Our guest bloggers are Sean Duggan, Research Associate, and Laura Conley, Special Assistant for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In his recent column in the Washington Post (“No Time to Cut Defense“), Robert Kagan deplores a 10 percent cut in defense spending for Fiscal Year 2010 and lists several reasons to keep the budget for the Department of Defense high.

Unfortunately, Kagan’s argument is based on a crucial and mistaken assumption — that the 10 percent “cut” actually represents a decrease in spending. In fact, the budget that Kagan finds inadequate represents a 3 percent increase in spending over FY2009 levels (The proposed DOD budget will be $527 billion for FY 2010 compared to nearly $513 billion in FY 2009.) Moreover, the $527 billion request is the exact number proposed by the Bush administration last February for FY2010. And while this proposed budget does not fully meet the Pentagon’s request, the higher figure that Kagan refers to is a wish list proposed by the Joint Chiefs that was never meant to be fully funded.

Kagan also justifies his much larger preferred increase by arguing that current defense spending is in historic terms comparatively low as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), that “reduced defense spending” will erode the United States’ ability to pressure allies to help in Afghanistan, and that a “proposed decrease” would provide fodder for critics who believe the age of American hegemony is over. Kagan’s argument neglects three crucial facts.

First, while it is true that today’s ratio of defense spending to US GDP is relatively low compared to historic figures, this is irrelevant. Focusing solely on spending ignores the scope of American military commitments, the choice of strategy, and the degree of risk accepted. More importantly, it is common knowledge that DOD spending is actually more even in inflation-adjusted dollars today than at any other time since the end of the World War II. Comparing it to GDP obscures the more salient point that defense spending has increased dramatically in the last decade. Adding the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the fiscal year 2009 base defense budget brings that sum in real dollars to nearly twice the amount spent for defense only eight years earlier.

Second, Kagan is wrong to suggest that the proposed budget will hinder American actions in Afghanistan or any other conflict zone. U.S. defense spending is already greater than the defense spending of all other nations combined. It’s difficult to image that increasing the budget “only 3%” would seriously jeopardize American credibility in the face of such an extreme disparity. Additionally, funding for the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq is not included in the DOD’s baseline budget. This money comes from separate supplemental appropriations, meaning that the “supposed decrease” does not directly affect our capabilities in these theaters.

Finally, the proposed budget will not contribute, as Kagan suggests, to the perception around the world that the U.S. “is in terminal decline.” U.S. standing in the world has been seriously damaged over the last eight years by, among other things, President Bush’s almost over reliance on the military as the key tool of foreign policy. Spending less money on expensive procurement programs, such as tanks and fighter jets, could signify a renewed commitment to diplomacy and development and help us rebuild credibility overseas. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted, the spigot of defense spending opened after 9/11 should come to a close and we should increase funding for diplomacy and devleopment.

While Kagan’s argument contains some serious flaws, we agree that a temporary increase in defense spending can and should be used to stimulate and grow the economy. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to use this temporary increase. The wrong way is to ask the Congress to spend money in order to impress our allies or purchase weapons that are not needed. For example, more F-22s–the most expensive fighter plan ever built–are not needed. Instead, over the next two fiscal years, the DOD should accelerate funds that would have to be spent eventually on people, projects, and reset that would improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families and enhance our overall security while enabling the economy to recover and grow.

While this would mean a temporary increase in the overall defense outlays for FY 2010 and FY 2011, it would also mean that in 2012 and 2013, defense spending on items such as military construction would tail off sharply when the economy should be back to its normal level of activity. This is the right way to increase defense spending, one that will restore American military power while revitalizing the economy.

Reuters reports that a representative of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has insisted that the U.S.-Iran relationship will not change under President Obama:

“Any government has ‘red lines’ and our ‘red lines’ are rejecting the arrogant policies of America and the Zionist regime,” said the representative to the Revolutionary Guards in northwestern Zanjan province, cleric Hojjatoleslam Ali Maboudi.

“Opposing the Zionist regime and defending oppressed people are among the pillars of the Islamic revolution and Iran and America’s relationship will not change because of Obama taking office,” he said, Fars News Agency reported.

As the article indicates, Khamenei communicates through a number of representatives, using them to test reactions to various ideas and policies. It’s also worth noting here that Iran is currently celebrating the 30th anniversary of its revolution — yesterday’s orbital satellite launch was intended to mark the occasion — so nationalist fervor is running high.

It’s undoubtedly true that opposition to the United States is a central ideological pillar of the Islamic Republic, and it’s not at all clear that high-level direct talks between the U.S. and Iran can change this. What is clear, however, is that the Bush administration’s “do what we want then we’ll talk” approach only resulted in Iran continuing to develop its nuclear program, and drawing closer than ever to having a nuclear weapons capability.

As Center for American Progress analyst Andrew Grotto wrote last May, talking to the Iranian government “would clarify the choice being presented to the Iranian nation by the international community: the poverty and isolation that extremism brings, or the prosperity and global respect that Iran would enjoy if it adopted a more constructive foreign policy.” Iran’s conservatives would very much prefer that that choice not be clarified. Depriving them of the ability to cast the U.S. as the recalcitrant party would remove one of their most treasured propaganda tools, so it should be no surprise that they continue to present new conditions for talks and downplay the possibility of changing the relationship.

Former Vice President Cheney sat down with Politico yesterday for his first interview since handing the reigns of power to the Obama administration. During the interview, Cheney wasted no time trying to defend the Bush administration’s unpopular (and perhaps illegal) counterterrorism policies, many of which he created. Cheney warned that if those policies are repealed (as many of them have already) then the U.S. is at greater risk of “a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind” going off in an American city:

“I think there’s a high probability of such an attempt. Whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts, since 9/11, to launch mass-casualty attacks against the United States.”

Except we’ve seen this movie before. On a number of occasions throughout the past five years, Cheney displayed a knack for trying to scare Americans into allowing him to have his way:

– On electing Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) president in 2004: “If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again — that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

– On electing Democrats to control Congress in 2006: Al-Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq are “trying to break the will of the American people. They’re very sensitive to the fact that we’ve got an election scheduled.”

Cheney has it backwards. It is the Bush administration’s policies that have left America at greater risk of a terror attack involving weapons of mass destruction. The 9/11 Commission criticized the Bush administration for poor performance in securing nuclear materials. Just last December, the congressionally-mandated Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism found that “the odds that terrorists will soon strike a major city with weapons of mass destruction are now better than even” and that “America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.” The report specifically cited the failures of Bush administration policy :

Though U.S. policy and strategy have made progress, they have not kept pace with the growing risks. In the area of counterterrorism, our government has innovated and implemented new initiatives since 9/11, but its focus has been mainly limited to defense, intelligence, and homeland security programs and operations.

The reality is that it is the policies that Cheney has fought so hard for over the years that have made America less safe. His scare tactics are nothing more than an attempt to salvage his own conscience.