Military Overreach

The primary thesis of our Existential Threat blog is that the United States has too much debt, and that increasing Federal debt level is now large enough that it will rob the United State of its ability to address its most important social and defensive needs. We think the United States is now in the position where it can no longer afford to defend the whole world and provide for all the social needs of its own citizens, let alone the millions of migrants flooding this country. Now and in the future, we have to be mindful of the costs of everything we might want to do.

A perfect example of this is the war in Ukraine. Without question, the national consensus among both Democrats and Republicans is that we are engaged in a proxy war with Russia, and that it is a war that we must win. Other than former President Trump, Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and maybe Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, we are not aware of any other Presidential candidates pushing hard for peace negotiations and compromise. In contrast, the Biden Administration has pledged to support the Ukraine government for “as long as it takes.” From our point of view, that means the foreseeable future will consist of continued war, death and destruction, with no victory or winning in sight. We have to ask: Endless War, and at what cost?

Other than the obvious $100 billion or so we have spent so far, and the heavy cost of a huge military re-armament that is sure to come, there is a new moral cost that will be impossible to calculate. This past week, President Biden authorized sending cluster bombs to the Ukraine. These weapons are banned by more than 100 countries, some of which are our own NATO allies. The President’s decision is certainly a dramatic reversal, for a little more than a year ago, Biden press secretary, Jen Psaki, claimed that Russia’s purported use of the weapons was “potentially a war crime.” Why? Cluster bombs scatter dozens of explosive bomblets over a wide area, and many of these bomblets can and will detonate much later, resulting in the deaths of innocent men, women and children for many years after the war has actually ended.

How did President Biden justify his decision? In a recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, he said: “This is a war relating to munitions. And they’re running out of that ammunition, and we’re low on it... And so, what I finally did, I took the recommendation of the Defense Department to – not permanently – but to allow for this transition period while we get more 155 weapons, these shells, for the Ukrainians.” No doubt the Chinese were happy to hear this news. President Biden has previously proclaimed that he would defend Taiwan (who knows what he really meant by that), but if we don’t have the weapons right now to help the Ukrainian people, how in the world are we going to be able to also send weapons over to Taiwan so they can defend themselves?

Shortly after the President’s ill-advised comment that the United States is running out of ammunition, a White House official appeared and tried to walk back Biden’s comment, saying that “the U.S. is not running out of ammunition ourselves… “These cluster munitions are a bridge as we significantly increase production of ammunition over the coming months – and will have much higher production levels soon.”

Really? We have seen credible reports that the Pentagon is rushing to replace thousands of U.S.-made Javelin and Stinger missiles pulled from European and American stockpiles for use in Ukraine. However, there are two main hurdles to quickly increasing missile production. First, the hundreds of small suppliers that form the backbone of the industrial base are working to locate the required components to build new missiles, including rare earth materials and electrical components that can be difficult to source quickly (much of which is produced in China). Secondly, companies are also waiting to ensure funding is locked in before investing in increasing production capacity, and that requires a formal contract from the Defense Department, and it will certainly take time for Congressional approval.

In the meantime, President Biden is expanding the use of US military forces in different parts of the world. The United States is ensconced in northwest Syria, where fighting rages against the Assad government. The Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, the Kurds, ISIS, and government forces are all involved, and we are in the middle of it. Do our soldiers have the ammunition they need to defend themselves? In addition, President Biden recently reintroduced the US military into Somalia, and even more recently, US forces were sent down to Peru. Overall, the US has approximately 800 formal military bases in 80 countries, a number that does not include troops stationed at embassies and missions all over the world. Do we have the financial resources to allow our military to execute their missions and defend themselves in all those places?

Not for long! In the latest Treasury Monthly Statement, the facts are clear: in the current fiscal year's first nine months, the US has already accumulated an unprecedented $652 billion in gross debt interest, an increase from a year ago amounting to an incredible 25%. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that it won’t be long before interest payments on the US Federal debt will surpass a whopping $1 trillion. In the latest debt ceiling bill, the Congress and the President agreed on a cap of $886 billion for the military, so we are about to reach a watershed moment where we now have to pay more money in interest than we do to defend ourselves. This is unsustainable.

In regard to the Ukraine, former President Trump has bragged that he would end the war in just one day, but of course, he did not articulate just how he would do that. Presidential candidate Kennedy has been more specific, saying he “will find a diplomatic solution that brings peace … and bring our resources back where they belong. We will offer to withdraw our troops and nuclear-capable missiles from Russia's borders. Russia will withdraw its troops from Ukraine and guarantee its freedom and independence.”

Quite apart from the Ukraine, Kennedy’s overall vision sounds appealing, but it certainly goes against the policy positions of the majority of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Here’s what he says: “As president, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will start the process of unwinding empire. We will bring the troops home. We will stop racking up unpayable debt to fight one war after another. The military will return to its proper role of defending our country. We will end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know it’s happening. But it is happening, a constant drain on our strength. It’s time to come home and restore this country.

In our opinion, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. doesn’t have a “snowball’s chance in hell’ of becoming President, but some of what he says makes a heulluva lot of sense. We do have to “stop racking up unpayable debt,” but it can’t stop at just the military. We also have to find a way to reduce domestic and entitlement spending. Is there the political will to compromise and reduce spending?

Don’t hold your breath!