A Strong National Defense

A Strong National Defense

Ronald Reagan successfully argued that American military might keeps the peace. His “peace through strength” approach reshaped the geo-political landscape for the better.

The period of American military pre-eminence has seen fewer major conflicts than any other period since the rise of nation-states. U.S. military strength improves global stability. For example, the presence of the U.S. Navy enables commercial shipping, provides quick response to natural disasters, such as the earthquake Haiti, and deters aggression, as with China and Taiwan.

A strong national defense and a coherent U.S. security policy are part of the foundation of our success as a nation. We must use our forces wisely and effectively while preparing for future conflicts which may not resemble today’s. The recent Quadrennial Defense Review suggests that the U.S. should move away from its decades-old policy of being prepared to simultaneously fight two major wars. Many people believe that we should focus on non-state actors (i.e., terrorists, jihadists, etc.) rather than nation-states. I believe that we can, and must, do both.

Non-state actors present the nearest and most likely threat, but their capabilities are limited in comparison to those of nations. Maintaining a two-front capability enables us to continue to deter aggression even while involved in conflict. We must keep watch over North Korea and Iran even as we confront acts of Islamic jihadist terror in the homeland and abroad.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Currently, the U.S. military fills a vital geopolitical vacuum; the European Union and Russia are simply unable to do so. On the other hand, China is investing in massive military growth and is predicted by mid-century to have an economy several times the size of our own. Should the U.S. really reduce the deterrent power of its current military capability?

Rather than assume that tomorrow’s conflicts will look like today’s, we would be wise to continue with the multi-theatre strategy that has served us so well over the past six decades.

The United States has understood, more than any nation in recent history that with great power comes great responsibility. As the world’s sole military superpower, we must be slow to undertake military action--I say this as a Marine. We must only employ our military might when it is clearly in the national interest. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, we have seen several military engagements that did not pass this test.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war. Despite major conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the U.S. has not fought in a declared war since World War II. Our founding fathers wisely gave the power to declare war to the representatives of the people; if the people do not believe that a conflict is in their national interest, then it is not. We should adhere to the Constitution and only fight in conflicts that receive a majority vote in Congress through a Declaration of War. The federal government’s chief role is to protect her people and the process for doing so is clearly articulated in the Constitution.

Finally, some people argue that we should slash defense spending in order to pay for social programs. I reject this view. Deficit reduction demands tough choices and we can find places to save within the Department of Defense, for example, through better procurement practices and reductions to the defense civilian workforce. However, we must never put social policies or spending goals ahead of national security. Defense is at the core of what governments should provide and it is dangerous to arbitrarily decide that we need 25% or 30% cuts to our defense spending.