As Thanksgiving approaches, the minds of Americans turn to thoughts of turkey, family, football, and the crippling national debt. While Europe continues to have its goose cooked, a secretive congressional “super-committee” (composed chiefly of super-partisans) is supposedly scurrying to complete a budget deficit plan before a Thanksgiving deadline. If they do not reach a consensus on budget reductions, draconian cuts to defense spending (holy among Republicans) and entitlement programs (sacrosanct to Democrats) will be imposed automatically, a provision from this summer’s sloppy debt ceiling deal.

Defense spending has indeed become bloated in recent years. The Pentagon’s budget has increased 43% since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, after adjusting for inflation. This figure does not even include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have cost nearly $1.5 trillion to date. Changes must be made. But we must not attempt to slash our way to solvency at the expense of the US’s qualitative military advantage.

Leon Panetta

Leon Panetta, the newly appointed Defense Secretary, understands that the reason he’s still in Washington (or Arlington) is to balance budgets. He served as budgetary director in the Clinton administration, and won over the intelligence and defense communities with his deft and ballsy handling of the CIA in his most recent post as director there. These two characteristics have positioned him well to make cuts that will be palatable to generals, Republicans, and Democrats alike. Beyond that, it’s a fairly straightforward job.

Panetta, appropriately speaking on a trip to several East Asian allies, warned that debt concerns cannot be used as fodder to devastate US defenses. His visits to South Korea, Indonesia, and Japan focused on reassuring anxious allies that the American presence in the Pacific would remain robust, and could even increase. Though some in the US dismiss the looming threat of China, few in Asia underestimate what China’s rise portends.

The uncomfortable fact of China’s rise, particularly in a time of austerity for the United States, makes projecting influence in the Pacific and the Asian mainland an expensive enterprise. US law mandates that the Navy have eleven aircraft carriers, though that number has dropped to ten with another in production. Last year China announced its own aircraft carrier project, and with Chinese defense budgets suspected to be skyrocketing (as usual, vital information is kept secret), more are definitely on the way. According to a recent exposé by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, Chinese nuclear weapons production is also believed to be increasing, far beyond the conventional guesses of a capability between 200-400 warheads.

The US must turn eastward, and quickly. Though talks are embryonic at best, some are suggesting a military component for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a neo-NATO as a counterweight to China. The United States should support such developments, but any functioning defense alliance is years, if not decades, away.

In the meantime, the US must shift investments within the Pentagon budget. Most of the Pentagon’s expenses come from personnel costs, including healthcare and pensions. Panetta is working through a necessary overhaul of such programs to make sure they are helpful for veterans and solvent as well.

Additionally, we cannot continue fighting yesterday’s wars. The ranks of the Army and Marines can be thinned, with more of a focus on training Special Operations forces for effective counter-terrorism operations. The US military should leave the nation-building business, which soft power and foreign aid can accomplish more effectively and more cheaply. Projecting influence does not necessitate putting a gun to someone’s head.

Some of the funds freed up from decreased personnel costs should be devoted to further updating weapons capabilities, specifically with regard to unmanned aircraft and cyber-warfare. Drones have become the favorite weapon of the war on terror, one that will continue to be fought long after the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Chinese have already been accused of using cyber-warfare against American targets (including Pentagon computers), and the US cannot allow itself to trail in this critical field of 21st century warfare.

Finally, naval spending must actually increase. American interests in the Pacific quite obviously need maritime defense. With China racing to catch up, the US must maintain its advantage. Cuts to personnel, reform of defense entitlements, and a smarter, leaner war on terror make these increases affordable and justifiable.

Budgets are less about size than they are about effectiveness. The question becomes one of spending versus investment. Currently, the US has spent its way into a deep abyss- but with the proper reforms, we can invest our way to prosperity and security.