Some "conservatives" are calling for a return to basic Republican principles: less government, low taxes, and strong defense. I posit that these are contradictory and sometimes even useless.
Generally the proponents of strong defense imply a military that is capable of blowing other people up better than other people can blow us up. This means bigger and faster ships and planes with bigger things to blow people up.
In order to have this kind of defense, you need to have a large bureaucracy to procure, staff, and maintain it. A large bureaucracy means large government
If you have lots of thing to blow people up and a large bureaucracy then you will need to raise lots of taxes or borrow lots of money. One estimate I read was that World War II took up to 42% of the gross domestic product.
The strong defense of blowing people up is not working.
First, having more nuclear weapons than anybody else is not doing much good. And if they were used, say, like Hillary Clinton declared, to obliterate Iran, who would die? How many "bad guys" are there in any given locale? How many women and children would be obliterated? Probably more women and children than bad guys.
Second, all these "surgical strikes" with 500-lb. bombs and Predator missiles somehow have killed many women and children. Even if no women or children are killed, many believe there were. The many are both allies and enemies. Such perceptions do not hearts and minds win.
Third, what country seriously has the intent and the resources to invade and occupy the continental United States?
We have only two military concerns: nuclear proliferation and piracy.
The concern of nuclear proliferation has to be addressed with more active diplomacy than has ever been applied. If China were to increase its nuclear arsenal, what would the U.S. do but increase its nuclear arsenal. Now if the U.S., with its huge nuclear arsenal, is using harsh words against Iran and North Korea, should it surprise us that these states want to have nuclear arsenals? If the U.S. can have a nuclear arsenal for a deterrent, shouldn't these states also have a nuclear arsenal for a deterrent? It's just another arms race in the history of arms races covering almost all of human history. The only solutions are to have all sides back off, to have a nervous stalemate, or to use the arms. The latter two solutions are expensive, which doesn't help keep taxes low.
The concern of piracy cannot be addressed with diplomacy and cannot be addressed with a "strong defense". Well, diplomacy would help in isolating and reducing support for the pirates. Diplomacy would also help in co-ordinating the activities of various navies and other forces to defend ships against pirates. The "strong defense" of super-duper fighter jets, heavy tanks, and super carriers won't defend against pirates. What are needed are faster armed boats and many helicopters. But the helicopters should be prepared for Stinger missiles, something the "strong defense" provided to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight Soviet helicopters.
What about terrorism? The defense of terrorism is a combination of diplomacy and police work. Diplomacy is needed to isolate and ferret out terrorists. One country cannot do this all over the world. Police work is needed because terrorists often create and implement their deeds in cities, not isolated mountain hideouts. They are going to come in two and threes, not in brigades. Effective police work is knowing about suspicious activity and halting it before it can become a catastrophe.
Although limited government and low-taxes are laudable goals, let's hope the proponents of these change their goal of "strong defense" to "appropriate defense".
See also "India's 9/11? Not exactly", Amitav Ghosh, New York Times, 2008-12-02
