The Obama administration's cancellation of a missile-defense network in Europe is not a sign of misguided weakness, but rather the result of a prudent reexamination of U.S. priorities. But what will come in its place?
Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton presided over a disastrous downsizing of the U.S. military. But this claim is wrong. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon maintained high levels of readiness and enacted a bold military modernization program that bore fruit in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and in Afghanistan and Iraq.
America should not abdicate its military duties abroad. But careful cuts in the number of U.S. troops overseas could alleviate some current problems -- such as poor troop morale and low readiness -- without sacrificing U.S. interests or strategic goals.
Ronald Reagan's dream never died; it only faded slightly. Star Wars is still with us in a scaled-back form. Although theater missile defenses -- popularized by the Gulf War's Patriots -- are now widely accepted, debate still rages over a nationwide system. Republicans worry about rogue states and terrorists with nukes, Democrats worry about angering Russia and violating treaty obligations, and neither side listens to the other. America is pouring billions of dollars into research and development, ignoring the fundamental flaws that missile defense has yet to overcome.
Decades ago, donors saw aid as a transfer of resources from rich to poor countries. Today they see it more as a means of improving recipient countries - use of domestic resources. And though aid has had its successes in humanitarian relief and family planning, its record is mixed when it comes to promoting economic growth. Many nations in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer than when they began receiving aid. The solution is not to end foreign aid, but for donors to know when to say when, cutting off countries that fail to adopt sound economic policies and rewarding those that do.
