Save this content for laterSave this content on your device for later, even while offline Sign in with FacebookSign in with your Facebook account Close

Grim fiscal reality requires all our military alliances be revisited

By: Barry Fagin
August 15, 2013 Updated: August 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm
photo -

(Full disclosure: Sequestration has impacted me personally. This has undoubtedly influenced the opinions below.)

The spending cuts directed by sequestration originally called for 11 days of unpaid leave for most Department of Defense employees. More recently, the secretary of defense was able to reduce that to six, thanks to some accounting flexibility granted by Congress. I guess somebody in the Pentagon found a few billion in a sock drawer.

Sequestration is something nobody wanted, and it shows. It is a piecemeal, salami-slice approach that precludes any intelligent discussion of what those who serve in uniform are actually supposed to do. Worse still, it delays still further the eventual necessity of making hard choices in foreign policy.

According to the DoD's website, if the Budget Control Act is not changed by Congress, the secretary of defense will have to find $52 billion in cuts for the upcoming fiscal year. I think I can help. We can save $150 billion by ending our military subsidy to Japan.

I picked Japan not because I have anything against it. Frankly, I've never even been there and know next to nothing about the country. I picked Japan because it's our richest ally and therefore the one it makes the least sense to subsidize.

Depending on which list you believe, Japan has the third- or fourth-largest economy in the world, 1 percent of which is devoted to military spending. America's fraction, by contrast, is four times higher. We account for almost 40 percent of the world's military spending, more than the next 10 nations combined. Shouldn't an economic powerhouse like Japan start pulling its own weight?

Arguments for the status quo are based in a Cold War mentality, or even a WWII one. In 1946, Japan was a conquered power that held clear hegemonic ambitions. Forbidding it to have an army for a decade or two made sense. Then in the heyday of the Cold War, an American-Japanese alliance was seen as a bulwark against Russian expansion in Asia. Now the Chinese are throwing their weight around, and American forward bases are supposed to be the first line of defense there.

But aren't things just a little different now? Japan has rebuilt itself into an economic powerhouse. Don't they have an incredibly strong interest in defending themselves against the Chinese? Aren't there other nations that are likely candidates in that region that are also worried about Chinese influence? Wouldn't an rearmed Japan ultimately be in America's strategic interest, since it puts an economic juggernaut and historically antagonistic power on China's eastern shore?

China is also America's largest creditor nation, holding just over $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. If the present justification for the America-Japan security arrangement is to be believed, we are borrowing money from China to pay for Japan to protect itself against China. That is, I respectfully submit, insane.

But like I said, I don't mean to just pick on Japan. In light of the grim fiscal reality America faces, every military alliance needs to be re-examined. Every military alliance should be critically reviewed, rejustified and prioritized.

Only then can Americans make the hard decisions appropriate to a democratic republic where citizens are supposed to have a voice in foreign policy.

The United States of America is that most rare of nations: A safe Great Power. Surrounded by oceans on two sides and friendly countries on the north and south, we need not fear conquest, civil war, invading armies, siege, blockade or embargo. As horrifying as terrorist attacks are, compared to the indiscriminate slaughter of war, they are good problems to have. Rather than the willy-nilly salami slices of sequestration, a more realistic and informed perspective can help guide us to responsible military spending reductions.

Such reductions are more fitting for a republic with a military whose constitutionally enshrined purpose is to defend Americans, rather than lay them off.


Barry Fagin is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute in Denver; his views are his alone. Readers can write Dr. Fagin at

Register to the Colorado Springs Gazette
Incognito Mode Your browser is in Incognito mode

You vanished!

We welcome you to read all of our stories by signing into your account. If you don't have a subscription, please subscribe today for daily award winning journalism.

Register to the Colorado Springs Gazette
Register to the Colorado Springs Gazette
Subscribe to the Colorado Springs Gazette

It appears that you value local journalism. Thank you.

Subscribe today for unlimited digital access with 50% fewer ads for a faster browsing experience.

Already a Subscriber? LOGIN HERE

Subscribe to the Colorado Springs Gazette

It appears that you value local journalism. Thank you.

Subscribe today for unlimited digital access with 50% fewer ads for a faster browsing experience.

Subscribe to the Colorado Springs Gazette

Some news is free.
Exceptional journalism takes time, effort and your support.

Already a Subscriber? LOGIN HERE

articles remaining
Thank you for your interest in local journalism.
Gain unlimited access, 50% fewer ads and a faster browsing experience.