I´ve never understood why so many people automatically equate Republicans as strong on national security and Democrats as weak. True, Republicans generally spend more money on the military. But national security is not only measured by the size and sophistication of a country´s armed forces (although it is certainly one component).
Rather, a more complete measure of "national security" would include economic and cultural factors as well. For instance, I´d be willing to say that the "number of people who hate America to their core (and are therefore subject to terrorist leanings)" is just as important to our national security than the number of aircraft carriers we have. As a parallel, Israel may be "protected" by a well-funded military, but what do they have to show for it? Enmity from every Muslim country in the world, and a precarious existence that becomes even more precarious as terrorists become more sophisticated. Even if Israel (or any other country) spent 10X more on their military budget, the animosity generated would mitigate much of the security gained.
So, this brings be back to the original question - is it accurate to conclude that Republicans are "better on national security issues" than Democrats just because they spend more on the military? I say no. Thus far, Obama has been successful in proving this point. As an American, I feel much safer knowing that the American government is not as internationally despised as it once was. To be sure, grudges against the U.S. are still many (see my post and Colin´s comment on this subject), whether founded or unfounded. But in a world with so many threats, America can´t defend itself from every threat; it needs popular support from the citizens of other countries. The less people hate us, the more secure we will be. Perception matters, whether we like it or not.
This is a fair point. The size of the defense budget is a poor proxy for U.S. safety. In fact, it can make things worse by making U.S. more likely to employ the military when we shouldn't do so -- when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
ReplyDeleteThe best approach it seems to me, is a strong U.S. whose default position is an aversion to interventions in foreign conflict. This is the approach that Bush advocated, but did not implement, as candidate in 2000.
The problem with this position is that it's out existence and success that makes us a target, not the personality of our President. Obama may get better treatment than Bush in Le Monde but people are still burning him in effigy on the streets of the Muslim world.
ReplyDeleteWe tried the be friendly and weak method for 8 years under Clinton and it resulted in 9/11. I'm not saying that the invasion of Iraq is necessarily the answer, but it's not possible to placate the radical world without selling out everything that we are.
I like it, Dave.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. spends more than 9x what China spends and more than 16x what Russia spends on defense. US military spending is almost half the world total, and including the rest of NATO makes it about 2/3 the world total. The marginal dollar toward defense seems to be buying less and less security. "Friendly and weak" is a silly way to describe Clinton's tenure, which included several military interventions (which had mixed success). Clinton also made some progress on Israel-Palestine, which was subsequently ignored for 8 years.
It isn't our success or our freedom that make us less safe, it's our policies and Israel's policies. We have a tendency to try to dominate most of the global political affairs, especially where there are natural resources. Many times this is for the greater good, but the US govt. has sometimes acted carelessly and even tragically.
I'm not trying to be partisan here. Simply reflecting on a few facts can make it more clear why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world and especially the middle east. On the Arab street we are perceived as going to war with Islam. The violations of the Geneva conventions including violating the sacred/committing taboos to prisoners reinforces this notion. Imprisoning people without trial reinforces that notion.
There is no excuse for violence against innocent people, and no one wants to be friendly and weak with terrorists. Obama is trying to win over the moderate Arabs & Muslims in the middle east. It's a good start.