Dakota Beacon

Last week brought disappointing news that the US had fallen to fifth place as the world’s most competitive economy. This according to the Swiss-based World Economic Forum. The report considers a broad range of economic trends in its assessment of 142 countries surveyed.

Switzerland held the top spot for the third consecutive year followed by Singapore, Sweden and Finland.

A parallel report by the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom placed the US at 9th sliding from 8th in 2010 and 6th in 2009. The Index compiles data from 183 countries using ten benchmarks ranging from property rights and government spending to entrepreneurship and corruption.

Major contributing factors in the US decline include ongoing regulatory changes together with fading confidence in the direction of government policies.

If the US is in economic decline, is our military next?

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction known as the “Super Committee,” created in August as part of the debt ceiling deal, is tasked with finding a minimum of $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions by November 23. If a plan is approved, it will go to the House and Senate for an up or down vote not later than December 23. If the Super Committee or congress cannot adopt a plan, automatic spending cuts go into effect. Fifty percent of the cuts must come from Defense and fifty percent from the rest of the federal budget. The automatic $700 billion in defense cuts would be in addition to the $400 billion already imposed by the administration. This is political gamesmanship on a Machiavellian level.

In fact, Defense spending is not the cause of the US debt or deficit and should not bear the brunt of the solution. Contrary to popular belief, the Defense budget shrank through the last two decades and now stands at 5.1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). Throughout the Cold War defense spending averaged between 6 and 8 percent of GDP. By contrast, Social Security and Medicare consume 8.1 percent of GDP. Splitting $1.5 trillion 50-50 between the Defense Budget and the rest of the federal budget is not equitable.

Senior US military leaders testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in late July delivered a stark yet truthful assessment which they are professionally obliged to do on matters of national security. Theirs was not a revolt as some imply but an estimate to assist congress in their constitutional obligation in keeping the US safe.

With one voice US military leaders  warned that very large cuts in defense spending will, in their words, “break the force.” Their point is that our armed forces cannot collectively engage in two or three decades-long wars, maintain a forward presence in the world, conduct endless overseas deployments, provide humanitarian disaster relief at home and abroad, conduct military training for dozens of allied countries and then be expected to absorb as much as a $1 trillion budget cut over ten years while sustaining those missions.

Army General Martin Dempsey, Obama’s nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Admiral James Winnefeld, nominee for Vice Chief of Staff, presented the assessment. Echoing the same argument, each military service Vice Chief testified before the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee delivering the same message.

A cynic could argue that senior generals have a parochial interest in defending their business-as-usual budget. However, the new Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, who is known as a deficit hawk, posted a similar warning on his website. As civilian head of the Defense Department he fears massive cuts “will result in a force undersized and underfunded relative to missions and responsibilities.”

Withdrawing into Fortress America makes no strategic sense when non-governmental organizations (NGO) worldwide threaten our security. It is preferable to fight a conflict as far forward as possible taking advantage of room to maneuver as well as intelligence collection while accepting the risk of an extended line of communication. There are advantages to fighting on an opponent’s turf rather than your own turf with your back against the wall. Without the ability to project and sustain power overseas, we may risk fighting a conflict on our own soil.

Our economy and defense are inextricably linked. Adam Smith understood this when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations in 1776, “When institutions protect the liberty of individuals, greater prosperity results for all.”

The converse could well spell disaster.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).