Quora Question: Why Do Liberals Tend to Favor Defense Cuts?

Quora Questions are part of a partnership between Newsweek and Quora, through which we'll be posting relevant and interesting answers from Quora contributors throughout the week. Read more about the partnership here.

Answer from Ian Jackson, Ph.d. in political science, author at Liberalamerica.org, twitter:

Why do liberals want to cut defense spending? It's an interesting question and it begins with some interesting and frankly, questionable assumptions. Let's break it down before tackling the question as a whole.

1. Why do Liberals want to cut defense spending?

The term 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' is part of a very modern form of prejudice. America has split into two tribes. Both are mutually suspicious of one another and both have disdain for the other's opinions. At its most extreme, it boils down to outright hatred of one another. The whole thing is mostly, though not entirely, irrational.

To begin with, neither group is as homogeneous as the other accuses them of being. Herein lies the first flaw in the question's assumption. Not all liberals want to cut defense spending and not all conservatives want to maintain it.

I would be described as a radical by U.S. standards. In fact, most people would accuse me of being a communist (although I reject almost everything Marx had to say about the world that he did not borrow directly from Hegel.) That being said, I have no ideological objection to fiscal conservatism whatsoever, (social conservatism on the other hand is a waste of time and energy since it's, you know, doomed to failure.)

There are times when fiscal conservatism is called for and I think that conservatives generally do have a better grasp of these things than liberals, if only because they live and die by their ability to provide never-ending tax cuts to the rich.

It was for example, Margaret Thatcher, a conservative Prime Minister who insisted on massive cuts to the British armed forces in the infamous 1981 defense spending white paper. She recognized that the UK was a much diminished power and that it had to start acting the part it was actually playing, instead of the one it wanted to be playing.

Having said that, the supposition that liberals in America are more likely to want to effect military budget cuts isn't wholly inaccurate. Broadly speaking, I would agree that a liberal is less likely to be upset at the prospect than a conservative.

2. Our Soldiers Protect Our Nation

Do they though?

There is reality and there is hysteria and your observation lies somewhere between those two points. The USA is under no threat of invasion from anyone, period. That's not to say there is zero threat, that's not to say that the military is not needed. I'm merely pointing out they don't protect the nation, at least not in the way you think.

The Ministry of Defense in the UK used to be called the Ministry of War back in the days when we were more honest about such things. Name change aside, it's still the Ministry of War. I'm not going to quote Clausewitz at you, but I'm sure you can appreciate that the idea of 'defense' is only one, very narrow part of the military equation.

Since Pearl Harbor, the U.S. has been directly attacked only once, during the criminal and deplorable events of 9/11. There have been other attacks of course, on military bases and embassies, but for the most part, we are left with one actual attack in the strictly military sense of the word.

Now, you probably don't have a list of U.S military interventions in your head like I do (which is OK because it's not your job to do that,) so citing Honduras 1924-25, China in 1948, Guatemala in 1954 and so on, isn't all that helpful. You are aware of —I'm sure — the big stuff like Vietnam and Korea, but it's important to take the rest in too.

So we'll just look at it in terms of numbers. Putting WWII aside, but including events such as the use of the army to put down the 1943 Black Rebellion in Detroit, the USA military has been engaged in no fewer than 87 separate actions for the most part, against countries a fraction of their own size.

These actions were almost always described to the public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations, yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." Estimates on the death tolls are extremely difficult to verify, but we do have some pretty sound ball-park figures to work with.

The reality is that the USA has killed around 20 million people since WWII and the vast, vast preponderance of those killed, were civilians. And if that figures seems too high, or if you are shocked, or in denial, then consider this. In Iraq alone, some 165,000 civilians, men women and children, lost their lives, and those deaths absolutely have been verified thanks to the efforts of organizations like Iraq Body Count.Now, I'm a student of international relations and that means almost by definition that I'm no pacifist. Peace is my preferred position but there are times when it's not possible. The attack on America in 2001 for example, could not go unanswered. Live by the sword die by the sword, that's just the way it is and in fact, that's what the terrorists were counting on.

Even so, I would say this:

• Firstly, that the overwhelming majority of wars are unnecessary.
• Secondly, that the reasons given for the wars, (if they are given,) are almost always bullshit.
• Thirdly, that if somebody is going to promote militarism then I see no excuse for them being a fucking coward about it.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but the idea that the military represent some high ideal, that it protects us from all the baddies, is one of those things that makes George Lucas' films great and real life…not so great. The Military's role is to protect the selfish interests of the mother nation and they do so by blowing things and people up. That's the ugly truth of the matter.

Which leads me to my next point.

3. They Promote Freedom and Democracy

Sure they do. Sometimes. When it suits them.

The large scale occupation stuff, Japan, Iraq and so on, often does end in the imposition of democracy, fertile soil or not. The rest of the time? Not so much. For the most part, group-hugs among a democratic union of nations are of zero interest to military planners, something exemplified by the fact that in many cases, they deliberately perverted the democratic will of the people simply because it was the most expedient solution available.

I do question people's grasp of history sometimes.

Chile 1973 anyone? A CIA-backed coup ousted the democratically elected Marxist president? Ring any bells? It's not the only example, I assure you. Indonesia 1965, Iraq 1963, Iran 1953, Panama 1989… I mean these are just off the top of my head.

It's just not good enough to present and then react to an idealized version of the military or indeed of international politics. IR is a dirty, dirty business and whilst some countries act in more deplorable ways than others, nobody's hands are clean. Aside maybe for New Zealand's.

You can say, if you like, that there was justification for overthrowing the will of the people in this instance or that instance.

You can say that, sure, but to then insist in the same breath that the US military upholds democracy and freedom. That's a load of merde de cheval, if you'll pardon my French.

So again, if you want to be pro-military then be pro-military. Just be honest about what that means.

4. If anything, they need to be #1 in the world

.

OK, why?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that they have to be number one. Is it that in your opinion, being number two has some serious disadvantage? If so, I think you've failed to grasp a few military realities. We also have to examine the wiggle room the US has to play around with, even if being number one were of paramount importance.

To begin with the US military is not and will never again be capable of taking on another major power. Those days are gone.

Since WWII ended, no major power has waged war with another major power. That's not a coincidence nor is it a happy accident. Most are familiar with the concept of "MAD" or mutually assured destruction, but there is another layer to this that many don't consider. Forgive me if I cut and paste from a prior answer of mine, it's almost time for tea!

The cost of war has become so horrific that wars between great powers are all but impossible. Britain, still one of the great military powers in the world, has ordered 160 typhoons (fancy fighter planes.) They have not yet received them all but they have most of them... 140 or so I believe. The cost per unit is not so bad at a mere £125 million a pop but the total MOD bill has run to 20 billion. How long would these planes last in a war against another well-armed enemy? Well I can tell you this. On the RAF's worst day, March 31 1944, they lost 95 planes! OK, I know, they were different planes, mostly bombers, flying over enemy territory but still, that's a lot of planes shot down in one night.

The Battle of Britain lasted from 10 July to 31 October. Britain lost 1547 Aircraft.

The battle lasted 113 days which means that on average the air force lost 13 planes a day. The technical differences between the German and British planes were negligible. The British had the advantage of close refueling, the Germans had numerical superiority from the start.

One wonders how the RAF could lose so many planes and still fight?. But you see, Spitfires were quite easy to make, relatively easy to train in, and above all they were cheap! They cost £5000 each, which in today's money is about £150,000. OK, that's not cheap, that's quite expensive, but it's still a far cry from £125 million! The UK ended up making over 20,000 spitfires and we could replace them, almost as quickly as the Germans could shoot them down. I can't even calculate the cost of 20,000 tornado fighters. I know that we can't afford that many.

If India and the UK decided to go to war, (I pick these two because their military strength is roughly equal, I've nothing against India!) Britain would run out of Typhoons in 13 days or so. Possibly sooner. Indian attrition would be at a similar rate. Oh, we have other planes, some of lot cheaper than the Typhoons but we'd run out of those soon enough as well.

Once the Typhoons are gone, they are gone. We can't build another two dozen just like that. We can't convert a car factory in Surrey to start spitting them out like sausages. They take years to build, many different countries contribute to their construction and even if they didn't, we could not afford to keep churning them out.

Training pilots would also be difficult, I'm not a pilot of course, but I have it on good authority that these planes do not 'fly themselves.' They are very well built machines to be sure, but with the greatest of respect I think it's fair to say that it takes a certain kind of mad-man to fly one.

The example of aircraft can be repeated across the military; ships, tanks, missile batteries; everything but infantry really, is way too expensive. The war would slow and then grind to a halt unless some kind of massive surprise attacks was pulled off.

Such an attack would not only be difficult to achieve, it would be a huge gamble. By the end of 4 weeks of intense fighting India and Britain would both have become third rate military powers with little option but to either sue for peace, or resort to WWI tactics. The UK doesn't have the numbers for such a fight and even less of the stomach for it. India has the numbers but repelling massed British infantry charges would not win the war; with all the 'toys' gone, they could hardly mount a counter offensive half way around the world.

Iraq cost the USA around $3 trillion — maybe more — and that's the price bill attached to invading a country 1/12th size. An invasion of Russia would result in mutual destruction of course, but even if it did not, the USA could in no way afford the cost.

Russia is not number one in terms of military might, and nor is China for that matter. However, the silver and bronze medals do just fine in keeping them utterly immune from the aggression of any, and all nations on the planet.

Wiggle Room

The USA would still be safe if their military dropped to the number two position but it's possible to have some cuts and still be number one if you remain unconvinced of that.

.

I'm using 2011 data here because military spending rates are hard to verify. China in particular doesn't like to be honest about such things. But since this is five years old, we can be fairly sure we've got an accurate picture. And yes, money spent doesn't translate directly to military power, but it's a reasonable indicator.

Now, bear in mind that even though the USA spends almost five times as much money on its military as China does, I still maintain that a war fought between those countries is not possible for the reasons I've already alluded to.

The US military, mighty though it is, can only bully nations of around 1/10th their size in terms of population. In addition, they cannot attack any country that possess nuclear weapons — regardless of its size — without serious risk of losing a major city or two.

So even if the USA cut their budget in half, they'd still be number one, and by a huge margin at that. They would still be immune to direct attack; they would still have the resources to attack virtually any defenseless countries they wanted to.

Which brings us to the meat of the questions. Why do liberals want to cut the military? I'll bullet point this, because this is already a long answer.

• Because the spending is out of control overkill and a streamlined military could maintain superiority without spending such wasteful sums of money.
• Because the USA spends far too much time killing people in the name of freedom and not addressing domestic issues at home.
• Because Liberals tend to care about social issues such as poverty and opportunity more than bombing the crap out of country thousands of miles away.
• Because a recent report suggested that college education could be provided for everyone who wanted in at a cost of around $62 billion a year. A cut in the military budget of just 8% would pay for this and the USA would still be outspending the combined might of China, India, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Brazil.
• None of those countries are going to attack the USA — some of them are even staunch allies— and even if they did, I've already explained how it would result in either nuclear war or rapid exhaustion. So, the USA would have one of the best educated populations in the world, AND still have the largest military.
• Because education is not the only problem. Healthcare in the USA, ranks 32nd in the world. Your infrastructure needs investment. Wages are stagnating in the face of private sector greed. Your children drink water contaminated with lead. The list goes on. By spending such a preposterous amount on weapons of mass destruction — and it is a preposterous amount — you are forced to cut corners elsewhere.
• Lastly because none of things I mentioned can be intuited. They have to be learned. Every citizen should make an assumption that they are being lied to and that their defense against these lies is not always going to be sufficient to the task. Thank you Plato for that observation. Liberals tend to have received more education than conservatives and I know, I know, you don't want to hear that, but don't shoot the messenger. Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? Increased exposure to education helps to formulate a view of reality that is less susceptible to manipulation from up high.

In short, your view of what the US military is, what it needs to be, and what it is trying to achieve, is flawed, naive and idealistic. I don't expect you to agree with me, that's fine.

Why do liberals want to cut defense spending? originally appeared on Quora—the knowledge-sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

• Liberalism: Why won't liberals give Donald Trump a chance?
• U.S. Defense Budget: Why do some Americans want increased military spending?
• The United States of America: Could the U.S. build a submarine aircraft carrier? What would its pros and cons be?