Wonky Idea of the Week*: What’s the best way to spend money on national defense?

The record-setting $3.1 trillion budget that President Bush today proposed for FY2009 includes the highest level of military spending, adjusted for inflation, since World War II. In addition to the Department of Defense’s base budget of $515 billion, emergency allowances to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan expand this number to over $600 billion. Presidential candidates, particularly Republicans Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee, have advocated increasing defense spending even beyond President Bush’s astronomical commitments.

The military is obviously an integral component of national security, but, in a provocative article in The Bulletin Online, Gordon Adams challenges the notion that beefing up defense spending is necessarily the best way to make America more secure:

The reality is we're overspending on the military and underspending on diplomacy and foreign assistance. Yes, the military is adaptable, capable, and flexible, but the military is now encroaching on territory that belongs to our diplomats and assistance and development programs. And while many analysts and political commentators believe that U.S. leadership in the world can be measured by an enormous defense budget, projecting military power as the leading edge of our international engagement has brought about a rising hostility to U.S. foreign and security policy.

Pushing for diplomacy does not score the political points of advocating a more robust military, particularly in wartime, and neither Republicans nor Democrats want to be seen as weak on national security. Soldiers, however, cannot fulfill the crucial role of diplomats, and, as Adams emphasizes, engaging with the world only militarily can have serious repercussions to America’s image.

Brookings Institution scholar Lael Brainard stresses that, in addition to pursuing diplomacy, the US shoul strengthen its image in the world by improving the system of providing aid to developing countries:

Helping the poor gain access to shelter, medicine, sustenance, education, and opportunity does more than make Americans feel good: it makes the world feel good about America. When the United States leads in helping lift the lives of the poor, we enhance our own influence and authority in the world community—building support for U.S. interests in other areas.

Brainard contends that a sound national security policy “must place development on par with defense and diplomacy” and supports creating a special Cabinet-level position in charge of development assistance. At least one of you agrees in this strategy for improving the country’s image in the world, urging the next president to commit 1% of the US GDP to foreign aid. This will do more than help alleviate world poverty; it will make the
US a stronger country and a safer place to live.

*The bloggers at On Day One will focusing each week on a "wonky" idea that our readers might find interesting. Agree with the wonks, or disagree--we're just a conduit for ideas and discussion!