Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) represented the Republican and Democratic Party positions concerning defense policy and military spending in a debate held in Gaston Hall yesterday evening.
The senators were joined by foreign policy experts Richard Armitage, former assistant secretary of defense on the Republican side, and Gordon Adams, former associate director for national security and international affairs at the White House office of management and budget, for the Democrats. The debate was moderated by June V. Cross, senior producer of Blackside, Inc.
Although both sides agreed to the shared goal of a strong and secure America capable of protecting its own national interests, the debate rested on the most appropriate manner in which to handle foreign policy and the prominent role the military should play in these matters.
Following an introduction by University President Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J., Levin began his address by claiming that the United States of America was not in a position to be the world’s police force, although it was apparent that the world was in need of one. “America has many international responsibilities; we can’t get involved in every crisis,” he said.
Levin encouraged maintaining America’s commitment to the United Nations as a way to contribute assistance to international problems, instead of shouldering the majority of responsibility in global dilemmas.
Stressing the use of discretion in military spending, Levin argued further that it was imperative to maintain the nation’s very capable armed forces in order to prepare for the challenges of the future.
“By building on the tremendous strength and success, the United States will be able to meet the threats we’ll face in the years ahead,” Levin said.
Speaking next, Kyl opposed the Democratic viewpoint by proposing that defense policy would be better served by spending more money strengthening military capabilities in anticipation of future conflicts. He compared the situation to an insurance policy and stressed that Republicans want more protection and are willing to pay for it.
Kyl commented that the difficulty of the situation was located in finding the proper balance between defense and diplomacy.
“Too many Americans have lost their lives because the U.S. A. has relied on the promises of others, rather than depending on our own capabilities,” he said. “I’m all for the lion and the lamb lying down together as long we are the lion.”
Adams offered a short rebuttal restating the importance of obtaining more cooperation from international allies.
“We need to realize that America shouldn’t be the world’s 911; all of us are already on a partyline together,” he said.
Armitage briefly responded in defense of the Republicans by discussing meeting the new threats of the 21st century.
“If we are going to be the shining city on the hill, we are going to get the calls,” he said.
The debate on campus kicked off Campaign 2000, a program that intends to foster serious debate between politicians and the public about U.S. foreign policy throughout the nation. The event was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with the collaboration of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Howard University, the George Washington University, Business Executives for National Security and the Association of the U.S. Army.
“It’s hard enough to get the candidates to debate any issues, especially those concerning defense policy,” April Palmerlee (SFS `89), director of communications for the Council on Foreign Relations, said. “We are teaming up with five universities across the country to give voters a better understanding of those campaign issues.”
The CFR also sponsored a debate Sunday in the Copley Formal Lounge between students from Georgetown, Howard and George Washington about whether or not the United States should intervene overseas for humanitarian objectives.
Levin spoke at Georgetown concerning the Middle East peace process last year.
