Much has been said about Mitt Romney’s assertion the Navy is in need of an increase in funding to grow the number of ships it uses to patrol the seas. I previously addressed this argument briefly but it deserves a little more scrutiny. A recent article in the CSM does just that with a very important measurement of what is being debated:
In 1916 the US ranked third in naval power in the world. That sounds impressive, but it still placed the US behind Germany, which had roughly 19 percent of international naval strength, and Britain, which then had 34 percent.
The picture is much different today. The US controls about 50 percent of world naval power, according to Professors Crisher and Souva. No other nation even comes close. Russia is in second place, with a comparable figure of 11 percent.
The key point to remember about Romney’s position is the alleged need for the increase in Naval spending: the lack of ships. In other words, it is an argument about sheer numbers and clearly not about capability or possession of military force. And as every military historian knows, all battles and wars are won by the side with the highest number of weapons and soldiers…except they’re not.
But we still apparently need this increase in naval spending at a time when many are calling for cuts in most other areas. Which is the part that makes the least sense. Romney has made it clear he wants to cut plenty of social spending in order to make these defense spending increases and keep the deficit down. What good will increasing our control of world naval power from 50 percent to, say, 55 percent really do? What is to truly be gained from doing that? Are we on our way to a prolonged and bloody showdown at sea with the fearsome Al-Qaeda Navy? Oh wait…
The truth is Romney is proposing a spending increase in something that is inherently destructive to mankind and obviously unnecessary at the cost of cutting funding to items that are inherently constructive to society and critical for those not lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family (like someone I’ve mentioned). The moral absurdity here should be abundantly clear. Yet Romney continues to make the case he is running for president not just for 47% of America but 100% and is a man that cares for all U.S. citizens equally. Simply not true considering his policy choices. When you make proposals like his, your moral code is very transparent to everyone.
He wants to make sure we can make more war at the cost of taking away from those in need. Just as Jesus taught us, right?