Libertarian foreign policy: Defending America (not the world)

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the purpose of America's defense and foreign policy should be to defend the United States, not to act as the world's policeman. Europe and Japan no longer face a Soviet threat and should be expected to bear the cost and responsibility for their own defense. At the same time, the United States should strenuously resist any attempt to coopt U.S. forces into United Nations controlled "peace keeping" efforts. This more realistic defense policy would enable the United States to dramatically reduce its defense spending.

Certainly America's defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States. However, the United States now accounts for 37% of all the world's military spending. Another 30% of world military spending is by countries in Western Europe along with Japan, South Korea, and Israel -- nations which pose no conceivable threat to the United States.

Russia, our former Cold War adversary, certainly represents no military threat. Our military budget is $260 billion; Russia's is less than $80 billion. The Russian army is an organizational nightmare, with 630,000 officers commanding only 544,000 enlisted personnel. Much of its force is incapacitated by low morale and a lack of even the most basic supplies.

China spends less than $7 billion on defense. The most commonly cited rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba spend a combined $15 billion.

Our massive military budget cannot be needed to defend this country. Why then are we spending more than $262 billion per year? The answer lies in our far-flung and ill-advised commitments around the world. America is bearing the cost for defending the rest of the world.

For example, it costs each American more than $1,000 per year in taxes to pay for the military, while it costs each German or Japanese less than $360 per year. How can we justify these commitments? NATO currently costs American taxpayers more than $90 billion annually. For what purpose? The European Union has a collective population of 370 million, a gross domestic product of $7 trillion per year, and more than two million troops. Surely, these nations can protect themselves from any possible threat. The reinvigorated European Union offers an excellent vehicle to replace NATO and allow European nations to provide for their own security needs.

Likewise, the cost of American efforts to defend Japan and South Korea totals more than $40 billion per year (counting air, ground, and naval forces designated for that purpose as well as ground troops stationed in the two countries). Yet, Japan is an economic giant and South Korea a budding one. Alone or together, both countries are fully capable of defending themselves.

Meanwhile, President Clinton continued to expand U.S. military commitments around the world. For example, he committed 20,000 U.S. troops for "one year" to enforce a Bosnian peace accord. Three years later, thousands of American troops are still there -- with no lasting peace in sight. Why? Because attempting to enforce an inherently unworkable settlement -- on a battleground for contending ethno-religious factions that have fought each other for hundreds of years -- is to recklessly put American lives at risk.

Earl Ravenal, a Distinguished Research Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, estimates that, if the United States were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years. The beneficial economic impact of such a "peace dividend," if returned to the American people in the form of tax reductions, would be enormous.