Smart Defense
    By Frida Berrigan
    TomPaine.com

    Thursday 18 May 2006

    One cannot turn the pages of the daily newspaper without reading about the new and baffling security challenges posed by global terrorism. From four native Britons attacking London's mass transit system to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's schizophrenic nuclear brinksmanship, the problems are complex. Unfortunately, those in charge of our defense are still trying to use the costly, ineffectual and inefficient tools of previous eras to solve them-namely, overwhelming military force. In doing so they're ignoring currently underfunded security alternatives such as non-proliferation programs, diplomacy, public health initiatives and foreign aid to unstable regions.

    "When all you have in your toolbox is hammers, all your problems look like nails." It's an adage attributed to Mark Twain. He could have been writing about current U.S. budget priorities-a preponderance of hammers-and the way in which decision-makers in Washington seem to approach foreign policy problems as nails to be pounded.

    The rise of new adversaries employing terror tactics calls for, among other things, better communication among law enforcement agencies, improvements in the use and collection of intelligence data, and more effective strategies for dealing with nuclear proliferation. Yet these are just a few examples of a long list of security challenges that are being mishandled by the Bush administration.

    A distinguished group of analysts argues the nation should add new tools to its toolbox. Headed by former Reagan Pentagon official Lawrence Korb and economist Miriam Pemberton, the Unified Security Budget task force is composed of retired military officers and Pentagon officials, a former congressional staffer and a wide range of representatives from progressive think tanks. Their "Unified Security Budget" offers a broader definition of security and the tools needs to deter, defend and dissuade threats.

    They reject the knee-jerk militarism of our current security establishment. Their proposal includes calling for genuine diplomacy to deal with the problems of Iran's nascent nuclear efforts and North Korea's nuclear weapons program, greater investments in the public health infrastructure to deal with large scale attacks or epidemics and foreign aid to repair the United States' image and reputation abroad. All of these, they argue, must be considered key components of security policy-and would be more effective than a new aircraft carrier.

    The overall defense spending of the United States includes eight times as much on military security programs as it does on non-military security programs. The Pentagon budget totals $439 billion and has increased almost 30 percent since 9/11. In addition, the U.S. spends $21.8 billion on nuclear weapons activities within the Energy Department. Keep in mind the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not covered by the Pentagon's budget, but come from emergency supplementals. When these costs are taken into account, military spending for the coming year will exceed $600 billion.

    The U.S. should align its spending with approaches that have real promise for achieving security. The task force suggests a $10 billion increase in spending for overseas economic development; a $1 billion increase in U.S. contributions to international organizations, $1.8 billion in additional funds for diplomatic operations; tripling what is allocated for proven nonproliferation programs like those designed to lock down or destroy excess nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials around the world; $8.8 billion more for alternative energy sources; and a $10 billion increase in spending on the nation's basic public health infrastructure.

    They assert that this diversification can be accomplished by reallocating money already in the Pentagon budget. Among the systems they propose trimming or eliminating are: the F-22 combat aircraft, the Virginia-class submarine, the DD(X) destroyer, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. These Cold War-era systems eat up billions in the Pentagon budget and are irrelevant to the threats posed in the 21st century. Additionally, the task force proposes cutting the unnecessary and unworkable Star Wars program from $10.4 to $2.4 billion per year, and reducing nuclear weapons spending from $18 billion per year to $5 billion per year.

    In an era of war that pits the $3 million Bradley fighting vehicle against a $3 improvised-explosive device, the project to expand the definition of security (and increase number of tools we have to build it) could not be more timely. At a time when the Democratic leadership is too timid to propose cuts in our bloated military budget, the USB report-which humbly suggests that reallocating some of that funding will be a more judicious use of taxpayer money and a more effective defense of the homeland-deserves as large an audience as possible.

    --------

    Frida Berrigan is a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center.