The United States already spends more than every other country on defense, and President Trump wants to increase defense spending by around $54 billion.
Not everyone is happy, and their concern is understandable. Deficit spending is expected to reach $559 billion this year, and total federal debt is just shy of $20 trillion (nearly $15 trillion held by the public). Put simply, the government doesn’t have money to throw around. The idea of new spending is thus anathema to many conservatives. And while they support most spending, liberals make an exception for defense (killing people is bad, you know).
But whatever their motivations, one argument that unites anti-defense spending conservatives like Pat Buchanan, and liberals like Bill Maher; That being, “We spend more than the rest of the universe combined, so increasing defense spending is crazy.” Again, on paper, this hypothesis seems reasonable. After all, if (B+C+D) x 3 is less than A, then surely A’s measure is A-Okay! On paper, that is. Because the sum only really works if you’re an isolationist. Being an isolationist isn’t as simple as a vague “put America first.”
In reality, being an isolationist requires you to be okay with Assad slaughtering innocent civilians in Syria (and the associated refugee crisis). And Putin stealing territory in Europe (and the associated destabilization of western security). And China turning the Pacific Ocean into its private fortress (and the associated threats to the global trade and energy supplies that travel through those waters). And Middle Eastern nations preferencing politicized-sectarianism (of the kind that fosters terrorism) over political and economic reform.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no neo-conservative. I do not believe that U.S. military power should be used to reshape the world in our image. But I do believe that robust U.S. military power is necessary for international stability. Further, I believe that this stability is crucial to our security, economy, and moral interest. Unfortunately, that stability is expensive.
First off, international stability requires American military presence internationally. To maintain stability, the U.S. must have military bases, force capabilities, and logistical support structures to ensure we can respond to a crisis in short order. But we also need capabilities that can deter multiple adversaries tens of thousands of miles apart all at the same time. At present, as attested by all our defense chiefs, our current defense budget means we cannot maintain this stability as needed. And our enemies know it.
Second, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for the stability problem. The U.S. Army must launch counter-terrorism raids against the Islamic State, but it must also ensure South Korea is protected from a North Korean invasion. The U.S. Navy faces Russian naval threats far out at sea, but it also faces Iranian naval threats close to shore. The U.S. Army and Marines face insurgencies, such as in Afghanistan, but they also must be ready to defeat a Russian invasion of Western Europe. The U.S. Air Force must defend the U.S. homeland, the Baltic states of Eastern Europe, and support U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria. This all means that the U.S. Military needs a lot of different service personnel who can do a lot of different things very well. And that takes a lot of expensive training and a lot of different equipment.
And what’s also true here is that many of America’s allies lack these capabilities. Having failed to invest enough money in equipment, training, and weaponry, our allies are incapable of ensuring the security of their own regions. This is especially true of America’s NATO allies in Europe.
This reality is one that Trump is absolutely correct to challenge. As I’ve argued before, if allies are unwilling to bear their burden of international stability maintenance, they should face tangible consequences. And Trump’s pressure seems to be making a difference: the Europeans are promising to pay more. Still, until that happens, the U.S. must fill in the gaps.
Thus follows the question: If we accept that more defense spending is necessary, how do we pay for it? As I see it there are three options. First, there’s the approach offered by Red Alert Politics [the Washington Examiner’s sister publication]. There, the editors are calling for the Pentagon to find $54 billion by cutting inefficiencies within the Pentagon. But while they are absolutely correct to assume the Pentagon wastes money (a lot of it), inefficiency savings take time. Defense Secretary Mattis has pledged to find savings, but they won’t come overnight. Unfortunately, threats to American-led international stability do not wait.
Second, we can do what Trump is calling for and cut discretionary spending from other areas of the federal discretionary budget. I believe this makes sense in some areas (there are many overlapping domestic programs and many government agencies that are overstaffed). But as with defense efficiencies, finding efficiencies without damaging outcomes takes time.
As an addendum, Trump’s plan to cut spending on foreign diplomacy and aid efforts is seriously misguided. Those programs represent a tiny portion of the budget, but they promote peace and deliver excellent returns on investment.
Third, we can increase defense spending now, and simultaneously but sensibly look at cutting federal spending elsewhere. This should include spending cuts to most government agencies in terms of staffing and administration costs. But we should also eliminate ineffective, overlapping, or redundant programs (including at the Defense Department). And as savings are found, they should be used to offset Trump’s proposed increase in defense spending. As an overall baseline, it should be feasible to cut 10 to 15 percent of domestic discretionary spending over the next four years.
More importantly, we should fix the budget deficit by focusing on that which makes it so vast: entitlements. Unless entitlements are reformed, America and Americans will go broke. Sensible entitlement reform proposals are at our fingertips, we simply need to reach for them. If we do, rightful concerns about the deficit will be far less pronounced.
Ultimately, however, we need action now. If we care about an architecture of international stability that counters the risks of conflict, trade which benefits lower income Americans the most, and the slow but sustainable advance human freedom, we need to spend money on defense. A lot of it. Over time we must do so more wisely, but we must do so.
Tom Rogan (@TomRtweets) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a foreign policy columnist for National Review, a domestic policy columnist for Opportunity Lives, a former panelist on The McLaughlin Group and a senior fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
