Daily Star - Lebanon - Christian - ASSORTED ARTICLES - America is spending too much on the wrong weapons

Daily Star – Lebanon – Christian - ASSORTED ARTICLES - America is spending too much on the wrong weapons

The Daily Star wishes for its readers a Happy Easter.
We will resume publishing on Tuesday, March 25.

America is spending too much on the wrong weapons
By Pascal Boniface
Commentary by
Thursday, March 20, 2008

As the United States and the world mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, debates are raging about the consequences - for Iraq, the Middle East, and America's standing in the world. But the Iraq war's domestic impact - the Pentagon's ever mushrooming budget and its long-term influence on the US economy - may turn out to be its most lasting consequence.

The US Defense Department's request for $515.4 billion in the 2009 fiscal year dwarfs every other military budget in the world. And this huge sum - a 5 percent increase over the 2008 military budget - is to be spent only on the US military's normal operations, thus excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since he took office in 2001, President George W. BushMBA-Presidents Sep-07 has increased America's regular military budget by 30 percent, again not taking into account the cost of the wars he launched. Last year, America's entire military and counterterrorism expenditures topped $600 billion. One can assume that next year's total spending on military affairs will be even bigger. Adjusted for inflation, US military spending has reached its highest level since World War II.

Is there any limit to this spending boom? The US is allocating more money for defense today than it did during the war against Hitler or the Cold War. The Bush administration seems to think that today's military threats are graver. Talk about the so-called "peace dividend" that was supposed to come with the fall of the Berlin Wall has been silenced.

Of course, because the US economy has grown faster than military spending, the share of GDP dedicated to military expenditures has fallen over the years. The US spent 14 percent of its GDP on the military during the Korean War (1950-1953, the Cold War's peak), 9 percent during the Vietnam War, and spends only 4 percent nowadays.

Yet, given the sheer scale of military spending today, one can wonder if it is rational. The US economy is probably in recession, clouds are gathering over its pension and health-care systems, and its military budget may not make sense even in strategic terms. America alone accounts for around 50 percent of the world's military expenditures, which is historically unprecedented for a single country. Most other countries don't come anywhere close.

Indeed, the second-ranked country in terms of total annual military spending, the United Kingdom, lags far behind, at $55 billion, followed by France ($45 billion), Japan ($41 billion), and Germany ($35 billion). China and Russia, which can be considered strategic rivals of the US, spend $35 billion and $24 billion respectively (though these figures probably underestimate expenditure, the true amount is certainly still far below the US level). Iran, depicted by the Bush administration as a major threat, is a military dwarf, spending $6.6 billion on its military.

Some voices in America are calling for even bigger increases. Indeed, the Pentagon wants to enlarge the Marine Corps and Special Operations forces. Since it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain soldiers, to do so will probably require raising their wages and improving their quality of life. Disabled soldiers also will cost a lot of money, even if the Pentagon won't automatically pay everything for them.

But fulfilling the ostensible rationale for this seemingly interminable spending orgy - success in the so-called "war on terror" - does not seem anywhere within reach. Mike McConnell, America's Director of National Intelligence, recently admitted to a US Senate panel that Al-Qaeda was gaining strength and steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and even attack the US.

That assessment is stunning, yet few American leaders - Democrats and Republicans alike - appear to be wondering if military power is the best answer to security issues. Indeed, by relying mainly on military solutions to political problems, the US does not seem to be increasing rather than reducing the threats it faces.

After all, the dangers that America faces today do not come from nation states, but from non-states actors against whom nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers are useless. It would be less expensive and more fruitful for America to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, return to a multilateral approach, and respect the moral principles that it recommends to others. Likewise, only by adopting such a strategy can the US start to compress the Pentagon's inflated budget and begin to address its many domestic woes.

Pascal Boniface is director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris (IRIS). His most recent book is "Football et Mondialisation" (Football and Globalization). THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).

































Forcibly re-secularizing Turkey will only backfire
By Alfred Stepan
Commentary by
Saturday, March 22, 2008



The chief prosecutor of Turkey's High Court of Appeals recently recommended to the country's Constitutional Court that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) be permanently banned. Only last July, the AKP was overwhelmingly re-elected in free and fair elections to lead the government. The chief prosecutor also formally recommended that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Abdullah Gul, and 69 other leading politicians be banned from politics for five years.

Clearly, banning the AKP would trigger a political crisis that would end Turkey's efforts to join the European Union in the foreseeable future and threaten its recent strong economic growthTrillion-Dollar-Experiment . So the chief prosecutor's threat should not be taken lightly - all the more so given that the Constitutional Court has banned 18 political parties since the current constitution was introduced in 1982. Indeed, the recent call to ban the AKP is directly related to its efforts to change Turkey's constitution.

The underlying charge in the chief prosecutor's indictment is that the AKP has been eroding secularism. But the origins of the current constitution, and its definition of secularism, are highly suspect. Turkey's existing constitution was adopted in 1982 as a direct product of the Turkish military coup of 1980. The five senior generals who led the coup appointed, directly or indirectly, all 160 members of the Consultative Assembly that drafted the new constitution, and they retained veto power over the final document. In the national ratification referendum that followed, citizens were allowed to vote against the military-sponsored draft, but not to argue against it publicly.

As a result, the 1982 constitution has weaker democratic origins than any in the EU. Its democratic content was also much weaker, assigning, for example, enormous power (and a military majority) to the National Security Council. While the AKP has moderated this authoritarian feature, it is difficult to democratize such a constitution fully, and official EU reports on Turkey's prospects for accession repeatedly call for a new constitution, not merely an amended one.

With public opinion polls indicating that the AKP's draft constitution, prepared by an academic committee, would be accepted through normal democratic procedures, the chief prosecutor acted to uphold the type of secularism enshrined in the 1982 constitution, which many commentators liken to French secularism. Yet the comparison with what the French call laicitŽ is misleading.

Certainly, both French laicitŽ and Turkish secularism (established by modern Turkey's founder, Mustapha Kemal Ataturk) began with a similar hostility toward religion. But now they are quite different. In Turkey, the only religious education that is tolerated is under the strict control of the state, whereas in France a wide variety of privately supported religious education establishments is allowed, and since 1959 the state has paid for much of the Catholic Church's primary school costs. In Turkey, Friday prayers are written by civil servants in the 70,000-member State Directorate of Religious Affairs, and all Turkish imams also must be civil servants. No similar controls exist in France.



Similarly, until the AKP came to power and began to loosen restrictions, it was virtually impossible in Turkey to create a new church or synagogue, or to create a Jewish or Christian foundation. This may be why the Armenian patriarch urged ethnic Armenians in Turkey to vote for the AKP in last July's elections. Here, too, no such restrictions exist in France.

The differences between French and Turkish secularism can be put in even sharper comparative perspective. In the widely cited "Fox" index measuring state control of majority and minority religions - in which zero represents the least state control, and figures in the thirties represent the greatest degree of control - all but two current EU member states get scores that are in the zero to six range. France is at the high end of the EU norm, with a score of six. Turkey, however, scores 24, worse even than Tunisia's authoritarian secular regime. Is this the type of secularism that needs to be perpetuated by the Turkish chief prosecutor's not so-soft constitutional coup?

What really worries some democratic secularists in Turkey and elsewhere is that the AKP's efforts at constitutional reform might be simply a first step toward introducing Islamic law, or sharia. If the constitutional court will not stop a potential AKP-led imposition of sharia, who will?

There are two responses to this question. First, the AKP insists that it opposes creating a sharia state, and experts say that there is no "smoking gun" in the chief prosecutor's indictment showing that the AKP has moved toward such a goal. Second, support for sharia, never high in Turkey, has actually declined since the AKP came to power, from 19 percent in 1996 to 8 percent in 2007.

Given that the AKP's true power base is its support in democratic elections, any attempt to impose sharia would risk alienating many of its own voters. Given this constraint, there is no reason for anyone, except for "secular fundamentalists," to support banning the AKP, Erdogan, or Gul; and every reason for Turkey to continue on its democratic path. Only that course will enable Turkey to construct a better constitution than it has now.

Alfred Stepan is a professor of government and director of the Center for Democracy,

Toleration and Religion at Columbia University in New York. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).





We're in for a frightening tumble until the markets clear
By David Ignatius
Daily Star staff
Thursday, March 20, 2008

The Federal Reserve decided last weekend in the inferno of the financial crisis that Wall Street's major players - even a smallish and brutish one, Bear StearnsBear-Stearns-Troubles Nov-07 <> class="snap_preview_icon" v:shapes="_x0000_i1036">- are too big to fail. So the Fed is pumping all-but-unlimited amounts of all-but-free money into the financial system to keep it operating despite the Wall StreetWall-Street-Layoffs bank run.

But is the Fed itself too big to fail? And what institution would step in as the buyer of last, last resort - if the buyer of last resort should prove insufficient to the challenge?

Our instinctive response is to say that this scenario is implausible. The Federal Reserve reflects "the full faith and credit" of the United States, in the time-honored phrase. The very idea that the Fed couldn't meet its obligations is unthinkable. So, not surprisingly, Wall Street's reaction to the Fed's rescue mission has been a shout of joy.

But let's think for a moment about the unthinkable. Given the Fed's failure over the past nine months to stem the mounting fear in the market, and given the enormity of the housing market correction that's still ahead, you have to ask what's next if this week's rescue measures aren't successful.

What makes the danger acute is that the financial crisis is moving from Wall Street to Main Street. So far, the panic has been confined to people in the financial world who understood the exotic securities that were imploding, and knew just how bad the credit crisis was. Now we're entering a new phase, where Mom and Pop will be losing their homes, and maybe their jobs, too - and the public will be getting plenty scared.

We speak about the current meltdown as the "subprime crisisMassive-Bailout-Planned-for-Banks ," as if it were simply the product of imprudent loans by greedy financial concerns - and certainly there's been a lot of that. But the larger dynamic is that the bubble in the housing market has burst. That's why subprime loans became worthless, and why the daisy chain of mortgage-backed securities has unraveled.

Alan GreenspanAlan-Greenspan-Age-of-Turbulence Oct-07 class="snap_preview_icon" v:shapes="snap_com_shot_engage_icon_3"> , the former Fed chairman whom many blame for the housing bubbleTrillion-Dollar-Experiment <> class="snap_preview_icon" v:shapes="snap_com_shot_engage_icon_4">, made this point in a stunningly unapologetic article in Monday's Financial Times. After predicting that the financial crisis will be "the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War," he warned that it won't end until home prices stabilize.

A prominent investment banker offers a helpful, if also somewhat terrifying, explanation of what may be ahead. The Fed has pledged itself to a rescue package whose ultimate scope is unknown, but which will put at risk the nation's most precious asset, which is the Fed's credibility. How much bad debt will the Fed have to assume? Nobody knows. Estimates of the subprime portion range up to $400 billion, but that's just the beginning. The consensus among analysts is that losses in credit markets will total at least $600 billion, but suppose it proves to be double that, or triple?



"It's not a liquidity crisis, but a solvency crisis," says my banker friend. "Can the Fed really take on $1 trillion of impaired securities? $2 trillion? More?"

The takeover of the savings-and-loan industry by the Resolution Trust Corp. in the early 1990s was relatively small by comparison, a mere $250 billion in current dollars, and the assets acquired by the RTC were easily quantifiable, unlike today's mess of sliced-and-diced securitized mortgages.

The reality check here is to think about what's ahead as the housing bubble continues to contract. How big a drain will that be? The US residential mortgage market is currently about

$12 trillion, and the overall value of the housing market is about $20 trillion. Many analysts predict that this market will fall another 20 percent before it bottoms out. That would be a loss of $4 trillion in value, in an economy whose overall GDP last year was about $14.1 trillion.

In this post-bubble economy, we would see waves of panic selling - not by Wall Street fat cats, but by frightened homeowners trying to repay crushing mortgage debt, by angry workers who have lost their jobs, by people desperate to pay their bills.

The Fed, in my view, had no choice but to step in decisively this week and try to stop the Wall Street bank run. But when the panic hits Main Street, the Fed will have to be even more creative - in fashioning a package that restores confidence but also allows real estate prices to fall and the market to clear.

Coping with the worst financial

crisis since the Great Depression will require the best financial minds since the Depression. What we have is a lame-duck president, election-year politicking and a Fed that has been bold and innovative, but whose reach may have exceeded its grasp.

Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.





























Lavrov slams Gaza Strip blockade, Jewish settlements
By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Saturday, March 22, 2008



RAMALLAH, Occupied West Bank: Visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday criticized Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied West Bank and called for an end to the Jewish state's "unacceptable" blockade of the Gaza Strip. Following talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, Lavrov also said Russia would soon set a date for a proposed peace conference which Moscow wants to host and which he is promoting on his Middle East tour.

"We are worried by the Israeli settlement activity and urge Israel to end it," Lavrov said.

Israel had pledged at a US-sponsored conference in November to abide by the 2003 international peace roadmap, which calls for a freeze of settlement activity.

Lavrov also called on Israel to lift the crippling sanctions it imposed on Hamas-run Gaza in January in a bid to end rocket fire from the impoverished Palestinian enclave. "The blockade imposed against Gaza is unacceptable and it must be ended so the Palestinian people can live normally," he said.

Lavrov, who earlier traveled to Syria and Israel, has revived proposals for a Moscow gathering as a follow-up to the US November conference in Annapolis, Maryland. A date for the conference "will be fixed in the near future," he said in Ramallah.

Abbas welcomed the announcement. "We insisted on the need to organize this follow-up in Moscow as soon as possible."

A senior Israeli official expressed reservations over the proposal."Out of diplomatic courtesy, we didn't reject the plan, but the truth is, we are not enthusiastic," the official said, asking not to be identified. "There have been enough international conferences. What is needed is to move forward in direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority."



In Washington, a spokesman for Condoleezza Rice confirmed the US secretary of state had discussed Russia's proposal during her visit to Moscow this week.

"The main objective is to help the ongoing talks to create a positive atmosphere that will allow the peace process to reach a conclusion," Lavrov said.

He also expressed support for Yemeni efforts to heal the deep rift between Abbas' Fatah faction and Hamas, which routed Fatah from Gaza in June.

Abbas initially said his representatives were heading back after Hamas refused the Yemeni initiative, but made it clear at the news conference they would remain in Sanaa until Saturday.

"We don't want to talk of a failure, and prefer to wait and see what happens tomorrow," Abbas said.

The initiative, sponsored by Yemen, calls for a return to the political status quo that existed before Hamas seized control of the impoverished strip in June.

In Damascus, Lavrov had met Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and stressed Palestinian reconciliation as key to solving the Middle East conflict. - AFP





Israel warns citizens abroad could face revenge attacks
By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Saturday, March 22, 2008

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israel on Friday warned its citizens of what it termed a high risk of being kidnapped when traveling outside the country following the assassination in February of senior Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh. "The Counter-Terrorism Bureau warns over kidnappings of Israelis abroad, particularly businessmen and above all those who work with Arabs or Muslims," the agency said on its Web site, urging Israelis not to travel abroad in organized tours to avoid being targeted.

"It is a high risk," the warning states, saying the threat would particularly high after the conclusion Saturday of the traditional 40-day mourning period following the assassination of Mughniyeh.

Hizbullah has accused Israel of carrying out the February 12 car-bomb assassination in Damascus. Authorities in the Jewish state have denied any involvement but welcomed the killing of Mughniyeh, who was wanted for a string of attacks in the 1980s and 1990s on US and Israeli targets.



"Hizbullah continues to blame Israel for the death of Mughniyeh, which increases the risk of attacks conducted by Hizbullah on Israeli targets," the Internet site says.

"Hizbullah would have liked to kidnap or assassinate former Israeli senior military officials, or target a tour group," General Nitzan Nuriel, who heads the Counter-Terrorism Bureau, told armed forces radio on Friday.

The mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot daily said Israelis travelling to the island nation of Cyprus faced particularly high risks of being attacked or kidnapped. - AFP