Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The National Security Strategy: Show Me The Money
The president will unveil his new national security strategy tomorrow, and early signs are pointing toward "preventing nuclear proliferation" being one of the core goals of this new strategy. Let me, then, pour a bucket of ice water on that by way of Adams & Williams
National security budgets are the most dependable reflection of US security policy ... Republican and Democratic leaders often say that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the prospect of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists are among the greatest threats facing the United States. Yet only two-tenths of 1 percent of national security spending goes toward helping other governments prevent the dispersal or theft of nuclear materials or weapons, and an even smaller share goes toward inspecting US-bound shipping containers for nuclear materials. The Department of Energy spends nearly as much annually on new earth penetrating and low-yield nuclear weapons as on securing Russian fissile material.
Have a great day!
Ahh, the predictable DC
Ahh, the predictable DC response: "Effectiveness be damned, we have to spend more money on our pet project so that it APPEARS more important." And to oppose such increased spending is to be called 'soft on defense' (in this case) or 'anti-education' or 'heartless' in others. Certainly there's better methodology out there for measuring policy efficacy than just noting who can spend money the fastest?
No, you missed my point. It
No, you missed my point. It isn't a matter of spending more or less money. It's the fact that the budget more accurately reflects your actual priorities than do speeches and rhetoric.I didn't miss that point, I
I didn't miss that point, I just counter that BOTH speeches AND spending are poor measures of effective policy pursuit. I get that you're saying "put your money where your mouth is", but I'm saying that using expenditures as a de facto measure of importance is wrongheaded (although very typical in government).
Okay, well, that *is* a fair
Okay, well, that *is* a fair point. But it's not like we're talking $300m on one thing vs. $350m on another thing. We're talking about spending only .2% (!!) of the national security budget on something everyone keeps saying is among the most important things. Surely you'll admit that though spending is a flawed metric, that particular figure means something.No we're not JUST talking
No we're not JUST talking about a MERE $300 million, we're talking about a budget request for $2.7 BILLION in 2011, an increase of more than 20%. I know you've been in Washington awhile now, but that's real money where I come from.
A 20% increase to $2.7b! But
A 20% increase to $2.7b! But out of a ~$500b base budget! And it still only amounts to three (3) B-2 bombers! Look, I know this is real money (drop the anti-DC shtick), but don't try to tell me that *stated priorities* do not match what happens in the PPBE process. The fact is that we do not match resources to priorities. If we did, the budget would look a lot different than it does, even accounting for the fact that inputs make for poor metrics. http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_BudgetBriefing.pdfEverything is a flawed
Everything is a flawed measure (metric). Some measures are better than others, though.
Still - contra Aaron Wildavsky, for shameless namedropping - I'd argue budgets are not *necessarily* a good measure (although they still might be the *best* measure). They assume the priorities, as such, are set by some monolith entitled "US National Security Prioritizers." I'm no expert on the defense budgeting process (or anything else, to make the preemptive disclaimer or defense), but it seems to me that budgets in our political system are made by individual legislators divided into (more or less) two parties. (In fact, I seem to recall AM himself making that point with respect to the F-22 versus COIN spending.)
Hence budgets may reflect less national security priorities set by interestless technocrats, but self-interested politicians operating according to complex calculi. They reflect and document *something,* but that something remains unclear to me. I'd suggest that what they reflect is interest group politics and individual incentive structures rather than a national-level decision-making entity.
Perhaps a slightly more differentiated claim might be that budgets are *less* susceptible to said politicking, in part because they represent a public good shared by all, rather than a private good to be taken and distributed, e.g., politics stops at the water's edge. (See today's bipartisan relative consensus on the superiority of Panetta to Clapper for DNI.) I think this has some merit, but how much, especially in today's non-existential threat environment, I'm not share.
ADTS
Are you really going to
Are you really going to compare spending in a Bureau of about 300 employees to the DoD with it's 2.1 MILLION employees? OK, let's do that. The Bureau of International Security and Non-proliferation gets $2.7 billion for 300 employees, or $9 million per capita, while the DoD gets $515 billion for 2.1 million employees or ONLY $240 thousand a piece. Therefore according to your reasoning, defense must not be a priority for this administration!
Alright. I'm done yanking your chain, but I think I've made my point: if you want to argue for increased spending for a program, argue it on the merits, rather than the logical fallacy of spending=importance.
I'm for locking up all we
I'm for locking up all we can, although I think a strong hand at the Russian tiller is the best security for the USSR stockpiles. But I think that the strongest nuclear hand is...the strong nuclear hand. 4 Aces and a Smith and Wesson.
Putting DOE money into upgrading our nuclear arsenal to include coming up with nuclear bunker busters - ATTN: Iran-
shows we're still serious in that regard. Speeches don't. Noble speeches from the United States are a form of ancestor worship - we must live up to the ideals of the Founders. They can be filed with bellicose saber rattling from dictators - intended as a nod towards the source of legitimacy and authority.
Spending money is an action and shows priorities.
And the non-proliferation cat is well out of the bag.
Unrelated note - Have you read Colin Gray's "Another Bloody Century"? Brilliant.
Gordon is absolutely first
Gordon is absolutely first rate. He was a senior official at OMB and has been a strong and vocal advocate of budgetary reform. Knows his stuff and is worth reading.
The statement "0.2% of the
The statement "0.2% of the budget spent means it's not really a high priority" doesn't mean anything unless we know beforehand how much non-proliferation really costs -- that is, at a certain point, you reach diminishing returns on your investment.
Say the #1 priority was to equip every DoD service member with Widget X. Hell, call it a new rifle if it makes you feel better: everybody in DoD needs a shiny new rifle, all 2 million of them, right now, priority numero uno, get it done. This new rifle is pretty great, and it costs $1,000. Double that, say, for R&D and whatnot: $2,000 each. So that's $4 billion ... divided by this year's $700 and something billion DoD budget = 5.7 tenths of one percent. OMG!! You only spent a half-percent on what you SAID was your top priority!! LIAAAAR!!!
Now, back in the real world: "Ideal" nuclear non-proliferation probably costs more than $2.7B or whatever they're spending on it this year. But how much more? And where is the point of diminishing returns? Point is, we don't know.
You can tell you're in the
You can tell you're in the Third World when saying something is conflated with actually doing something. When empty rhetoric replaces purposeful disciplined action.
Recently found a very good
Recently found a very good shop, shop named solo hd. There are many fashion ambush factors, there is a lovely line of people to go like the beats by dre; also feminine monster beats; also take the unusual route of people love the solo beats, and so on. And recently there are many models on sale, such as lady gaga heartbeats, like beats studio people must not miss.
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1996 Cadillac Seville AC Compressor
Add your comment