Rumsfeld Ribs Zakaria: 'There Are People Who Think We're Living in the Post-American World'
CNN's Fareed Zakaria got more than he bargained for in his Sunday interview with guest Donald Rumsfeld.
As he pushed the former Secretary of Defense on America's need to cut military spending, the "GPS" host blushed when Rumsfeld smartly said, "There are people who think we're living in the post-American world, to coin a phrase. There are people who believe that we should step back and lead from behind" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DONALD RUMSFELD, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Let me make a comment about 9/11 and today. Today with a debt crisis and a deficit crisis, we're about ready to make the same mistake we've made after World War II, after Vietnam and Korea, and then after the Cold War -- pare down our intelligence, cut the budgets in the Defense Department, and think we can get away with it.
We got away with it in earlier years. It's inefficient. You then have to crank it back up, which is what President Reagan had to do after the Carter years and what President George W. Bush had to do after the George Herbert Walker and Clinton years, after the end of the Cold War.
If we make that mistake again, it seems to me we're doing it in an environment that's notably different. The margin for error for political leadership in our country is different today because of the lethality of weapons. And if we do what it looks like the Congress is going to do, think they can balance the budget off the Pentagon, I think it will be a tragic mistake for the country.
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: We're still spending more than the rest of the world put together. We're still spending six to eight times more than --
RUMSFELD: Would you rather have Somalia spend more or Sudan or --
ZAKARIA: No. But my point is, there's room -- you ran the budget up so high that there's room to come down without sacrificing --
RUMSFELD: When I was in the Navy and when I went to Washington, Eisenhower was president, and then Kennedy, and then Johnson -- we were spending 10 percent of GDP on defense.
What are we spending today? Four percent. Three percent, 4 percent, 5 percent, in that range.
ZAKARIA: Largely because GDP has gone up so much. It's a testament to America's economic strength.
RUMSFELD: We are committing a -- less than half as a percentage --
ZAKARIA: Right.
RUMSFELD: -- of GDP today than we were then and we can afford it just fine. Now, there are people who think we're living in the post-American world, to coin a phrase. There are people who believe that we should step back and lead from behind. I personally think that the role of the United States has been a good one in the world, that it's been a healthy thing, that it's contributed to a more peaceful world, and it's not an accident that people all over the world want to come here, and they're standing in line to get a green card to come to the United States.
And the order that the United States contributes to, peace and stability in the world, by our strength is significant. I mean, Dwight Eisenhower had the phrase right -- it's peace through strength. It's be a deterrent, have those capabilities that dissuade people from thinking they can do things they ought not to do.
Weakness is provocative. We don't want to provoke people.
ZAKARIA: But Eisenhower believed very much in having a military industrial complex that was manageable. He worried a great deal about overspending. He worried even after Sputnik that it was going to be -- he is if anything a story about somebody who felt that you don't need, you know, to spend more than the rest of the world put together, which is what we're spending.
I just want to say on your bait that --
RUMSFELD: You like that phrase.
ZAKARIA: All the nice things you said about America are what attracted me to come to this country in the first place.
RUMSFELD: And we're glad you came.
For those not getting the joke, Zakaria wrote a book in 2008 called "The Post-American World." The New York Times reviewed:
In his new book, “The Post-American World,” Mr. Zakaria writes that America remains a politico-military superpower, but “in every other dimension — industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural — the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance.” With the rise of China, India and other emerging markets, with economic growth sweeping much of the planet, and the world becoming increasingly decentralized and interconnected, he contends, “we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people.”
For that matter, Mr. Zakaria argues that we are now in the midst of the third great tectonic power shift to occur over the last 500 years: the first was the rise of the West, which produced “modernity as we know it: science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions”; the second was the rise of the United States in the 20th century; and the third is what he calls “the rise of the rest,” with China and India “becoming bigger players in their neighborhoods and beyond,” Russia becoming more aggressive, and Europe acting with “immense strength and purpose” on matters of trade and economics.
Yet this wasn't how Zakaria felt a few years earlier. Quite the contrary, what he wrote for Newsweek in March 2003 sounded almost Rumsfeldesque:
In principle, American power is not simply good for America; it is good for the world. Most of the problems the world faces today--from terrorism to AIDS to nuclear proliferation--will be solved not with less U.S. engagement but with more. The lesson of the 1990s--of Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Rwanda--is surely that American action, with all its flaws, is better than inaction. Other countries are simply not ready or able, at this point, to take on the challenges and burdens of leadership. Around the world, people understand this. In a global survey taken last year, the most intriguing--and unreported--finding was that large majorities of people in most countries thought that the world would be a more dangerous place if there were a rival to the American superpower. Sixty-four percent of the French, 70 percent of Mexicans, 63 percent of Jordanians felt this way. (Ironically, old Europe was more pro-American on this issue than new Europe. Only 27 percent of Bulgarians agreed.) [...]
America's special role in the world--its ability to buck history--is based not simply on its great strength, but on a global faith that this power is legitimate. If America squanders that, the loss will outweigh any gains in domestic security. And this next American century could prove to be lonely, brutish and short.
Almost right out of Rumsfeld's mouth, but eight and a half years ago.
Also of note, the 2003 version of Zakaria not only didn't have a problem with how much America was spending on defense, he saw our military muscle flexes as crucial to our post-9/11 success:
Most Americans have never felt more vulnerable. September 11 was not only the first attack on the American mainland in 150 years, but it was also sudden and unexpected. Three thousand civilians were brutally killed without any warning. In the months that followed, Americans worried about anthrax attacks, biological terror, dirty bombs and new suicide squads. Even now, the day-to-day rhythms of American life are frequently interrupted by terror alerts and warnings. The average American feels a threat to his physical security unknown since the early years of the republic.
Yet after 9-11, the rest of the world saw something quite different. They saw a country that was hit by terrorism, as some of them had been, but that was able to respond on a scale that was almost unimaginable...Washington announced that it would increase its defense budget by almost $50 billion, a sum greater than the total annual defense budget of Britain or Germany. A few months later it toppled a regime 6,000 miles away--almost entirely from the air--in Afghanistan, a country where the British and Soviet empires were bogged down at the peak of their power. It is now clear that the current era can really have only one name, the unipolar world--an age with only one global power. America's position today is unprecedented. A hundred years ago, Britain was a superpower, ruling a quarter of the globe's population. But it was still only the second or third richest country in the world and one among many strong military powers. The crucial measure of military might in the early 20th century was naval power, and Britain ruled the waves with a fleet as large as the next two navies put together. By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.
So, eight and a half years ago, Zakaria not only saw our military buildup as a positive for the nation and the world, he also thought we were financially doing it at "a low level by postwar standards."
But now, his post-American world view leads him to believe "there's room to come down" in our defense spending "without sacrificing."
If our strength made us successful in the years following 9/11, why would weakness be the answer now?
As Rumseld told him, "There are people who believe that we should step back and lead from behind."
Count the 2011 version of Zakaria among them.
Nicely done, Mr. Secretary. Bravo.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Fareed Zakaria is spending
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:17am.
Fareed Zakaria is spending way too much time with his coleagues on the left, after a while, the whole negative groupthink sinks in and dulls the senses.
MSNBC is down to one brain, and today, it's not Zakaria's turn to use it.
Those who beat their arms
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:07am.
Those who beat their arms into plowshares will be tending their fields for another.
Dang
Submitted by HelenS on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:01am.
I sure do miss the strong, principled men in positions of power. Nicely said, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
I agree Helen...
Submitted by packman on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:25am.
One thing that stands out about men like Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, is that they are men of presence. They are leaders, bold men who take steps when others are afraid. And yes, I miss them too.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Kicking it old school, butt that is
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:30am.
Soft spoken, but stern, armed WITH FACTS.
Damn, after the last three years, I miss having real men in charge and not the Obambi, Zakaria, Krugman types.
Rummy For President - NOW!
Submitted by chazski on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:31am.
Rummy For President - NOW!
God can't save The Republic by Himself.
Rummy may not be able to get elected-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:53am.
however-no matter which conservative gets elected Rummy would and should be at their side to advise.
Rummy is as solid an American -no Rose Colored glasses-the world is a different place.
NOTHING...
Submitted by P. Aaron on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 9:39am.
...ever gets past Rumsfeld. He knows his enemies way better than they know him.
Why do people continue to
Submitted by Snappy on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:05am.
Why do people continue to flee their countries of birth, come to America, and then constantly try to change the America they wanted to come to, to the countries they left.
'Cause we have
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:32am.
a truckload of whackademics telling them their country would have been great, if only the policies had been implemented properly, by the right people--people like THEM. That's the beauty of America in a lib's eyes: it was designed to become whatever the current population wants it to be. Their sense of irony is severely stunted.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Fareed
Submitted by pockets64 on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:42am.
So Fareed likes to argue with himself.
This is an example of the defeat of the advice:
"Don't let the negative few overwhelm the positive many."
Fareed's positive outlook was overwhelmed by the negative mob he attends.
Zakaria likes to position
Submitted by Kenyon Schraeder on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:21am.
Zakaria likes to position himself so that he appeals to the elitist, white collar "intelligentsia" and not the typical everyday Jane or Joe. That's a problem he has with his own ego, possibly because he's an immigrant and overly sensitive about American exceptionalism. I find that some people who emigrate to the U.S. from poorer and less developed countries eventually develop an arrogance and condescending attitude toward this Country, probably because they realize how good it is here as opposed to where they came from. Overcompensating for one's national origin? Perhaps.
Unfortunately, people like Zakaria choose to overlook all that makes things our Country great and strong. It's not just the ability to sip chardonnay while preening socially or discussing abstracts with self-absorbed elitist eggheads who, on their best day, can only see their way to pay someone else to raise their kids, change a light bulb or plunge a toilet. America is about the sum of all of its parts and being a world superpower with the where-with-all to back it up when necessary helps keep the players in the game "more honest".
Why do we spend more? So we don't have to sacrifice more lives
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 2:07pm.
People like Zakara will never understand why we're "spending more than the rest of the world put together (doubtful, at the very least. We don't even know how much China is actually spending on their military. They won't release that information. The same is true for places like North Korea. )" for our military due to several, important, reasons, reasons which they ether ignore or dismiss without discussion:
1. Expenses. The costs for things like military equipment is far higher here in America than in most other countries. The labor costs alone, for the manufacture, transportation, and deliver of weapons to the military, is several times higher than in just about any other country. The same is true for the costs of raw materials, the costs of manufacturing, the costs of administration, the costs of training, ect. EVERYTHING in America costs more than in just about any other country in the world. Why should our military be any different?
2. Deployment. America has a military that is deployed all across the world. Very few countries have this capability, or this demand. Part of the reason for this high deployment is that other countries have ASKED us to make those deployments to help defend and safeguard those countries. Another part is actual need. We need to have troops across the world to act as a deterrent. It is a military strategy that works, and works well. The logistical costs of these deployments is extremely high, just as it has been throughout human history. Why would high cost of deployment today be any different than, say, during the Roman Empire period when the Romans had their own military deployed across most of Europe and the Mediterranean.
3. Modernization. It is far more expensive to fund a modern, highly effective, highly trained and equipped military than a simple, inefficient, ineffective "home guard" force like is prevalent in most countries world-wide. The costs of the development, training, and deployment of a modern military eclipses all other forms of military combined. This is always been true. Today is no different. This "modern" military is needed for a simple reason: to minimize death and destruction! The more modern a military is, the more sophisticated the weapons, strategies, and tactics it employees, the less damage and death it causes to itself and others. As our military becomes more and more advanced, it becomes more and more accurate, more and more effective, at achieving it's goals with less and lees need for actual casualties in combat, for ether "side" of that combat.
A poorly trained and equipped military will always require the need for higher and higher HUMAN casualties, especially "civilian" casualties, in combat to achieve a goal. To counter a lack of efficient and effective training and equipment of a "modern" military, a "less than modern" military needs far more human combatants to achieve a given goal. The Soviets understood this decades ago, as do most other countries in the world today. Back in the 80's, the Soviets welded a fighting force several times higher than our own, simply because they couldn't match the "modernness" of our military in a field of battle! Even with a ten to one advantage in men and material, the Soviets KNEW that their military would be defeated by our modern forces, which is why they never attacked our military. The same is true with places like China today, who's actual military manpower far outnumbers our own. Manpower is cheap, when compared to the costs of modern equipment and, most importantly, training.
Just look the Persian Gulf War for a perfect example of the capabilities of a modern military as opposed to a "home guard" type of military like Saddam used. Despite being outnumbered more than four to one in troop strength, the US defeated the fourth largest military in the world quickly and without massive causalities, especially civilian casualties. In contrast, Iraq and Iran fought a "conventional," less-than modern war for overt tens year, and at the costs of more than a million human lives, without achieving any real goals. It was a stalemate, one that cost a MILLION lives, as well as a very large portion of both countries GDP! The actual costs of fighting that war was several times as great as the costs that a modern, US type of military (that's sooooo expensive to people like Zakaria) would have necessitated. Iraq was close to bankruptcy! Had ether side been as "modern" as our military, had the technology, equipment, and training, that our military had at the time that war was fought, that side would have quickly, and with a minimum of death and destruction, been victorious.
It is these three reasons, expenses, deployment, and modernization, that is the "cause" of our high military costs. They are necessary expenses, expenses we must pay, if on;y to reduce the actual human expenses of combat, on ether side if combat becomes necessary. Should we simply regress to an inefficient, ineffectual, and , in terms of human life, expensive military force simply because we think the monetary costs of our current, modern, military is too high? Only if you don;t care about the human costs! Wars are not going to end. The need of the military is not going to end. Therefor the cost of maintaining that military is not going to end. Pay the price that is necessary to maintain a modern military, if only so we don't have to sacrifice human lives unnecessary because we're too cheap.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
What a great man,
Submitted by ronber on Mon, 09/12/2011 - 3:11pm.
What a great man, what a great American we have in Secretary Rumsfeld. He has served America in so many roles for so many years. It is without doubt that he and Cheney are the two smartest people who have served in the last many years. You cannot beat smarts combined with experience. They must bust a gut every time they hear Obama open his mouth. How it must pain those two to know we have this Marxist, Communist, Muslim trying to ruin America.