When all you have is a hammer

Josh Rogin over at Foreign Policy does a nice, quick job explaining why it is unclear how much defense will be cut as a result of the debt deal the Senate is expected to pass today.  The deal lumps defense together with diplomacy, aid, intelligence, nuclear weapons and other non-Defense Department contributions to national security.

It is unclear how the $420 billion in “security” cuts will be distributed across those national security activities.  And even less clear how additional cuts will be distributed, if Congress fails to act and the trigger mechanism for automatic cuts is activated.

From an intellectual perspective, it is correct to consider national security expenditures overall, but let’s remind ourselves what our national security objectives are.  President Obama defines them this way:

• security:  the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners.
• prosperity: a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity.
• values:  respect for universal values at home and around the world.
• international order:  an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

If this is too “soft” for you, try George W. Bush’s version from 2002, shortly after the 9/11 attacks:

• champion aspirations for human dignity;
• strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
• work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
• prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
• ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
• expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
• develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
• transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

President Bush was clearly more focused on countering terrorism, but did not exclude other interests.

These are far-reaching agendas that include preventing future attacks and creating a world that is safe for democracy, in the Wilsonian tradition.   Obama skipped the sweeping statement about human dignity but included values no less explicitly.

The problem is that our Congress does not think about national security in the broad terms defined by our two most recent presidents.  It thinks much harder about how to distribute defense contracts across the nation and worries little about diplomacy and foreign aid, which don’t bring home much pork.

It is a pretty good bet that when Congress distributes funds between appropriations committees, the Defense Department will get not only the lion’s share (it always has) but a smaller cut than the “150” account that funds State, AID and other foreign affairs functions.   Those functions are already running on fumes, as Rogin noted last month.

We are headed towards further militarization of national security responsibilities.  I am an admirer of our military–it is a magnificent organization capable of truly amazing feats.  But it is not the appropriate tool for achieving all the national security goals Presidents Bush and Obama have set.  When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  We need some other tools in the tool box.

PS:  There are indications already that defense will do very well, despite the cutting.