by Zack Beauchamp
I'm going to leave the commentary on the debt ceiling debate proper to others, but one irony of the debate that's gone unnoticed is that the Republicans risking default are the same Republicans aggressively criticizing Obama for (somehow) jeopardizing American military hegemony. Relatively minor defense cuts from the Pentagon budget aren't likely to degrade U.S. dominance, but default certainly would. How do we know? Because it's happened before:
Again and again, the spiraling costs of war forced monarchs to default upon debt repayments, to debase the coinage, or to attempt some other measure of despair, which brought short-term relief but long-term disadvantage. Like their commanders frantically seeking to keep troops in order and horses fed, early-modern governmetns were engaged in a precarious hand-to-mouth living.
That's from Paul Kennedy's The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers, and he goes on to argue the reason the Habsburg Empire lost its bid for military supremacy was being inadequately nimble in the delicate dance of managing this sort of resource problem.
Of course, states today are much more financially secure. That makes endangering the credit of the United States – a vital resource in the event that any state or coalition mounts a real challenge to American domniance – even crazier than it would have been back when armies had muskets and cavalry. Further, Republicans appear to believe that continued military involvement abroad is key to maintaining said dominance. But do they seriously believe that, in a world of fiscal retrenchment caused by even a temporary default, that the American public would save bases in East Asia over Social Security payouts? The historical experience again suggests otherwise.
So why the hell are Republicans risking a key strategic resource – our ability to fund wars through deficit spending – if they seriously care about maintaining U.S. hegemony?
The Dish 