Anyone who sells to the Pentagon can claim that theirs is a strategic industry. In a war, enemies could cut off shipments from foreign producers, subsidy seekers say. Government then needs to protect American steel makers, shippers, shipbuilding, and so on. Those making these arguments avoid discussing the long odds that foreign supply will be interdicted or that the United States will fight a war that lasts long enough for it to matter.


Consider Wesley Clark’s op‐​ed in Monday’s New York Times. Clark notes that the Army buys a lot of vehicles from US automobile companies. Therefore, he says, bailing out the big three is a security issue. But letting US automakers go bankrupt does not mean they will stop making trucks. Even if they did, there are still foreign automakers that manufacture in the United States and would be happy to sell to Uncle Sam. And even if domestic automobile production disappeared entirely, we could still import. No imaginable enemy could close the sea‐​lanes that we use to bring in vehicles from Europe and Japan. Clark doesn’t address any of these holes in his argument. Nor does he let his lack of experience in the automobile business stop him from telling Detroit how to run its business.


In Sunday’s Washington Post, Joby Warrick offers similarly shaky analysis about the financial crises’ effect on US security. Economic difficulty impacts every security issue, so you can always find an expert to tell you how the downturn heightens the odds of some particular nightmare.


Warrick suggests that lowered federal revenue could require cuts in defense spending, leaving us more vulnerable. Maybe, but the doubling of non‐​war defense spending since 2001 has bought us plenty of security to spare, by this logic. Warrick cites specialists who say increased global poverty will cause instability, which will cause terrorism. But there is no clear link between instability and terrorism. 


Warrick says “many government and private terrorism experts say the financial crisis has given al‐​Qaeda an opening,” which they may use to “probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses.” Does anyone know what that means? The article never explains what defenses we’re talking about, let alone what gaps a downturn will open in them. It does not tell us why we should we view Al Qaeda as a carefully reckoning organization that probes and times its attack to US events, rather than groups of guys who attack when they can. The article cites analysts who say that the downturn could speed the day where China overtakes us economically. But China is not immune from economic distress. Nor it is clear that China’s rise is bad for US security.


The article could be turned on its head: “Global Downturn likely to slow China’s rise, undermine terrorist fund‐​raising, and eliminate wasteful defense spending, experts say.”