You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myAJC.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myAJC.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myAJC.com.

More bombs and bullets, less diplomacy leads to war


Trying to justify a major funding increase for the Pentagon, President Trump has taken to calling the U.S. military “depleted.”

Yet in 2015, the most recent year for which we have full, comparative data, the United States spent $596 billion on its military. That’s more than the next seven countries combined. Trump now calls for increasing that amount by $54 billion for the 2018 fiscal year, while also increasing current-year, 2017 defense spending by $30 billion.

Just to put that into context: That proposed $84 billion increase in military spending — just the increase — is significantly greater than Russia’s entire annual military budget of $66 billion.

In addition, eight of the 10 biggest spending nations, and 15 of the top 20, are close U.S. military allies such as Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, Germany, South Korea and Japan. The combined annual military spending of the United States and those allies is $1.1 trillion, far outstripping any plausible combination against us.

China has no such allies.

Russia has no such allies.

It’s also important to note that Trump has proposed adding tens of thousands of active-duty military personnel, dozens of new ships and significant upgrades of the Air Force strategic bomber fleet. However, none of those efforts would be funded by this proposed increase, meaning that it’s merely a down payment for much bigger spending increases to come.

That reflects one of Washington’s most ironclad ironies: Those people who are most likely to launch into a lecture that you can’t solve a problem by throwing more money at it are always the same people demanding that we do exactly that when the debate turns to defense.

While proposing what he calls “historic” increases in defense spending, Trump is also proposing drastic cuts to foreign aid and a 37 percent cut for the State Department and related programs. Within a day of that news leaking, more than 120 retired three- and four-star generals signed a letter of protest to Congress, warning that such programs “are critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.”

That letter - signed by Gen. David Petraeus and Admiral James Stavridis, among others — also quotes Trump’s secretary of defense, Gen. James Mattis, when he served in 2013 as head of U.S. Central Command. “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition,” Mattis said at the time.

In short, this is not a carefully thought-out strategy from the Trump administration, based on consultation with the experts and our allies. Instead, the man who took five draft deferments to avoid fighting in Vietnam, the man who says that he knows better than the generals how to defeat ISIS and who claims he understands the military because he attended a military-themed boarding school, is offering a military strategy that is fueled largely by his own deep personal insecurities.

And here’s my biggest worry. In the weeks and months to come, Trump is likely to grow more and more frustrated by his inability to bend Congress to his will, by continued criticism from the media and perhaps by falling poll numbers. Looking for an outlet that will satisfy his grandiose dreams for himself and rally the country behind him, he is likely to follow the pattern of too many populist leaders and turn to foreign policy, where a president has few effective constraints on his ambitions.

In a world already teetering close to the edge, that’s trouble.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: The day Bill O’Reilly got fired

On the day Bill O’Reilly was fired, Serena Williams announced she was 20 weeks pregnant. Fans did the math and concluded Williams must have had a baby on board in January when she won her 23rd Grand Slam singles title in dominating fashion. That, said TV tennis analyst Pam Shriver, made Williams’ win “even more spectacular.&rdquo...
Opinion: Alas, the mortgage interest deduction cannot be pried away

WASHINGTON — Attempting comprehensive tax reform is like trying to tug many bones from the clamped jaws of many mastiffs. Every provision of the code — now approaching 4 million words — was put there to placate a clamorous faction, or to create a grateful group that will fund its congressional defenders. Still, Washington will take...
As members flee, Georgia PTA risks status, stability
As members flee, Georgia PTA risks status, stability

On probation for a coup that ousted a revered president and under siege from a growing revolt in the ranks, the leadership of the Georgia PTA is burrowing deeper into its bunker. When the embattled board emerges and takes stock, it’s likely to find a changed landscape. Dozens of PTAs have decided to initiate the complicated process of dissolving...
Opinion: Why? I’ll tell you why!

Because I like it, because it’s Friday and because I’m going out for music and dancing tonight ….
Opinion: No easy, cheap fix for ACA’s shortcomings
Opinion: No easy, cheap fix for ACA’s shortcomings

Remember that Saturday Night Live character who yelled “just fix it”? He had absolutely no idea how to do it; he just wanted it done ASAP. Well, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) can’t be easily fixed — or repealed, as the GOP and President Donald Trump have discovered. Although it is clearly better than nothing, I have never...
More Stories