There are two mindsets on military spending, and I could go either way because I don't know which approach is best for our country.
After World War II, the United States benefited from being the only country that hadn't had its industrial base destroyed by war. This allowed us to be the dominant world power for decades, but this is no longer true.
Thomas Jefferson said that the United States should not get involved in foreign entanglements. This was at a time when the United States was mostly an agrarian society and not a major world power. Yet, Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. military, with the help of Sweden, to defeat the Barbary pirates who were attacking and enslaving Europeans and Americans.
Just like in 1801, we still need to defend maritime freedom.
There is a precedent here that outside forces have always attacked the United States. Although there were some wars that we didn't need to be involved in, there were others where we had to defend ourselves.
I do not think the war in Ukraine is in any way in the national interest of the United States. The rationale for this war is that we need to contain Putin, but I have to wonder why that is our problem. It is Europe's problem. It makes very little difference to the United States' interest who rules Ukraine. This is a case of the United States trying to be the global policeman, at the expense of the taxpayers.
We are spending around $150 billion on this war, which is about $1,000 for every tax paper, and there is no end in sight. This is a cost we do not see right away because we are going deeply into debt to spend excessively, but eventually, the bills will come due and we will be poorer because of it. Had we done nothing, or negotiated a settlement, every taxpayer would have been a thousand dollars less poor. This means that we would be stronger as a nation over the long term, and a stronger nation is better able to defend itself in a crisis.
It is because of debt that we can engage in policies that otherwise would seem too costly.
I considered it a fantasy that Ukraine could win a war against a much more powerful Russia, although it is less clear now. Ultimately, Ukraine will have to make concessions for peace, which could have been achieved a couple of years ago, but the United States insisted that Ukraine try to regain the territory it lost. The United States policy is intended to punish Putin, but this is a case of us thinking that we should solve every problem on the planet.
Likewise, we spent $120 billion in 1990 to defend Kuwait from Iraq. This was also about $1,000 per taxpayer, but that is equivalent to $2,300 in today's money. Technically, we are still paying for this. The rationales were that we should stand up to aggression and that we shouldn't let Iraq control the oil in Kuwait. However, the aggression wasn't against us, we were defending one dictatorship against another, and it would make very little difference in the global oil market who controlled the oil wells.
We spent $758 billion on the second Iraq war.
The same kind of thinking is making war with China almost inevitable over Taiwan. The rationales are that we should defend freedom, and Tawaiin is the world's biggest producer of the best microchips. However, the microchip problem is one that we can solve with relatively modest investment. If China conquers Taiwain, the country will still have to sell microchips, although they could limit who they sell chips to.
It is my belief supported by history that dictatorships and communist nations eventually collapse from their inherent inefficiency. China has done a great job of becoming militarily, economically, and technologically more powerful, but it is also fraught with problems due to bad economic policies. Most Chinese are still very poor. China has prospered only because of free trade and the United States is a major buyer of Chinese manufactured goods. This is a problem we can solve. We have this problem because of complacency. If we view China as a threat, we should shift trade to other countries, which would diminish China's power. We could impose tariffs until China agrees to be less belligerent. We should encourage other countries to do the same. This might be costly in the short run, but it would be far better than going into another world war.
No comments:
Post a Comment