In coming days, legislators on Capitol Hill will begin thrashing out a new Continuing Resolution needed to provide “stop-gap” funding for the government in the absence of the annual appropriations bills. Perhaps in that context – and certainly in the budget deliberations that will follow the installation of the 112th Congress, a serious run will be made at cutting defense spending.
Never mind that the Obama administration has already been whacking away at the Pentagon’s funding. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced that he will seek to cut a further $100 billion over the next five years. Taken together, the scapel is whittling away at bone, not just fat and muscle – eliminating or imperiling the modernization programs upon which America’s ability to project power and counter future peer competitors like China will depend.
The danger posed by such draconian and ill-advised cuts will be greatly compounded if, as seems likely, the usual suspects on the Left are able to enlist some Republicans whose commitment to cutting government expenditures makes no distinction between ones that are clearly discretionary and ones that underpin the national security.
Fortunately, into the fray has just waded one of America’s most storied historians, strategic thinkers and public policy commentators: Victor Davis Hanson. In an article that is as trenchant as it is timely, Mr. Hanson lays out five compelling reasons why the temptation to make no distinction between defense spending and other government expenditures should be firmly resisted.
One of Victor Davis Hanson’s historical observations bears specific mention: “It is almost a given that anytime the post-war United States cuts its military or tires of its global deterrent role, it will soon rue the effort and pay for its laxity with blood and treasure.” The article in its entirety is required reading.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.