Jon Huntsman's vision for a new American military would be good for America and the world, but takes on many sacred cows in the political establishment.
It's become increasingly clear to me what a shame it is that the Republican Party is so in thrall to its far-right fringe. If they weren't, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman might stand a chance at the GOP nomination. That would be a good thing for the Republican Party and for the United States.
It would be good for the Republican Party because Huntsman has broad appeal outside of the conservative base. He also has presidential good looks, has command of the issues, and manages to be at once reasonable and articulate in a debate that has teetered too often between the ludicrous and the absurd.
In a recent Op/Ed, Huntsman laid the framework for his vision of the future of the US military and our presence across the globe. A renewed focus on Asia rather than the Middle East and a call for reduction in troops and bases form the basis for this vision.
"Our active duty army could be reduced to around 450,000 troops, from the approximately 565,000 we now have," writes Huntsman. "Our Department of Defense civilian work force can also be cut by 5 per cent to 7 per cent of its current size."
"We should conduct a global posture review with the goal of closing at least 50 overseas military installations," he continues. "The U.S. military maintains more than 700 installations outside the United States, the vast majority of which were opened during the Cold War. With a more mobile and flexible force, we simply don't need as many facilities overseas."
"America alone cannot police the world," Huntsman writes. "We should increase burden-sharing for the protection of the global commons among countries that share our values and security objectives. Unfortunately, we are not the only democracy stuck in a Cold War mentality. It is time for countries such as Japan and India to play a greater role in regional security matters. We must also throw out the old map and forge new security arrangements with regional partners such as Vietnam and Brazil."
As the global economy shifts, with emerging economic power-houses like Brazil increasingly playing an important role on the world economic stage, it only makes sense to further involve these emerging powers in matters of national and global security.
The United States spends nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars a year on defense. But is it money well-spent? Doubtful. Weapons systems that are already obsolete, a lack of focus on cyber-space, and a focus on old threats rather than new ones make much of that spending little more than government hand-outs to entrenched special interests in the defense industry.
"Our military and defense establishment must be effective in the cybersphere, dominant in space and able to handle the increasingly lethal and accurate ballistic and cruise missiles being acquired by many of our potential foes," writes Huntsman. "This will likely mean trade-offs away from heavy armor units, fighter air wings and aircraft carriers toward a more advanced cyberwarfare infrastructure, more capable unmanned aerial vehicles and more flexible sea-based assets."
It will also mean an end to foreign wars of choice and nation-building 鈥� in Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. As both the Democratic and Republican Parties appear to be entirely wed not only to foreign wars, but to funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into defense programs that do nothing to keep Americans safer, Huntsman's plan is refreshing but doesn't bode well for his chances at the nomination.
As Conor Friedersdorf notes, "The overall Republican Party messaging on defense can be summed up as follows: no cuts to the military and an implicit focus on Islamist terrorism/Israel/Middle Eastern autocracies." Huntsman runs against the grain here, joining his more libertarian contenders Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in presenting a vision of America's foreign policy that is less interventionist and less burdened down by Cold War thinking.
In other words, he's the sort of Republican we need but not that sort we'll get in 2012. 
