There Are Critical Decisions To Be Made

It is easy to get caught up in and even be entertained by the personality clashes, purity posturing and “gotcha” moments as presidential aspirants endeavor to outfl ank and out-promise each other.

It should be an educational process, helping inform the public about issues and policy decisions facing the nation. Instead, the presidential nomination process is often treated as a sort of reality show. But this is not a reality show, and sometimes candidates seem very much out of touch with reality.

There are weighty issues on the national agenda that need thoughtful and informed consideration.

However, much of the discussion is simply reinforcing misconceptions and misinformation. And, unfortunately, most issues are viewed through a partisan prism as we watch the relentless politicization of almost every dimension of public aff airs.

Recently, President Barack Obama put forward a plan for a new military strategy that would include some cuts in the defense budget.

Congress has alreadymandated about $450 million in Defense Department cuts over the next 10 years and, as a result of the defi citreduction supercommittee to reach an agreement, an additional $500 billion in Pentagon cuts would be required. Obama’s proposal addresses those budgetary issues in combination with a strategy that would reduce ground forces, increase focus on Asia and the Pacific while remaining vigilant in the Middle East, emphasize counter-terrorism over counter-insurgency and make greater use of technology, including drones.

Comparatively little attention has been given to the Obama plan. Much of the reaction has been reflexive boilerplate with the premise that any trimming of Pentagon spending means weakening national security. Some of thosewho present themselves as defenders of defense might be seen more as defenders of defense industries or of military installations in their constituencies. In some cases, Congress has forced the Pentagon to buy weapons it didn’t want.

Republican hopefuls Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have proposed increases in defense spending and Obama’s plan certainly is subject to criticism and questioning. However, it is an attempt to recognize reality and the necessity for more eft cient defense spending and an assessment of what our priorities should be at home and abroad.

“Our military will be leaner,” Obama said, “but the world must know the United States is going to maintain military superiority.” Under Obama’s plan, the defense budget would increase enough each year to keep up with inflation. U.S. military spending would continue to exceed the combined total for the next 10 countries.

Obama’s proposal also seems to reflect at least some recognition that, although the nation must be militarily prepared for contingencies and combustible hot spots, power and infl uence in today’s world depend on much more than “hard”power. We have seen the limitations of hard power in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should understand the multiple costs of prolonged, large-scale military presence. The blank check for the Iraq war has been a major contributor to our budget deficit and related fi nancial problems, and a weakened economy weakens the ability to lead internationally.

Elements of soft power, including social media, are far less costly, and yet can pay signifi cant dividends - in helping open up closed societies, for example.

However, too many politicians are quick to speak out against U.S. nonmilitary international activities and have a tendency to vastly overstate how much goes for these purposes. In turn, surveys repeatedly reveal that the average American believes 25 percent of the budget goes to foreign aid when the actual fi gure for the entire foreign aff airs budget, including operation of embassies and diplomatic salaries is less than 1.5 percent. (Also, much of “foreign” aid benefi ts U.S.

businesses and agriculture interests.) Indeed, polls indicate that Americans believe foreign aid makesup a larger portion of the federal budget than defense spending. Yet defenserelated expenditures constitute at least one-fi fth of the budget and contribute signifi cantly to the budget deficit and interest costs.

Almost no one, Ron Paul being an exception, proposes dramatic cutbacks in defense spending. There are real and potential dangers to consider. But we need to face fiscal reality. Many favor cutting government spending, but few are willing to acknowledge that this imperative applies to the defense budget as well as other government functions.

For all the political talk about the importance of U.S.

international leadership, we hear little serious discussion about how we can confront fi scal constraints without jeopardizing security. Too many are more interested in fighting culture wars and advancing the strategic interests of political parties than focusing on how best to advance the strategic interests of the United States. There are critical decisions to be made.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.