Military Spending: for What?

By Doug Bandow

The United States dominates the globe militarily. The threats facing America pale compared to its capabilities. In fact, the U.S. spends nearly as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. Why is Washington spending so much?

In 2010, the U.S. will spend roughly $700 billion on the military. The Obama administration's original non-war defense budget was $534 billion, an increase of 2 percent after inflation.

Despite initial plans for zero growth in defense spending in coming years, there are rumors that the Department of Defense will receive a 2 percent increase in real outlays through 2015.

Still, some conservatives want to enshrine a military build-up in law, mandating that outlays be fixed at 4, 5 or even 6 percent of the GDP.

Hawks focus on the percentage of the GDP going to the military ― currently about 4.4 percent ― since it has fallen over the years. But America spends more dollars on the military today than at any other point since World War II.

Using 2000 for constant dollars, the U.S. devoted $774.6 billion to the military in 1945, the last year of World War II. In 1953, the last year of the Korean War, military outlays ran $416.1 billion. Peak expenditures during the Vietnam War hit $421.3 billion in 1968.

In contrast, in 2010, before the Afghan surge and other unplanned expenditures, the administration expected to spend $517.8 billion.

That is more than during two large, hot wars. More than during a lengthy, often warm Cold War. And two-thirds as much as during the worst conflict in human history.

Expenditures as a percentage of the GDP have fallen because the U.S. economy has grown. The 2010 GDP (in 2000 dollars) will run about $11.7 trillion. That is almost twice as much as in 1986, more than three times as much as in 1968, and nearly six times as much as in 1953.

Military outlays should be tied to threats, not economic growth. Can anyone credibly claim the military threat facing America is two, three or six times as great today as during those years?

Today the U.S. faces no significant military threat. As Colin Powell famously declared in 1991 when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``I'm running out of enemies. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung."

The U.S. has no great power enemies. Relations with China and Russia are at times uneasy, but not confrontational, let alone warlike. Washington is allied with every other industrialized state.

America possesses the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal and powerful conventional force. Washington's reach exceeds that of Rome and Britain at their respective peaks.

Other nations, most notably China, are stirring. But it will take years for them to match, let alone overtake, the U.S.

Even subtracting the costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars leaves American military outlays around five times those of China and 10 times those of Russia.

Add together a gaggle of adversaries, enemies and rogues ― Myanmar (Burma), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria ― and the U.S. spends perhaps 25 times as much.

Moreover, America is not alone. The European Union has 10 times the GDP and three times the population of Russia. Military outlays by the U.S. plus its NATO allies account for about 70 percent of world military spending.

Add in America's other allies and friends, such as South Korea, and the total share of global military outlays hits 80 percent.

In short, Washington spends what it spends not to defend America but to maintain the ability to overpower other nations. But it will become increasingly expensive for America to preserve the ability to attack countries like China.

Terrorism remains a pressing security threat. However, terrorist attacks, such as 9/11, though horrid, do not pose an existential danger. Al-Qaida is no replacement for Nazism and Communism, nuclear-topped ICBMs and armored divisions.

Nor is a traditional military force the best way to combat terrorism. Indeed, foreign intervention often promotes terrorism, similar to swatting a hornet's nest.

America's military spending is determined by its foreign policy. America's commitments are a matter of choice. They don't make sense today.

Engagement is good, but a military force is not the only form of engagement. And any international involvement must balance costs and benefits.

Adjusting commitments would allow a vastly different, and less expensive, force structure. The U.S. could make significant cuts and still maintain the globe's strongest and most sophisticated military ― and one well able to defend Americans.

Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledges that ``resources are scarce." Washington must reorder its priorities.

That means cutting back on the U.S. government's role abroad. American primacy is bound to diminish. The decisions of in what way and at what rate should be made by Washington, not forced by events.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire" (Xulon). He can be reached at chessset@aol.com.