Growing Debt Poses National Security Threat!

Approximately one year ago, we were honored at our annual Chamber of Commerce banquet to hear from Albert Lea Native son, Major Gen. Thomas Anderson. A symbol of hard work and dedication, Major Gen. Anderson provided an inspirational touch to this event designed to promote the connection between community success and quality education. What struck me most that night, was one of his answers during the Q&A portion of the speech. From the audience, the question was presented: "What is the greatest security threat to the United States?" Without missing a beat, he answered, "The Economy." I felt disappointed that we didn't get a situation room briefing on the latest Al Queda activities. While I found myself feeling unsettled about his answer, I really gave it no more than the fleeting thought.

Recently, while reading the rounds of newspapers, an article quoting Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff renewed my concern, "I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt." At this point I decided that if a hometown hero and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were concerned, I probably should be as well.

After pealing back a few layers of my Midwestern naivety, I discovered a fundamental debate raging at the national level. The concern explained by these military minds is driven by the idea that the best fight is the one you win without fighting. Clearly, our own Congressman Tim Walz and his spending allies in D.C. are creating a situation that threatens this basic premise. Their unsustainable spending spree seriously threatens our Nations' ability to promote world-wide stability.

The Obama Administration released its new National Security Strategy in May. This document continues the Obama trajectory moving America away from the so-called "hard power" of the military. The Administration fundamentally prefers the "soft power" of the outstretched hand to the cliched fist. This trend towards less military strength is emphasized in a recent headline, "Pentagon faces growing pressure to trim budgets." It appears that the push to soften the fist will continue. In fact, in Obama's recent budget proposal, Defense is being targeted with 80% of the proposed cuts. While Obama articulately states, "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem" these words were clearly directed heavily at defense spending.

On non-defense items, Tim Walz and his fellow Democrats continue to follow Obama's lead in voting for enormous spending bills. The recent extension of programs without finding offsetting cuts and following their own Pay-go rules is the latest example. In one breath Walz states, "deficits matter" and in the next his political ambitions (a/k/a "maybe I will be one of them" mentality) take over and he votes to increase the deficit (click here to see the current debt clock). When questions about the criticisms to Obama's "soft power" initiatives, Walz responded that he doesn't "buy" the critics' arguments. While Congressman Walz is the highest ranking retired enlisted solder to serve in Congress, his military credentials cannot shield his voting record.

While the increased use of soft power is a laudible goal, we can go too soft. Reliance on "soft" diplomacy cannot be effective if we whittle away at the big stick with unsustained spending. As explained by T. Roosevelt, "Diplomacy is utterly useless where there is no force behind it." A recent article in Foreign Affairs brings this concept into modern context, "For the United States' enemies in Iran and Iraq, it must be consoling to know that U.S. fiscal policy today is preprogrammed to reduce the resources available for all overseas military operations in the years ahead."

Our allies have even brazenly undermined our attempts at diplomacy and sanctions. In a finger in the eye to US policy, Brazil and Turkey met with Iran and opened substantial economic ties with our sworn enemy. These allies surely sense a shift in the balance of power by openly support a renegade regime.

Others may be forced to follow suit if U.S. clout continues to wane. As boldly articulated recently by the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, "There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran."

America carries an obligation to actively promote stability and freedom around the world. We cannot fulfill this obligation with empty words. Unsustainable spending and ballooning deficits threaten to make our words a mere symbolic gesture in world politics. That is a national security threat.

__________________________________

Welcome to Tilting Against! If you have not subscribed to receive posts via e-mail, you can do so by clicking on the following link: http://tiltingagainst.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

Make sure to watch for the confirmation e-mail.