Defense Spending Begins to Take Center Stage in 2012 Race
It’s been a slow build, but 2012’s crop of GOP candidates have finally begun to stake out their positions on the defense budget. And apart from the decidedly confused Ron Paul — who seems to think that the State Department and Pentagon are the same thing — the group seems to be generally pro-military spending, defying the doom and gloom scenarios that many were expecting.
This is good news for the defense industry for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this means that if a Republican wins the White House in November, many of Obama’s harsh sequestration cuts are unlikely to be pursued.
These pro-defense stances will also provide much needed cover for many of the defense hawks — McKeon, Graham, Lieberman, etc. — who are looking to push back on the sequestration austerity measures, but lack the support to do so.
With all the disinformation that’s being pushed around, I thought it might be worthwhile to offer a brief summary of each serious candidate’s proposed defense policy.
What follows is in no particular order, and is taken from a variety of sources, including public statements, position papers and media interviews.
Governor Rick Perry
As a former flyboy, it was a safe bet that Governor Perry would be pro-defense. And he is — in a big way.
For:
- Maintaining a strong and modern military
- Increasing U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq
- Sustaining the current number of U.S. bases globally
- Unilateral, preemptive strikes against North Korea, Iran and China, among others
- Border security (e.g., drones, troops, surveillance technology, and “strategic fencing”)
Against:
- Sequestration cuts
- Apologizing — for anything
Senator Rick Santorum
Serving eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Santorum is arguably one of the best foreign policy qualified candidates still on the stage. Often defined by his social policies, Mr. Santorum offers a reliable neoconservative approach to military spending.
For:
- U.S. intervention in Iran
- Creating jobs through investment in the defense industry
- Comprehensive missile defense
- Reinvigorated human intelligence networks in the Middle East
- Increased research into electromagnetic pulse (EMP) technology
Against:
Governor Mitt Romney
Governor Romney has very little connection to military issues. As Commander-in-Chief of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney rarely had an international situation that required the use of force. But his lack of experience in all things military is more than made up for by his almost youthful enthusiasm. In fact, during many of the recent debates, Romney has repeatedly stated his goal of making the U.S. military so big and bad that nobody would dare mess with it. Sounds fair to me.
For:
- Increasing defense spending from 3.8% of GDP to 4%
- Increasing the amount of active military personnel by about 100,000
- More naval and air assets — including the F-35 and upping ship production by about 65%
- More drone strikes, inline with a counter-terrorism strategy
- Beefed-up border security and surveillance
- Redirecting OCO funds into technology procurement
Against:
- Continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq
- America not being the strongest country in the world
Congressman Ron Paul
I often find it something of an oxymoron that Ron Paul sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. If it were up to Mr. Paul, the U.S. simply wouldn’t have foreign affairs, and his defense spending priorities (or lack thereof) represent this.
For:
- More domestic military bases
- Securing the U.S.-Mexico border
- Greater Pentagon oversight
Against:
- “Military spending” as opposed to “defense spending”
- “Long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.”
- Increased intelligence infrastructure, both domestic and foreign
- Continual funding for the Transport Safely Administration
- Overseas military bases
Congressman Newt Gingrich
For someone who likes to think of himself as a simultaneous second coming of both Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill, Speaker Gingrich has been surprisingly absent on all issues military over this cycle. Overall, I’d say that Mr. Gingrich is the wildcard of the pack.
For:
- Securing the U.S.-Mexico border
- The judicious use of military force
Against
- Revealing much about what he stands for
Elliott Suthers, is a Vice President at Spector & Associates and a registered government lobbyist. He specializes in the defense and technology sectors. Prior to joining Spector, Elliott worked in government relations for the United Nation’s Development Programme in Washington, D.C, with the Republican National Committee during the 2008 Presidential cycle. He has also advised two successful senatorial campaigns. Elliott is a current political contributor to Forbes.com and can be reached at Elliott@SpectorPR.com.
Comments
Post new comment