Sarah,
It seems that you have dissed my boy. Thus, I must call you out and defend my boy through an angry blogpost. You may notice a decrease in your Facebook friends after this post because of how embarrassing you will look. You don't mess with the family business.
While I'm not entirely sure of the specifics regarding Cristian's post, there are some areas I agree and disagree on. Regarding "preemptive engagement", I too am against intervention in the context of wars. I think our defense policy can be examined in a broader sense though. Economic sanctions, trade embargoes, and foreign aid to geopolitical competitors are all disincentives for countries to exist as threats to the U.S. Due to the U.S.' resources and stability, engaging with the U.S. is almost always a net plus for countries. Countries that haven't engaged in someway with the U.S. are notorious for having systemic problems such as hyperinflation and human rights issues, specifically Zimbabwe and North Korea. I agree with you that an additional war would be antithetical to the U.S.' image worldwide and it would also not be a cost effective measure. Therefore, an ideal U.S. defense system would consist of a strong and current military force in addition to a fiscally strong economy that's able to influence international markets.
Regarding defense spending, I was a little confused on Cristian's stance because he seemed to say "decrease defense spending" followed by "increase defense spending" within his post. Regardless, I feel that our military can and should be consistently bolstered, but that doesn't require a direct increase in military spending. Other alternatives are available that provide long-term guarantees for the U.S.' hegemony while subsequently benefiting our economy. For example, you highlight the importance of education within the U.S. I completely agree. I feel that a focused policy that promoted K-12 STEM education would be beneficial for the U.S. The U.S. has consistently been lacking in STEM education for years and this is clearly shown by countries such as Japan and China leading in innovative technologies like Pokemon Black and White, which has added over 100 new Pokemon while utilizing the Nintendo DS touch screen AND wireless trading. Also, innovations in green technology are quasi-relevant as Japan has been at the forefront of that. A strong K-12 STEM education system would create a knowledge based economy that would allow many students to move above the federal poverty line while subsequently contributing to the U.S.' economy and defense. STEM education is uniquely important for our defense because it promotes jobs in areas that spillover into the military such as the semiconductor industry. As I referenced in a previous post/comment, the semiconductor industry is in need of high skilled workers with STEM backgrounds in order to create microchips that are used in military technology. A policy such as K-12 STEM education wouldn't necessitate an increase in defense spending and would still be beneficial to the U.S.' military.
Also, our military capabilities could be promoted through effective immigration policy that increased the amount of high skilled immigrant workers that came to the U.S., but I've already talked about that in another post. This would also be an alternative to increased defense spending.
In response to international organizations, I'm slightly torn regarding the importance of them. While I agree that multilateral action on issues can be good and that international organizations such as the UN help foster these initiatives, I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations. Again, as I referenced in a previous post/comment, the primary flaw I see with international organizations is the concept of international law. Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent. If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon. This could have implications on the way the U.S.' domestic policy is framed as international norms would be considered before the Constitution.
In conclusion, I feel that both of you have valid points and I enjoy reading your views on national security and international organizations. But, since Cristian is my boy and he's part of the family, all of your arguments are invalid.
Love,
Toby
2 things I forgot:
ReplyDeleteI misspelled Christian's name, my bad.
Also, I misread his post, he said "deficit spending should be cut", not defense. Again, my bad.