Wars cash crunch -- Part 3

WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) -- So, is there a common thread in any of this? Not easy to discern one, really. The first two examples -- more troops in Afghanistan, the commissioning of a brand-new carrier -- would indicate that America has money. The prudent reply of the Pentagon spokesman regarding future procurement of major weapons systems would indicate that, because of the fiscal crisis, there will be painful procurement cuts.

Well, and so, what does it mean? It means that, unless we re-establish fairly quickly our economic strength, at some point trillion-dollar-plus deficits and a country in a deep recession will collide with global foreign policy ambitions, a huge defense budget and the desire to send around the world a powerful symbol of U.S. might. Unless President Barack Obama is successful in leading America in an effort that will fix this mess, sooner rather than later we shall get to the point at which the superpower status and international role played by the United States will be undercut by lack of money.

Ordinarily (that is, excluding for a moment all the extraordinary federal spending just launched and its impact on federal finances and on the national debt) the Pentagon is used to taking a huge chunk of all discretionary federal spending -- that is, all the spending that is not committed to transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. But, given this deep crisis of uncertain duration, how long can this last? The answer is not so simple. Allocations for national security are a combination of available cash and the setting of policy priorities. If a country has money, it can decide to have or not have significant military spending. But if a country has fewer and fewer resources, then the policy choices become more limited. As the French say, "C'est l'argent qui fait la guerre" ("It is money that makes war"). And this is not to recommend war. It is simply to recognize that without money to fund a modern military that is supposed to be large enough to constitute a credible deterrent and to be effective as a policy tool when it is so decided, the United States cannot continue to be a superpower.

Military spending, however misdirected and often misused, is a large component of U.S. credibility as a world leader. Without military power or with very diminished power, who will listen to America? Well, the proponents of "soft power" would argue that there are other, indeed better, ways to influence international affairs through trade, dialogue and diplomacy. I am not so sure. The governments of the countries that send a few hundred troops or less to Afghanistan do not seriously expect to influence policy. The European Union has no military power to speak of, and thus nobody pays any real attention to its proclamations.

--

(Part 4: The root causes of America's inability to continue financing its military commitments at current levels)

--

(Paolo Liebl von Schirach is the editor of SchirachReport.com, a regular contributor to Swiss radio and an international economic development consultant.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)