Why is the defense budget a museum piece?

Look But Don't Touch

On the eve of 2013, there is one word on every pundits lips- sequestration.

This will not happen

Sequestration is the automatic tax increases and budget cuts that will be imposed on January 2nd if the United States goes sailing over the "fiscal cliff". The major concern is that these cuts and tax increases will send the United States back into a recession.

On the table is $100 billion in cuts per year for 10 years... or $1 trillion dollars

$1 trillion is a large cut, but considering our gigantic debt and geopolitical conditions, it is necessary.



Why? 

Well, because the world is becoming more peaceful.

That sounds contradictory to what we see on the news every day, but the reality is that a war between major powers has not occurred since 1945. There have been plenty of proxy wars, and a large increase in civil wars, but the reality remains the same-- superpowers are not fighting.

What's more, the nature of war has changed. There is no threat from a large standing force. What was done with boots on the ground sixty years ago can now be done by pressing a button-- this is a fact the Pentagon refuses to recognize.

With advances in technology and training, we can accomplish a whole lot more with a whole lot less. And with the US refocusing on the Pacific, we now have the perfect opportunity to reorganize our military and even take a substantial dent out of our debt.

How?

Decrease the total number of personel and sell assets.

The foes faced by the US today are stateless, small, and hard to find.  As we saw in Afghanistan, sending a ton of soldiers didn't win the war; it simply put a lot of targets on the ground to shoot at. By decreasing the total number of our personel, we would open up the possibility of maintaining a small but extremely efficient fighting force. Basically, train the number of actively deployed men to a special forces level of readiness.

This would allow our forces to go in quietly, do what they need to do, and get out without committing billions in resources to the operation. It would also allow us to maintain a strong R&D budget, and hyper-efficient standing force (small number of highly advanced aircraft and numerous ABM batteries) on US soil.

I've talked before about selling our assets abroad, and I think that in light of the ongoing budget battle it remains a necessity. There is no conceivable reason to field over 70,000 men in Europe- even in a support capacity. By selling off our European assets- the bases, outdated aircraft, and weapons- we could generate extra revenue to pay down our deficit. The Department of Defense gets a win from the initial purchase and by no longer having to pay for maintenance, staff, and upkeep. The defense contractors (such as Boeing, Raytheon, and BAE systems) get a win because they will need to supply parts, maintenance, and ammunition to the European Union.

What about jobs?

Obviously, all that I have outlined above will mean that many people will lose their jobs. There is no avoiding that, but what is more important: jobs (short term) or deficit ?

If we don't need so much manpower to protect our national interests, why do we still have them? Couldn't that manpower be put to better use here in the US? Our infrastructure is dangerously outdated, and no matter how much I'm against big government, it would be nice to have the Works Progress Administration around to repair all of the things they built in the 1930's.

In conclusion, is sequestration bad? In the short term, it won't be pretty... but ten years from now, will it be looked at as the thing that saved us from bankruptcy? Will it be the motivator for creating a better and safer style of national defense? I certainly hope so.

What Comes After Democracy?

Over the last century, the world has become more democratic. Kings, Fascists, Tyrants, and Colonialists have disappeared from most governments in the world.

Most people attribute this to globalization through the trade and financial markets. Former Soviet States are joining (or attempting to join) NATO, the EU, WTO, etc... The Arab Spring has swept autocrats out of power across the Middle East. Despite the continuing unrest and problems throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the African Union has stepped up its ability to promote peace on the continent, notably in Darfur, Sudan and Somalia. Even the military government of Myanmar had a historic election this year.

There is no question that democracy leads to less conflict between other democratic nations, and that democracies give greater value to human rights and individual liberty than non-democratic states. My question is what comes next? Is there a higher system of government than democracy? Will technology allow individuals more influence over the government, or will it be used to give government more power over the individual? Will democracy evolve into something new, or devolve into something we've seen before? What comes after democracy?

I posted that rather innocuous question on Facebook, and one of my friends gave a pretty awesome answer:

"I say servitude follows democracy. If I had been living in Athens since Pericles, I would have been lorded over by my own democratic assembly, Spartans, Macedonians, Romans and their Greek speaking Roman heirs (Byzantines), Frankish Crusaders, Greek Romans (Byzantines) again in their last bid for survival and then Turks. I would then live under Monarchy, Nazi occupation, Dictatorship and finally this current system which now lives under the EU. After living all that time, I'm not sure whether I'd be so confident that any system of government works that well or truly has people's best interests in mind."

"Hipsteristotle"

While this is a pretty awesome answer for what historically occurred following Athenian democracy, it does not account for one thing: Athens was unique. Essentially, Athenian democracy was "hipster democracy". Athenians liked democracy before it was cool.

With so many states now democratic, and with the levels of conflict between states greatly diminishing -- what comes next? Here is where my friends answer definitely applies. Servitude does come next; however, it is not servitude to an outside, nondemocratic power. It is servitude within the democracy.

I recently read an incredibly interesting paper by Albert Bartlett, a retired physics professor from the University of Colorado, titled "Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation". The paper puts forward two items that impact liberty: 1) that as populations grow, the relative power for one person to give input on government decisions decreases and 2) that as technology advances, so does the human ability to annoy each other with those advancements -- translating into more legislation and regulation (i.e. loss of freedom).

Bartlett's points make total sense, and to a very large degree he is right. Earth is a finite resource, and constant population growth will eventually be unsustainable. However, I do not think that technology will destroy democracy through regulation. If anything, I think that technology could greatly improve democracy.

Over the past century, there has been a trend that smaller administrative areas wish to break away from the larger nation. The collapse of the Soviet Union created 15 new countries. The break up of Yugoslavia created another 7. Africa is constantly changing, most recently with the creation of South Sudan. Even now, Scotland is having a referendum on independence from the UK. Catalonia is attempting to leave Spain. And of course, there are all the pathetic secession attempts on the White House petition site.

This fracturing of states may go a long way toward proving Bartlett's first point. As the relative power to influence the government decreases, groups that feel disenfranchised leave to create their own democracy. If we play out this trend over hundreds of years, it could be extremely possible that the world map will look more like it did during Aristotle's time: a collection of self administered city-states.

So what about his second point?

In the age before the internet, representative democracy was the only option. Voting took an inordinate amount of time, and with communication taking days, there was no feasible way to have a direct democracy. Now, all the information you need to make an informed decision is available in a matter of seconds. You can communicate your decision with the click of a button. In 100 years, will there be a need for an elected body of officials? I don't think so.

I say that a "digitocracy" will replace democracy. People will be able to vote on any issue in a matter of seconds. In a way, it is a return to the New England Town Hall meeting. Everyone could participate. Decisions could be made quickly, and the impact of those decisions (for better or worse) would be limited to the people that made the decision.

Of course, this is an awfully optimistic view for the future. It could easily go the way Bartlett describes in his paper, but I like to think that humanity will somehow rally around the common good of civic participation. All that being said, either view would make a pretty good sci-fi novel.