In the interest of national security, and the preservation of the world order the United States has upheld and benefited from since World War II, Republicans and Democrats must make the necessary compromises and agree on a deal to address the nation's fiscal crisis in both the near and the long term.
I am not an economist or a budget analyst, so I don't presume to know exactly what a “grand bargain” should look like. It seems pretty obvious that a compromise will require both tax reform and entitlement reform, since those programs are the biggest driver of the fiscal crisis.
What I do know, as a national security analyst, is that our continuing failure to address the crisis in a way that makes possible a return to stable economic growth has become a serious foreign policy problem.
In a world that still looks to U.S. leadership on many issues, our utter dysfunction on matters involving the basic health of our economy does not inspire confidence. Nor will the United States act with confidence abroad while we are unable to address our problems at home. It is no accident that all the misguided talk of a “post-American world” came after the financial crisis exploded.
A principal victim in the absence of a deal to address the fiscal crisis has been and will continue to be the national security budget. Republicans and Democrats alike have been prepared to see hundreds of billions of dollars cut from the defense budget, with even more cuts coming if Congress fails to avoid the automatic “sequestration.”
It would be one thing if the world were kindly affording us a period of placidity in international affairs while we get our house in order. But the world is not cooperating.
Iran continues to move closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, and the prospect of a conflict cannot be dismissed.
The outcome of the Arab revolutions remains uncertain.
The tumult in Syria threatens to embroil the entire region.
The future of Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan remains worrying.
Terrorists continue to expand their efforts in the Middle East and Africa.
China's military is growing, and some forces in the Chinese system are pushing for greater assertiveness in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
We need to dispel the illusion that cuts to the national security budget really save us money. Too many think that if the United States simply scales back its role in the world, it could save money and make raising further revenue unnecessary.
This is a faulty assumption. The current global economic and political order, which has provided the environment in which the United States has grown and prospered for decades, is built on and around American power and influence.
Were the United States to cease playing its role in upholding this order, were we to retreat from East Asia or to back away from the challenge posed by a nuclear Iran, the result could only be global instability.
From a purely economic perspective, it would be far more costly to restore order and stability — both essential to a prosperous global economy — than it would be to sustain it.
The world won't stand still while Americans fight these political battles.
And it won't be forgiving of decisions that weaken our ability to defend the international order in which Americans have for so long prospered.
Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rossi: Penguins’ best bet is on Martin
- Young defensemen make case for future with Penguins
- From injuries to front office, Penguins’ season didn’t lack drama
- Penguins president: General manager, coach won’t be fired
- Spirit Airlines lifts fortunes of Arnold Palmer Regional Airport
- Pitt AD Barnes has enjoyed varied career in college sports
- High risk, reward with 1st-round quarterbacks in NFL Draft
- Burnett’s stellar start paves way for Pirates’ victory over Diamondbacks
- Elites, media & character
- Rossi: Crosby, Malkin didn’t sign on for this
- Biertempfel: Observations from a day at the ballpark