Why Capitalism? by Meltzer Allan H

Author:Meltzer, Allan H.
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Published: 2012-03-24T16:00:00+00:00

Foreign and Military Commitments

In the years just after World War II, the United States gradually accepted responsibility for maintaining world political stability and countering the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. This was one of the public goods provided as part of the postwar Pax Americana. This freed other countries to devote fewer resources to military spending and more to economic development and foreign trade.

The principal European countries contributed to defense but accepted U.S. leadership, as they could not defend themselves against possible attack by the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War left them freer to pursue their own interests.

United States officials initially disclaimed the role of the world’s policeman and tried to limit its role to defense against the Soviet Union and its satellites, but gradually, objectives broadened. At different times, the United States established bases in many countries, sending troops to defend Europe, Japan, Lebanon, Somalia, Dominica, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan, among others. Equipping military bases worldwide, maintaining a large navy to keep sea lanes open, protecting Middle East oil supplies on behalf of its allies in Europe and Japan, and providing a security umbrella for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and others, however, meant that the United States had taken on the policeman’s role that it had sought to avoid—and with no rule or principle in place to restrict such involvements from widening and deepening.

Military experts rarely mentioned the costs of these operations. Neither the Johnson nor the second Bush administration included accurate cost estimates in their budgets. Presidents have used supplemental appropriations to keep military expenses out of the budget. Once a war is in progress, legislators find it difficult to vote against funding—so spending rises, mostly financed by issuing debt, which shifts costs from present to future taxpayers.

America received little support from its allies in most of its recent military expeditions, with a few exceptions, mainly Britain and Australia. (Canada has joined in Afghanistan.) Our major allies thus require the United States to bear most of the cost in blood, treasure, and effort. They are free riders.

The American public increasingly opposes protracted military efforts. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public initially supported the effort, but after a prolonged engagement with no victorious end or clear outcome, public support waned. The limits of America’s responsibility urgently need discussion and clear decision making. Prominent citizens and the press will often urge the use of force to stop murder or persecution in places such as Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, or Libya, yet the United States has limited resources and cannot prevent all evils. We lack a coherent, credible set of principles to guide such decisions.

Congress controls the military budget, but as military bases and equipment contracts are spread across the country, members are reluctant to vote for reductions that threaten to hurt firms and families in their district. A few years ago, Congress agreed to let a commission choose which bases to close, reserving only the right to approve or reject the entire program.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.