When Jerry O’Driscoll the other evening cited President Eisenhower’s belief that a strong economy was the basis for military strength, I questioned whether this was a chicken-egg issue. Jerry held his ground that economic strength was the foundation–it came first. On later reflection, I agree that this was logical at least since late medieval history. The reason is that it costs money and plenty of it to maintain a strong military which per se is uneconomic. The military produces nothing, save security.
In ancient times one could argue that armies would fight, kill and conquer for booty and spoils. That started to change in Roman times. The change continued in medieval times. But by Napoleon’s time, “an army travel(ed) on its stomach,” as Russia learned to its advantage.
What the military does produce though is critical to economic strength. Without security the economy cannot be maintained; without security innovation will not flower; without security economic risk will not be undertaken. There’s a symbioses here. QED, military strength is a good investment!
Since WWI American military might has been the protector of the free world. Our blood, lives, and treasure have pulled Western Europe out of two world wars and maintained the power balance needed to drive the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. They have also kept the Pacific Basin free from Japan in WWII and with the Truman Doctrine maintained the line in East Asia against the Chinese Communists until in recent times capitalism is beginning to take roots in China.
In essence we have paid with blood, lives and treasure for the free world’s economic protection. We have paid for its luxury to produce enough to institute welfare states–to become socialists! Yes, our blood, our lives, our money have given France the ability to look down its nose on us as money-grubbing capitalists with no appreciation of culture and no concept of leisure. While France takes the month of August off, has a 35 hour work week, and is guaranteed 30 annual holidays, we–at least those with real jobs–have settled for two weeks vacation and worked overtime, paying taxes all the while.
Where are we going from here? Obama is traveling the world bowing and apologizing for our past. He is abandoning our military commitments and our allies. He is ruining our economy for generations to come. And, he is logically disarming our nuclear capability and dithering on whether we should try to win–in his words–the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan. He wants to make us European. He’s a multi-nationalists. He would cede sovereignty to the UN. In short, he would rather be liked than right. In his morally-relativistic world, “being liked” is the measure of success!
Victor Davis Hanson penned an excellent litany November 19th on National Review Online, appropriately titled: Circling Sharks Smell American Blood. One paragraph worth note: “France, of all nations, is now warning us to get a backbone with the Iranians. So far the theocracy has snubbed our new outreach efforts aimed at stopping its nuclear proliferation. Iran’s Russian patrons now talk more nicely to us — but mostly because we caved on land-based missile defense in Eastern Europe, and got nothing really in return.” Yep, you heard that right, France is telling us to get a backbone!
Back to “guns and butter.” Past history shows that it is difficult to have a welfare state (butter), a strong military, and a vibrant economy. The strong economy can support the military but not the welfare state at the same time. Obama is bent on wrecking the economy by borrowing against our grandchildren’s future to create a more encompassing, more invasive welfare state. So in the end we will have neither guns nor butter. Come to think of it, we won’t have much of a country either.
Tom Motherway