Defense Priorities
Escalation risk in Middle East poses threat to ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 18, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Israel has reportedly struck a number of sites in Iran. Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris issued the following statement in response:

“Israel’s airstrike against Iranian military targets in Isfahan is an unmistakable escalation. It is also unnecessary and potentially dangerous, particularly for the tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East who are now at risk of Iranian retaliation.

“While Israel has the right to make its own decisions, President Biden was correct to push for immediate deescalation after Iran’s reprisal attack against Israel last weekend. Operationally speaking, that attack was a failure, with 99% of the Iranian drones and missiles shot down and the damage limited. Ideally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have accepted this situation as the visible victory it was, refrained from further strikes and gotten back to the status-quo. Instead, he has chosen a second round.

“If the U.S. military didn’t have such a heavy force presence in the region, perhaps the tit-for-tat between Israel and Iran would be of little consequence. But this simply isn’t the world we live in. Iranian officials have already telegraphed to Israel, the U.S., and Arab governments that any further Israeli action will produce an even harsher response. U.S. policymakers will now have to prepare for a range of escalatory scenarios, up to and including additional drone and rocket attacks from Iranian-backed proxies on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria after a two-month hiatus.

“President Biden should be abundantly clear: The U.S. will not engage in offensive action against Iran. Another war in the Middle East is the last thing the U.S. needs or wants. The most effective way to reduce the chances of one is to pull out of Iraq and Syria and bring U.S. objectives in the region in line with our legitimate interests.”

DEFP report: Considering the utility of an Iranian nuclear bomb

DEFP explainer: Understanding the Israel-Hamas war

Defense Priorities
Iranian retaliation is a reminder of risks to ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 13, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Iran fired drones toward Israel, beginning its retaliatory attack weeks after an Israeli strike on its diplomatic facility in Syria. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Iran sending drones to attack Israel is lamentable. The United States should condemn Iran for this act and criticize the Israeli government for picking a distracting and unnecessary fight with Iran by attacking its diplomatic facilities in Syria, even as they prosecute their war in Gaza. In any case, the United States should not go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel or anyone else. The United States has no obvious security interest at stake in that fight.

“Of course, American sympathies lie mainly with the Israelis, who are practically U.S. allies. But the Israeli government has courted a fight with Iran, perhaps encouraged by the prospect of U.S. help in going after Iran. Instead of talking about “ironclad” support for Israel, the president should have made clear the U.S. support is limited and does not extend to all circumstances.

“War with Iran would imperil U.S. security for no obvious pay off. Rather than continuing to egg on conflict in the region by offering support and weapons to various quasi allies, the United States should be reducing its role and removing its forces. We should be tamping down tension, not standing by as our friends settle grudges in assurance of our backing.”

DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Securing U.S. interests while avoiding a war with Iran

Defense Priorities
75th NATO anniversary should mark a rethink of ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 4, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, on the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Ukraine will eventually join NATO. Defense Priorities Fellow Christopher McCallion issued the following statement in response:

“The 75th anniversary of NATO highlights the historical anomaly of a military alliance lasting three-quarters of a century. This is a sign of longstanding obsolescence, not of continuing vitality.

“This deviation from the historical norm is even more striking given that the key conditions which gave rise to the alliance have not been in effect for nearly half of its existence. The power of the Russian Federation pales in comparison to that of its predecessor, the Soviet Union, and while industrialized Europe was devastated in the immediate wake of World War II, it has long since rebuilt its economic capacity—and with it, its latent independent military potential. European members of NATO possess more than enough combined material capability to balance and deter Russia, an adversary which has not been able to decisively defeat one of the poorest states on the continent after more than two years of costly fighting.

“The U.S. role in NATO ultimately comes down to its commitment to use nuclear weapons—and thereby risk national suicide—to deter a Russian invasion of the industrialized core of Europe. The post-Cold War expansion of NATO to include the former states of the Warsaw Pact was, in George Kennan’s words, ‘a fateful error’ that simultaneously undermined the credibility of the alliance while souring relations between post-Soviet Russia and the West, setting them on a course that has reached a disastrous culmination in Ukraine.

"Secretary of State Antony Blinken today reiterated his conviction that Ukraine will someday join NATO. This move would be reckless and further undermine the credibility of the alliance, as the United States and its European allies have already shown they are not willing to fight for Ukraine when its national survival is at stake.

“Some who celebrate this anniversary misinterpret the alliance as being the guarantor of trans-Atlantic economic, political, and cultural ties. The truth is almost certainly the inverse. The United States can steadily remove its military presence from Europe and shift security burdens to its wealthy allies while retaining the strong bonds of friendship and cooperation that benefit both sides of the Atlantic.

“Europeans are rightly nervous about the future of the alliance. It is unwise for Europeans to outsource their security to the United States when the U.S. has higher priorities at home and in Asia. If the United States scaled back its presence on the continent—and thereby European reliance on U.S. military power—European leaders would have far greater incentive to make good on their stated intention to pursue ‘strategic autonomy,' which would be better for both Europe and the United States.”

DEFP explainer: Grand strategy: ‘Shield of the republic’

DEFP explainer: Reconfiguring NATO: The case for burden shifting

Defense Priorities
Retaliatory strikes punish but won't deter Shia ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 2, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. carried out strikes in Syria and Iraq as retaliation for the drone attack that killed three U.S. troops on the Jordan-Syria border earlier this week. Defense Priorities Fellow Daniel DePetris issued the following statement in response:

“The latest U.S. strikes on multiple militia targets in Iraq and Syria are meant in part to retaliate for the January 28 drone attack on a small U.S. facility in Jordan, which killed three U.S. troops and injured more than 40 others. President Biden is also trying to accomplish a bigger objective: degrade their capabilities to the point where the militias make the strategic decision to stop attacking U.S. forces in both countries.

“It’s unlikely to succeed. While the U.S. always reserves the right to defend its troops, it’s clear that previous U.S. strikes in Iraq and Syria over the last three months failed to deter much of anything and in fact contributed to the ongoing tit-for-tat dynamics we see today. This has less to do with a lack of U.S. resolve and more to do with the inherent difficulties of influencing the decision-making of non-state actors, who don’t have to worry about defending territory, regime preservation, or maintaining a favorable balance of power. For the militias in Iraq and Syria, their years-long desire to expel U.S. and foreign forces from both countries is unlikely to change regardless of how much firepower the U.S. employs and may even strengthen after this round of strikes.

“If reports are accurate, the U.S. aims to conduct similar strikes over a period of days, if not weeks. This military action may relieve some domestic political pressure, but it will not achieve the desired outcome of neutralizing the problems these militias represent. It will, however, undermine attempts to deescalate and avoid a broader war in the region.

“This episode should serve as a wake-up call to the futility of the current U.S. force posture in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria, where nearly 3,500 U.S. troops continue to operate in harm’s way on behalf of a counter-ISIS mission that was achieved nearly five years ago. With ISIS’s territorial caliphate destroyed nearly five years ago, the Iraqi government increasingly inclined for U.S. troops to leave, and a state in Syria that is too weak to matter, there is no justification for our current policy. The risks and costs simply outweigh the rewards.”

DEFP report: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

DEFP explainer: Reset U.S.-Syria policy

Defense Priorities
U.S. soldiers killed in Jordan-Syria border ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 28, 2024
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, three U.S. troops were killed in a drone attack launched by Iran-linked militants. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“The soldiers killed and the service members wounded in an outpost on the border of Jordan and Syria should not have been there. The outpost attacked seems to be attached to the U.S. mission in Syria, which is unauthorized, increasingly foolish, and an invitation to war with Iran.

“The militia that killed U.S. forces should be held accountable. But we should ask why U.S. forces in the area were left in range of repeated drone, missile and rocket attacks. What cause justified this predictable danger? The answer is none. The U.S. government put them in harm’s way in service of a murky and pointless mission.

“The Biden administration claims these forces are there to fight ISIS, but ISIS was thoroughly defeated years ago and remains a target of most local forces, including those attacking our troops. The outposts near the Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi borders, including the one attacked, are in fact something else, an effort to police the border against Iran-linked forces. But we never hear any larger rationale for that aim which justifies risking American lives. Congress does not perform oversight and the executive branch does not tell us.

“Many U.S. leaders are already calling for war with Iran in response. We should hit the brakes on the march to another war. For one, it is not obvious that Iran was directly involved in this attack. Their links to militias in the area should not be equated with command and control and vary considerably among the different groups they loosely support. Second, launching a massive war in response to this awful attack might feel good, but it would not serve U.S. interests. Remember that the U.S. avoided a war after the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, which exposed the futility of their mission. There are better ways to hit back than starting another massive war in the Middle East and signing up for exponentially more death and destruction.”

DEFP report: Don’t fear vacuums: It’s safe to go home

DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq

ICYMI: "White House budget does little to address ineffective grand strategy"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 13, 2018
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In response to the recently released White House FY2019 budget, Defense Priorities President Edward King offers the following statement:

“Our $20-trillion debt is a threat to our national security, yet proposed government spending continues the reckless addiction of deficit spending. To the Trump administration's credit, the overall budget seeks to keep the debt from exploding relative to the status quo.

“The defense budget states that it reflects the recent National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, yet neither of those summaries provides details on relative priorities.

“If major powers are a renewed focus, what current, lower-priority missions will the administration forego? Might we stop dumping the $45 billion per year into nation building in Afghanistan or avoid sliding into a similar no-win situation in Syria? What is our strategy to ensure our rich allies share the burden of common defense? What efficiencies can be implemented within the Pentagon?

“The budget and related strategies should do more to review U.S. military activities around the world—reasonable alternatives must be explored for those that do not provide benefits to American taxpayers commensurate to their costs, especially in a time of $1-trillion annual deficits.”

Statement on Schumer-McConnell budget agreement: “Math still applies to superpowers”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 8, 2018
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In response to the Senate's budget agreement, Defense Priorities President Edward King offers the following statement:

“Fiscal stability and national security go hand-in-hand, and the Schumer-McConnell budget agreement threatens both. It is irresponsible to increase federal spending in the midst of growing deficits and $20 trillion of debt. Math still applies to superpowers.

“Rather than implementing long-needed strategic and operational reforms, Congress is papering over our real national security challenges with an additional $80 billion in Pentagon spending.

“Americans deserve a strong, effective military to secure our country, our prosperity, and our way of life. That's why a realistic defense strategy should inform every taxpayer dollar spent, which means setting priorities within the Department of Defense, focusing on core missions directly related to U.S. vital interests, and using available funds to improve military lethality.”

After shutdown, Congress must prioritize effective, sustainable policies over politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 22, 2018
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In response to the government shutdown, Defense Priorities founder and president Edward King issued the following statement:

“Political brinksmanship does not serve U.S. taxpayers, our service members, or others charged with keeping America safe and prosperous. It is inexcusable to shut down the federal government for special interests unrelated to the budget and appropriations process. Once this stunt officially ends, Congress should turn its attention to the many important reforms necessary to ensure sustainable, reliable funding for improved strategic decision-making for all aspects of keeping America strong and secure. Americans deserve better than Washington’s dysfunction.”

Op-ed in The New York Times: The price of war with North Korea

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 6, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—The New York Times today published an opinion editorial by Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of Security Studies Program at MIT and author of Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. In this piece, Posen outlines the sacrifices the United States would have to make in order to deprive North Korea of its nuclear capabilities and missile systems. He concludes that the complexity, risks, and costs of preventive war against North Korea are too great—thus deterrence paired with diplomacy is the best available policy option.

The key problem for the United States is the likely possibility that North Korea has the missiles to deliver nuclear bombs to South Korea and Japan. If one of these weapons were to reach its target, an entire city would be annihilated.

And even if an American first strike knocked out North Korea’s nuclear capacity, millions of South Korean civilians, and American and South Korean soldiers, would be vulnerable to retaliation with conventional or chemical weapons. Pyongyang could devastate Seoul and kill tens of thousands of people.

North Korea may have as many as 250 mobile missile launchers, some of which could fire nuclear-tipped missiles. If some of these mobile units were dispersed at the time of an American attack, it’s unlikely that the United States could destroy all of them before one fires a missile.

An American attack that truly caught North Korea by surprise could minimize the effectiveness of a North Korean counterattack—but not eliminate the possibility. And surprise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

The complexity, risks and costs of a military strike against North Korea are too high. A combination of diplomacy and deterrence, based on the already impressive strength of South Korean and United States conventional and nuclear forces, is a wise alternative.

Read the entire op-ed in The New York Times.

Defense authorization should advance efficiency and sound strategy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 16, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report with a vote of 356-70. The bill proposes to close the gap between resources and missions by increasing Pentagon spending well above current, historically high levels—beyond President Trump’s request—and far in excess of the defense spending cap for fiscal year 2018. Unless a budget agreement is reached to increase the caps, appropriations consistent with the authorization would trigger across-the-board cuts. While the bill includes modest reforms to improve efficiency, it fails to set strategic priorities or to re-evaluate ongoing missions.

Defense Priorities President Edward King responded to the House passage with the following statement:

“Defense authorization legislation is a chance to modernize America’s defense policies. The modest procurement reforms are welcome, but scarce taxpayer resources continue to be wasted on programs and activities that don’t contribute to the common defense. In addition to having a well-trained and equipped military, the American people deserve a well-run system with missions that are clearly connected to core national security interests: defending America, our prosperity, and our way of life. The U.S. must pursue an effective, realistic foreign policy, focusing on core concerns while abandoning peripheral activities. Failure to make difficult choices betrays both servicemembers who are sent into harm’s way and their fellow citizens at home.

“The NDAA conference report does too little to improve efficiencies at the DoD and fails to meaningfully review and set better priorities among missions and military assignments abroad. We must responsibly fund our military while ensuring that all activities provide value to taxpayers.”

Conservative coalition demands fiscal responsibility from Congress

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 11, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—This morning, a coalition of public interest advocates sent a letter to Speaker of the House Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) calling on them to use every opportunity to advance fiscal responsibility this Congress.

With a national debt exceeding $20 trillion and climbing, fiscal responsibility should be the top priority for Congress. The U.S. government currently borrows nearly $1 million per minute. This is unsustainable, and our leaders in Congress must actively address this problem. The American people want the federal government to live within its means, to lift burdens on voluntary exchange, and to provide appropriately for the common defense.

Securing these goals requires setting priorities in all federal spending, including both discretionary—defense and non-defense—and autopilot spending. Total discretionary spending accounts for approximately 30 percent of annual outlays, while net interest, pensions including Social Security, and health care account for most of the rest of federal spending.

Our strong military is made possible by our economic prosperity. Taxpayer advocates and defense experts recognize that the biggest threat to our national security is our nation's debt. Defense Priorities has joined Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Tea Party Nation, Center for Freedom & Prosperity, Coalition to Reduce Spending, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Concerned Veterans for America, Coalition for a Strong America, Generation Opportunity, Free the People, and Americans for Constitutional Liberty to encourage Congress to address the looming debt crisis now.

Click HERE to read the coalition letter in its entirety.

Coalition urges senators to support effective oversight of war funding

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 5, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Yesterday, a coalition of public interest advocates sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate urging opposition to Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) expected amendment to strike Section 4104 of the Senate budget resolution. Section 4104 would let senators challenge line items in the war budget, that is, funds designated for overseas contingency operations (OCO). An OCO designation exempts appropriations from being counted against spending caps under the Budget Control Act.

Congress has classified increasing amounts of base—that is, regular, non-emergency—military spending as OCO funds. This lets them skirt the caps instead of making strategic choices about America's role in the world or at least making budget deals.

The underlying provision would empower senators to challenge questionable items in spending bills. Improving accountability and promoting strategic choices when using taxpayer funds is needed more than ever, and we applaud Chairman Enzi for improving stewardship of the people's resources.

The letter states:

The OCO budget should not be used by Congress as “free” money. This has led to the original purpose of the fund, to cover the unexpected and unbudgeted costs of overseas contingencies, being overridden by a desire to add more money to the Pentagon while avoiding the BCA caps.

Section 4104 establishes a Point of Order against designating funds as OCO spending. It would treat OCO the same way as emergency funding designations. The Point of Order may be suspended by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of the Senate.

Amendment #498 on Base Review would start the long-overdue process of realigning bases to fit our strategy and to redirect funds from unneeded base capacity to higher priorities, like readiness and modernization.

Click HERE to read the coalition letter in its entirety and see the full list of signers.

In Afghanistan, less is more for the U.S.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 21, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In case you missed it, The Atlantic has featured an editorial by Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of Security Studies Program at MIT Barry R. Posen in which the current states of affairs in Afghanistan is examined. According to Posen, from a strategic perspective, a dramatic reduction of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan—or even a complete drawdown—would likely realign regional behavior in ways that would drive current U.S. adversaries apart, force them to deal with difficult local problems, and encourage other regional powers to seek better ties with Washington. From an American perspective, it is a win-win.

As Posen explains in The Atlantic:

Afghanistan is a good place to create problems for America’s adversaries. And the best way to do that is to get out.

Those who instead advocate a dramatic increase in the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan would say that the best way to fight terrorists is to remain on the offensive. The problem with that argument is, of course, that America has been on the offense for 16 years in Afghanistan and elsewhere and victory remains elusive. Terrorist groups motivated by a particularly toxic interpretation of Islam remain strong, and in fact have emerged in new places. Nothing about this strategy, by the way, need prohibit U.S. raids on known terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan.

Some may also argue that Washington cannot afford to undermine its prestige by leaving Afghanistan in the lurch. Given the lives, money, and time that it has poured into building a stable Afghanistan, it is Afghans who have let the U.S. down, not the reverse—pouring more resources into a losing effort won’t enhance confidence in U.S. judgment or its staying power.

Read the entire editorial HERE via The Atlantic.

Same strategy, tweaked tactics will yield same failing results in Afghanistan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 21, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, D.C.—This evening, President Trump announced his “new strategy” for America's longest war, the war in Afghanistan. Both President Trump and Secretary of Defense Mattis admit we are not winning the war in Afghanistan, yet they believe doubling down on failed, status quo strategies will lead to different results. Defense Priorities could not disagree more.

Defense Priorities Founder and President Edward King issued the following statement:

“President Trump successfully campaigned on a more realistic foreign policy—one that abandons failed nation-building efforts, decreases U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern civil wars, and instead prioritizes American security.

“What the president announced tonight is not a ‘new strategy,’ but rather a continuation, or expansion, of the failed status quo—a seemingly endless commitment to stay in Afghanistan and the region.

“This is now President Trump's war.

“After more than 15 years and 3 presidents, nearly 10,000 American troops are still in Afghanistan, and even the Administration admits that the U.S. is not winning the war. It's long past time for new thinking to enhance American security.”

Grand Strategy needed before Pentagon spending boost

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 12, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—TODAY, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford will testify before the the House Armed Services Committee. They will then testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee on Wednesday, and the House Appropriations defense subcommittee on Thursday. They will explain President Trump's proposal for $574 billion in base budget funding and $64 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for fiscal year 2018.

Throughout these scheduled testimonies, we urge Mattis and Dunford to explain how the increase in Pentagon spending supports our overall grand strategy by answering the following questions:

  1. Will our allies take more responsibility for their own security, as President Trump has demanded? How can this administration get them to do so?

  2. How does President Trump set priorities for advancing America's national security?

  3. What's the strategy underlying the proposed level of defense spending?

  4. When will the administration share its plan for conducting national security policies with Congress?

At Defense Priorities, we believe that a secure and prosperous America requires a realistic grand strategy and updated defense and related policies for the modern world. An effective national security strategy must ensure that defense funds are spent efficiently to achieve strategic goals in coordination with other tools of statecraft and alongside allies and partners abroad.

The overall budget, in which defense is a declining share, must also be sustainable. As former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen once said, the greatest threat to America’s national security is our debt. Defense Priorities could not agree more.

Explanation needed for Trump’s Pentagon spending boost

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 24, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Yesterday, President Trump proposed a budget for Fiscal Year 2018 that, if enacted, aims to balance the federal budget over the course of 10 years. With more than $20 trillion in debt, our current levels of spending are not sustainable and endanger the security of our nation.

Therefore, Defense Priorities commends the Trump administration for proposing a budget that prioritizes growing the economy and putting the federal government on a path to solvency. We believe, however, that proposed increases in defense spending and reductions to foreign affairs programs require further explanation.

“An effective foreign policy requires that all tools of statecraft have appropriate resource levels and clear missions. President Trump has suggested his vision for America's role in the world differs significantly from his predecessor. The American people, their representatives in Congress, and our fellow citizens who serve in the military and other foreign affairs roles deserve a well-articulated strategy that explains how the proposed budget allocations would advance Americans' freedom, prosperity, and security. We look forward to working with Congress and the administration as the FY 2018 budget process continues,” said Kurt Couchman, Defense Priorities Vice President of Public Policy.

More defense spending doesn't guarantee increased military strength or security

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 28, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—This week, President Donald Trump announced plans to increase discretionary defense spending by $54 billion, a significant shift from then-candidate Trump’s smarter defense platform in which he promised to utilize his business expertise to more efficiently manage our government agencies—the Pentagon included.

Today, with more than $20 trillion in debt, our current levels of spending are not sustainable and endanger the security of our nation.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen famously said, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” Fiscal conservative and former Sen. Tom Coburn observed, “Our nation's [then] $16 trillion debt is the new red menace, posing perhaps a greater threat to our nation than any military adversary.”

Defense Priorities recognizes that national defense is the most important responsibility of our federal government. That's why the United States desperately needs a wiser foreign policy that keeps us safe without unnecessarily risking American lives or our financial future.

Just as more education spending by the government doesn't always lead to better schools, more defense spending does not always lead to a stronger military and a safer homeland. In fact, it often leads to more government waste and abuse while delaying reforms of bad policies that weaken our armed forces.

“Over the last 16 years, we have increased defense spending by 50 percent, and it is not clear America is any safer. Rather than just throwing more money at the problem, Defense Priorities encourages the administration to first re-evaluate how our defense budget is being used to protect our homeland,” said Defense Priorities President, Edward King.

Defense Priorities statement on spending issues for new Budget Director

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 19, 2016
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Defense Priorities believes that American power is built on our economic strength and our commitment to the U.S. Constitution. With our national debt approaching $20 trillion, our security is at risk. As such, we must be mindful of the fiscal consequences of our foreign policy, and critical decisions must be made about how to allocate limited resources to ensure America maintains the strongest military in the world.

That's why, if confirmed, President-elect Trump's choice for Budget Director, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), must bring to the process his record of opposing government waste and budget gimmicks related to both domestic and defense spending.

As Vice President of Public Policy Kurt Couchman explained in The Hill, America must set priorities for defense spending to end bad budget deals.

"To truly tackle wasteful spending, the Trump White House should demand the Pentagon finally complete the full audit it has evaded—including a BRAC evaluation—and use that information to create a lean, efficient military designed to fulfill its constitutional purpose of defense," said Couchman.

Obama's expanded war with Al-Shabaab is unconstitutional and unwise

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 28, 2016
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In case you missed it, President Obama unwisely and illegally expanded the war on terror over Thanksgiving weekend. The New York Times reported the administration is again torturing and twisting the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The new target is Al-Shabaab, an Islamist militant group based in Somalia and whose primary objectives are local.

After the sharia-law-promoting Islamic Courts Union was defeated by Ethiopian, African Union, and Somali forces in 2006 with U.S. assistance, Al-Shabaab emerged to fight "enemies of Islam," meaning the Federal Government of Somalia and the African Union Mission to Somalia. Al-Shabaab has been pushed out of the cities and is limited to rural areas now.

Defense Priorities opposes this expansion for it is unconstitutional and unwise:

Unconstitutional: Al-Shabaab did not exist in 2001. Its objectives have been focused on Somalia and the immediate region. Animosity toward the United States would have been less if our government had not aided its opponents.

Claims that this action protects Americans in the region is baseless. If American diplomats and soldiers were not deployed (without congressional authorization) to Somalia, Al-Shabaab couldn't threaten them.

The 2001 AUMF does not apply to Al-Shabaab, and thus this expansion is illegal and unconstitutional.

Unwise: Even if Congress passed a new AUMF against Al-Shabaab, the President would be foolish to get America involved in the internal affairs of yet another country.

The Somali government needs to improve its own capabilities. With support from the African Union and from neighbors such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti, it can contain and defeat Al-Shabaab both through military force and with economic and political reforms. What happens in Somalia is practically irrelevant to U.S. interests—security and otherwise—but it is a major interest for those in the region.

Concerns with Islamist jihadists are not trivial and should not be minimized. Their views and practices are barbaric. But interventions often have unintended and indirect but predictable consequences such as breeding resentment and fueling backlash. That can be far worse than keeping a close eye on them with intelligence assets and related law enforcement while maintaining strong commercial and diplomatic ties with nearby responsible actors.