The End of Pax Americana?

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Observing the correlation of forces in this city and the intensity of conviction in the base of each party, the outcome of the ongoing fiscal fight between Barack Obama and the Tea Party Republicans seems preordained.

Deadlock. There will be no big jobs-for-taxes deal. The can will be kicked down the road into the next administration.

A second truth is emerging. When the cutting comes, as it shall, the Pentagon will be first to ascend the scaffold.

The Republican House cannot agree to tax increases without risking retribution from the base and repudiation by its presidential candidates. All have pledged to oppose even a dollar in tax hikes for 10 dollars in spending cuts.

For his part, Obama has refused to lay out any significant cuts in the big Democratic entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.

As for the hundreds of billions in Great Society spending for Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, earned income tax credits, aid to education, Pell grants and housing subsidies, neither Harry Reid's Senate nor Obama, in trouble with his African-American base, will permit significant cuts.

That leaves two large items of a budget approaching $4 trillion: interest on the debt, which must be paid, and national defense.

Defense is already scheduled for $350 billion in cuts over the decade. If the super-committee fails to come up with $1.2 trillion in specified new cuts, an automatic slicer chops another $600 billion from defense.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon has issued an analysis of what that would mean: a U.S. Army and Marine Corps reduction of 150,000 troops, retirement of two carrier battle groups, loss of one-third of Air Force fighter planes and a "hollow force" unable to meet America's commitments.

Also on the chopping block would be the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If the super-committee trigger has to be pulled, says Panetta, "we'd be shooting ourselves in the head."

That half defense-half domestic formula for automatic budget cuts was programmed into the slicer to force Republicans to put tax hikes on the table. They will refuse. For tax hikes would do more damage to the party than the slicing would the Pentagon.

Thanks to the irresponsibility of both parties, of the Bush as well as Obama administrations, we are facing unavoidable and painful choices.

We are going to have to reduce the benefits and raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. Cut and cap Great Society programs. Downsize the military, close bases and transfer to allies responsibility for their own defense. Or we are going to have to raise taxes -- and not just on millionaires and billionaires, but Middle America.

And if our leaders cannot impose these sacrifices, the markets will, as we see in Europe, where the day of reckoning is at hand. Ours is next.

But if defense cuts are unavoidable, where should they come? What should our future defense posture be? Which principles should apply?

Clearly, the first principle should be that the United States must retain a sufficiency, indeed, a surplus of power to defend all of its vital interests and vital allies, though the defense of those allies must be first and foremost their own responsibility. They have to replace U.S. troops as first responders.

During the Cold War, America was committed to go to war on behalf of a dozen NATO nations from Norway to Turkey. Eastern Europe under Moscow's boot was not considered vital.

Thus we resisted the Berlin Blockade, but peacefully. We did nothing to rescue the Hungarian revolution in 1956, or the Prague Spring in 1968, or the Polish Solidarity movement in 1981, when all three were crushed.

Now that the Red Army has gone home, Eastern Europe is free, and the Soviet Union no longer exists, what is the argument for maintaining U.S. Air Force, Army and naval bases and thousands of U.S. troops in Europe?

The same with South Korea and Japan. Now that Mao is dead and gone and China is capitalist, Seoul and Tokyo trade more with Beijing than they do with us.

South Korea has 40 times the economy and twice the population of North Korea. Japan's economy is almost as large as China's. Why cannot these two powerful and prosperous nations provide the troops, planes, ships and missiles to defend themselves? We can sell them whatever they need.

In the Persian Gulf we have a strategic interest: oil. But the oil-rich nations of the region have an even greater interest in selling their oil than we do in buying it. For, without oil sales, the Gulf has little the world needs or wants.

Let the world look out for itself for a while. Time to start looking out for America and Americans first. For if we don't, who will?

IMO, we should be making a few territorial seabed grabs of our own.

Wow, that's a tough one. Give up access under Admiralty Law to all the seabeds and sea lanes of the world, in order to "nail down" one little patch of it? I don't think that's a good swap. We are the ones with the 1-1/2-ocean navy.

That said, I'm talking a larger principle here: Natural Law competition.

But the biggest champions of Natural Law in history have been the British, proud and successful operators of the East India Company and the Royal Navy. It still seems to me that open sea lanes protected by Admiralty Law and an English-speaking navy are still the way to go. This other scenario sounds like Marxist-Leninists offering us Esau's mess of pottage for our birthright.

On the domestic side, that "Pax Americana" has operated as a subsidy by which to export American jobs and technology.

No, it hasn't. It didn't in the 19th century, when the pax Britannica protected the sea lanes from piracy and claims of "closed seas" all alike. We prospered then, and our industries prospered then, and having a Navy and open sea lanes did not detract from our happiness one whit. Instead, open and protected sea lanes accelerated commerce worldwide and prospered many peoples, some of whom had lived in utter rudeness and darkness of mind as recently as 250 years ago.

Letting Europe for example defend itself would wake those babies up in a hurry.

Letting Europe defend itself will result in a rapidly overwhelmed and occupied Europe. They will not change their bad habits of mind, so carefully nurtured by schoolhouse Reds all these years. They need a long period in intellectual intensive care, protected by us from parties interested in making of Europe a trophy.

OK, I've got a bit of time for this now.

Wow, that's a tough one. Give up access under Admiralty Law to all the seabeds and sea lanes of the world, in order to "nail down" one little patch of it?

The entire Pacific and the bulk of the Atlantic Ocean is a "little patch"? I'm talking about COLONIZING the oceans, then to sell parcels as private property. So, you see, you were not even close to understanding where I was going.

But the biggest champions of Natural Law in history have been the British, proud and successful operators of the East India Company and the Royal Navy.

British Common Law is an entirely outdated and ossified understanding of Natural Law, particularly as regard mobile assets such as air and water. To understand where I'm going on that front, I suggest you read Chapter 1 of my first book, Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature and follow that up with the Thesis.

This other scenario sounds like Marxist-Leninists offering us Esau's mess of pottage for our birthright.

Considering what you know of me, this comment is entirely unworthy of you. Further, apparently little do you know of Esav.

No, it hasn't. It didn't in the 19th century, when the pax Britannica protected the sea lanes from piracy and claims of "closed seas" all alike. We prospered then, and our industries prospered then, and having a Navy and open sea lanes did not detract from our happiness one whit.

Besides a false rendering of history, I'm surprised you don't recall that the British did NOTHING to deter the Barbary Pirates from raiding American shipping. Bribery payments to Tripoli became the largest single expense on the American ledger.

Instead, open and protected sea lanes accelerated commerce worldwide and prospered many peoples, some of whom had lived in utter rudeness and darkness of mind as recently as 250 years ago.

Some of those "dark peoples," knew and know a lot more about land management than did the colonists who converted their managed lands into "wild animal parks" which then became an ecological disaster. Until the people were allowed to own and hunt that commons (as declared under your precious British law) as private property, those game animals were going extinct, CITES or not. When the animals became property, the big game hunting in Africa became the finest and most cost effective in the world. It was racism.

Letting Europe defend itself will result in a rapidly overwhelmed and occupied Europe.

That's not what we just saw in Libya, is it?

They need a long period in intellectual intensive care, protected by us from parties interested in making of Europe a trophy.

I don't think the Czechs or Poles need to learn a thing from us; indeed, quite the opposite. Really, this is an astonishing point on your part. It's as if you think the welfare state doesn't breed dependency.

Frankly, I think your read on history is too full of textbook truisms and could use some serious infill. You quite clearly do not understand why this country was built up by the Marxist global banking community after they took control subsequent to the Civil War (which they abetted). I could suggest some reading, but I'm fairly sure you'd not take me up on it. I just don't think you understand the coercive power attendant to holding public debt.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.