Penny wise and pound foolish

While some may think the choice of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential candidate confirms Romney’s intention to focus on domestic rather than foreign policy, the selection still says a good deal about how the Republican ticket will approach national security issues.  Josh Rogin wrote in March that Paul Ryan’s budget proposal

…would see the international affairs account slashed from $47.8 billion in fiscal 2012 to $43.1 billion in fiscal 2013, $40.1 billion in fiscal 2014, $38.3 billion in fiscal 2015, and $38.1 billion in fiscal 2016. The State Department and USAID wouldn’t see their budget get back to current levels until after 2022 if Ryan were to have his way.

The Ryan proposal also increases defense spending, as Romney has said he would like to do.  Defense spends more than 10 times the State and USAID budgets combined.

This is not smart.  What we’ve got here is a ticket determined to fund the most expensive tool of American national security–the military–and to shortchange the much more economical tools of diplomacy and development.

While many are predicting that foreign affairs will play little or no role in this election campaign, I anticipate something different.  It is hard to argue for cuts in diplomacy and development assistance if the international issues you face come mainly from weak and failing states where  terrorism, trafficking, instability, epidemics, corruption and other non-military threats thrive.  Romney and Ryan are going to have to justify their choice of building up the military instrument at a moment when the United States faces no major foreign military threat.  Iran and its nuclear program are handy, but they are going to need more.  Russia as our prime geopolitical foe will not suffice.

I imagine they will start waving the China menace, ignoring the very real difference between U.S. and Chinese military capabilities.  China will need decades even to begin to catch up.  In the meanwhile, it is heavily dependent on the U.S. for export markets and the safety of its savings, which are heavily invested in American government debt.  While these factors are often portrayed as limiting U.S. policy options with China, they are also constraints on Chinese policy options.  There are already a lot of reasons for the U.S. and China not to go to war.  By 2050, there will be a lot more.

I am not arguing for weakening the U.S. military, which has global responsibilities that cannot be ignored without endangering American security.  We cannot be the world’s policeman, patrolling every continent.  But we do need act as its fireman and put out conflagrations that might threaten our own peace and tranquility.

Nor am I arguing that the Obama administration has done what it recognized it should in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which argued for a major increase in the civilian instruments of power.  There is little sign of that.

Obama and Romney both need to recognize that insufficient funding for the State Department, USAID and associated institutions is unnecessarily increasing the burdens on the U.S. military (and on the national budget).  That’s penny wise and pound foolish.

PS:  For those who may think Ryan less than serious about his budget proposals (which include drastic reductions in Medicare and partial privatization of Social Security), read Ryan Lizza, who quotes Paul Ryan as saying

I think life is short. You’d better take advantage of it while you have it.