be hard to prove). There is still plenty of potential global instability in the world, so we must look at what benefits the United States receives from its bases and try to decide if they justify the costs.
So what are the costs of maintaining our bases around the world? Most directly, of course, there are the billions of dollars. It’s difficult to estimate how much of the Defense Department’s $700 billion or so annual budget is directly involved in maintaining overseas bases, but I found one estimate putting it around $250 billion a year. There are also more subtle consequences. One reason the military budget of the United States is almost as large as the rest of the world combined is that we end up subsidizing the effective budgets of other nations through our presence in their lands. Former Republican candidate Gary Johnson (now seeking the Libertarian nomination) has made the audacious claim that “Europe can afford its health system because the United States is paying for national defense there.” Is the United States subsidizing socialism in other countries by freeing up money for other forms of inefficient government meddling? CATO thinks so. They also argue that our bases in Japan damage that country’s independence even while allowing the Japanese to complain about the small part of the costs borne by themselves. CATO is predictably biased about this sort of thing, but I’d love to hear what’s wrong with their analysis.
Now let’s look at the benefits. If the United States is spending lots of money and propping up other government behavior around the world, what are we getting out of it all? Some say we are able to respond quicker to dangerous situations when they arise. But with modern technology we have drones and unmanned aircraft that can cover hundreds if not thousands of miles per hour (of course, they have other limitations, but the tradeoff is certainly far from a total loss). Some say we are able to use these bases for better hospitalization, such as flying injured troops from Iraq to Germany to stabilize them before bringing them back to the United States. But surely we don’t need troops in the five figures to run a hospital? If that’s the only way our allies will provide us a hospital then what kind of allies are they?
Others, including Simon, say that the bases act as deterrents for the more dubious governments around the world. Our bases in Japan are not for Japan; they are for China – or maybe North Korea. Our presence in Germany is not for Germany; it is for Russia. But what exactly do we suppose these troops are deterring? If one of these rogue states is going to drop an atomic bomb, these military bases aren’t going to do much about that. If they are going to engage in more traditional warfare and invade one of our allies, well, I think our allies are doing well enough on their own. The United States has almost 40,000 troops in Japan. But the Japan Self-Defense Forces have over 247,000 active troops and the country’s military expenditures rank 7th worldwide. We have over 53,000 troops in Germany. Germany’s military has over 200,000 active troops and the 6th largest expenditures in the world. I think these countries can defend the threats of non-democracies without us taking up space there and donating millions to their military budgets. As the Cold War collapsed, we closed 60% of our bases in the 1990’s, and the world did not erupt in violence. There is even less reason to believe such things would happen if we finished the closings today.
In summary, if our bases are supposed to protect fires from flaring up away from home, it seems to me that there are 1) not as many fires as there used to be, 2) more rich, democratic countries around the world with vested interests in keeping fires away from their homes, and 3) better technology that allows us to respond quicker to fires if and when we ever need to. Thus, my question: is all of this still worth the cost? Those who say we still need all these bases are afraid of bad guys expanding their power. Those who say we don’t still need them are afraid of the “military industrial complex” hastening the end of our “empire.” There are fearful catastrophes in either path that make it difficult to apply normal risk assessments, and it’s why I hesitate to make a strong claim either way, especially when there is far too much that I don’t know. But these are the reasons I am not nearly as afraid as some that disaster would unfold if we finally stopped the sun from “never setting” on our military.
Thanks again to Simon for the opportunity to make this post; I look forward to his response. If you like my style feel free to check out my blog at postlibertarian.com.
Comments
13 responses to “Foreign Policy And Military Matters – The Libertarian View”
Amateurs study battles. Professionals study logistics.
1. The American fleet guarantees freedom of navigation of the seas. You can’t run a world wide fleet without world wide logistics.
2. The same goes for armies. Nathan Bedford Forrest said the essence of battle is getting there the “firstest with the mostest”. Which is to say – logistics.
OTOH the essence of power is economics. And if we don’t get our economic house in order our military will be of no avail. In that respect Ron Paul’s domestic policy is essential.
Perhaps there are fewer fires about BECAUSE OF our global military presence.
Eric, our bases in Japan or Germany are designed to send one message to China or Russia: Yes, you can kill those 40,000 Americans in a nuclear attack…. and that will provide us all the justification to our people needed for them to support turning you to radioactive glass in response. So if you’re going to do that, you better make sure you have enough to guarantee getting us completely on the first strike… because there won’t be anyone left to order a second one.
[…] I mentioned about a month ago that I had an opportunity to do a guest post on Classical Values explaining why I’m not as afraid as Simon is of removing our troops from our military bases around the world. Well, I finally got it written and Simon posted it yesterday. Here it is! […]
Simon thanks for posting!
You say “The American fleet guarantees freedom of navigation of the seas.” This may be true, but I’m skeptical that this freedom would be lost if we didn’t have a worldwide fleet, especially since there are now dozens of first-world countries that depend on them and have an interest in keeping them free; again. Why are we subsidizing the military budgets of democracies around the world and allowing them to spend more money on inefficient welfare programs?
Southern Man, I mentioned in my post that some may argue as such. That is probably one of the factors, but it doesn’t necessarily prove that we still need them there as democratic nations around the world have an increasing interest in keeping peace around them. Again, we closed lots of bases in the 90’s and didn’t see a surge in violence.
SDN, maybe I’m just coming from a different perspective but that makes no sense to me. If that’s our “one message” then why can’t we send the same message with 1,000 troops instead of almost 100,000 (between both countries)? And why assume that if they were so dumb as to attack us that they would only drop one bomb? If they’re going to hit multiple US targets then it doesn’t matter if we’re wasting money on a 40,000-man base in this one spot or not. Besides, I just don’t think China has an incentive to attack a nation that is paying them billions of dollars. Again, I could be wrong, but this is all why I’m skeptical that our bases are still justified.
I don’t know if I’ll have time to continue to respond to everyone, but thanks for taking the time to read my “cautious defense” and giving me things to think about. I definitely don’t have it all figured out! Thanks again.
This may be true, but I’m skeptical that this freedom would be lost if we didn’t have a worldwide fleet, especially since there are now dozens of first-world countries that depend on them and have an interest in keeping them free; again.
Coalitions are no doubt useful. But they do not make decisions fast and are limited by the interests of the least interested member.
To run a global system you have to have an operator with global interests, is a status quo power (not interested in territorial acquisition), and is trusted by all the other major and more than a few of the second tier powers.
There is only one country that can fill that bill currently.
Now you might want to tinker with a system that is working tolerably well. But if your tinkering goes bad you get a world war.
I don’t think it is worth the risk.
In fact the reason you can contemplate a different system shows you how well the current system is working compared to previous efforts.
Ron Paul’s isolationism, and that’s what his foreign policy amounts to, is dangerous. He’s not talking about closing just a few bases in a strategic move to consolidate and ration military resources, but rather a worldwide retreat to fortress America. To justify this he says that our overseas presence is counterproductive causing blowback, and events like 9/11. It’s a bullshit argument.
@Frank: There’s actually been quite a bit of analysis in regards to the “blowback” theory, and it does hold water. Being engaged with the world doesn’t mean we have to have “boots on the ground” in one of the hundreds of bases we currently own world-wide. We are witnessing the “fork in the road” that every hegemon in history has ever faced: Do we attempt to increase our resources in order to meet our costs? Or do we re-trench our defensive perimeter and attempt to bring our costs in line with our resources? Most hegemons choose the former, and ultimately they fail because chasing one’s costs is a futile pursuit. I used to be a total team red hawk, but after having served in Asia (and that armpit we call the Middle East), I got a first hand glimpse at how wasteful and inefficient our global presence is at the present moment. We *have* the logistical support to deploy on a moments notice to disaster zones and combat zones from our own borders, but we don’t *need* hundreds and hundreds of bases internationally to do so. That’s why we have allies, and it’s not the Cold War anymore…
Tom,
#1 always causes resentment. The Ron Paul cure is to become #25.
So let me see if I get this: we are invited to a country or invited to stay if brought by war. This causes resentment. So instead of just asking us to leave the host country attacks American interests.
Or did you have some other scenario in mind?
=====
We *have* the logistical support to deploy on a moments notice to disaster zones and combat zones from our own borders, but we don’t *need* hundreds and hundreds of bases internationally to do so.
A squad or company maybe. Even a brigade. But a division? An Army? It takes a while longer than a moment. And if the locals can build up faster? Well. It gets tricky.
BTW given your expertise in the matter could you provide some links?
Or maybe the blowback you worry about works like this:
We are invited to a country. The neighbors object. The neighbors attack American interests.
So our policy should be determined by those who object to it?
Tom, Ron Paul’s isolationism isn’t about retrenching to a defensive perimeter and bringing defense expenditures in line with limited resources. If it were that he would have a think tank drawing up plans and would be explaining the dangers of such a withdrawal, why it’s necessary, and how we can compensate for the loss of overseas bases. He’s projecting his ideas of how he wants the world to be, not as it is, very much like his monetary agenda of ending the Federal Reserve and bringing back the gold standard. Not that sound money isn’t a fine goal, and peace in our time wouldn’t be wonderful, but get real!
It’s interesting how the word hegemon has slipped into the lexicon of libertarians. Back in the 60’s it was the province of Marxists. Cultural hegemony, Imperialist hegemony were phrases used to describe this country’s involvement in Vietnam. Now even libertarians have jumped on board the bash America bandwagon.
[…] have a lot of libertarian friends around here and for that I’m very grateful. But that gets me into arguments all the time about the proper role of the American Military in the […]