Here is the sixth issue of Capital Brief, from July 17, analyzing Mitt Romney's (still vague) defense policy proposals and their consequences.
Click below to read the Brief.
Capital Brief
Amy Greene
Capital Brief, n°6 – July 17, 2012
Romney on Defense
FACTS:
·
Romney’s defense
positions remain largely vague, but for a few major axes:
o Cap
total federal spending, but increase
defense spending floor to 4% of GDP (no timetable specified), more than the
3.7% under George W. Bush– this corresponds to Heritage Foundation’s “Four Percent for Freedom” project and could equal
total increase of $2.3 trillion over 10 years.
o Increase
naval capacity by producing 15 new ships each year (up
from 9), costing as estimated $40
billion. No explanation of how to finance this.
o Reduce Defense Department’s civilian staff;
selectively grow other branches (esp. Air
Force) and add 100,000 ground troops.
o Supports
anti-ballistic missile defense housed in
Europe.
o Tough
on Russia (America’s “number one
geopolitical foe”) and opposes new START treaty. And on China,
Romney called them “cheaters,” leaving open possibility of trade war
(far from Obama’s cooperative framework).
o On
Iran, suggests military action
possible; wants 2 aircraft carriers nearby.
o Calls
to double size of Guantanamo,
suggests terrorism trials occur there (“where they don’t get the access to
lawyers”), and calls waterboarding acceptable (cites Cofer Black, top GW Bush counterterrorism advisor).
·
Some key
Romney defense/security advisors:
o John
Lehman (Reagan Navy Secretary)
o Gen.
Michael Hayden (fmr. CIA and NSA director, G.W. Bush)
o John
Bolton (fmr. UN Ambassador, G.W. Bush)
o Michael
Chertoff (fmr. Homeland Security Secretary, G.W. Bush)
o Dan
Senor (Foreign Policy Institute, prominent Iraq invasion supporter)
ANALYSIS:
· Romney’s hawkish
proposals meant to draw electoral contrast
with Obama, to paint him as weak and willing to gut armed forces with budget cuts plus sequestration (additional
$500B automatic cuts failing budget deal). But Obama’s reductions are supported
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he too has demonstrated hawkishness (Bin
Laden operation, drone strikes, targeted killings).
·
Romney policy orientations crafted to reassure:
o Defense industry, now forced to adapt
to Obama budget cuts. Big Defense has been slow
to support Romney, with whom it has no historical ties.
o Swing state voters and districts dependent on defense industry in places like Ohio, Virginia, North
Carolina, Nevada, Florida.
o Conservative voter base – even if hawks
are not in line with most voters, unfavorable to bigger defense without
preponderant external threat.
·
Fuzzy
math for 4% target:
o Revenue source ambiguous – Romney cites
hypothetical future job creation and economic growth to generate funds for defense,
BUT…
o Experts*
say he would need to gut domestic entitlement
programs (social security, Medicaid,…) because he has excluded raising taxes to pay for this –this would be widely
unpopular with suffering middle class voters.
*cf.
Recent reports from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the
Brookings Institution, among others.
