As a lame duck session of Congress grapples with multiple issues and a dwindling amount of time in which to get anything done, three significant issues top the agenda, with extension of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 in the lead position. But the other two issues — cutting federal spending, including the Pentagon budget, to address spiraling national debt, and ratification of the proposed New START Treaty to reduce the nuclear weapons held by America and Russia — both concern American national security.
In an effort to spotlight these two areas that are certain to be among the country’s biggest concerns for years to come, The Washington Examiner has brought together five top defense and national security experts to offer their thoughts, guidance and warnings.
It is no coincidence that the following articles appear on the anniversary of the Japanese sneak attack on America at Pearl Harbor in 1941. The U.S. entered World War II woefully unprepared, having spent much of the previous two decades reducing defense spending and development.
The hope then was that the 1922 Naval Treaty and the League of Nations formed after World War One would assure peace, and the reduced defense spending that followed would aid in fighting the Great Depression.
Both hopes proved illusory, and millions of brave young Americans died or were wounded in the terrible global conflict that followed from 1941 to 1945.
Our experts offer two themes, covering defense spending and START. First, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin warns that cutting defense is possible but it must be done in the context of a well-thought out strategic plan to addresses future threats.
Second, American Enterprise Institute scholars Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly advance the argument by emphasizing that cutting the Pentagon budget, as proposed for example by President Obama’s deficit commission, isn’t the same thing as reducing federal outlays for education or the environment.
Third, the Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano, a retired Army Colonel and regular columnist for this newspaper, points to multiple serious flaws in the proposed New START Treaty, including the fact it gives the Russians access to American missile defense technology in a way that could enable the former Soviet Union to counter our defensive shield.
Finally, former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham argues that U.S. nuclear modernization must be done regardless of what happens on the proposed treaty because America’s ability to maintain its strategic forces is critical to our national security.
Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott’s CopyDesk blog on washingtonexaminer.com
