|
|||||
It’s costing too muchEr, no, actually. No it’s not. Or at least it wasn’t. Found a couple of interesting slides in a presentation I was reviewing (click on the slides for better resolution).
In case it’s not immediately obvious, what the charts show is that – despite the increased costs that went with prosecuting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan – DoD outlays are very nearly at historic lows compared both to gross domestic product and the total federal budget, although that second statistic would be more interesting if 1) mandatory spending (i.e., spending on entitlements plus interest on the national debt) had not gone from roughly 30% of the federal budget in 1960 to over 70% in 2003, reducing discretionary spending proportionately and 2) the federal budget itself had not mushroomed 50% since 2001. It’s too bad the data stops in FY04, because the increased OPTEMPO of multiple deployments also creates increased equipment usage rates and repair costs. There will be some currently hidden costs on replacing worn out equipment after this is all over. Still, illuminating. I guess this is what they meant by fighting “on the cheap.” 17 comments to It’s costing too much |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Standby – the “peace dividend” crowd is starting to gather again just as it did after Gulf War I (that in turn, put us in the position we’re in now). There is going to be one h*ll of a bill to pay in terms of recapitalization coming in a few short years.
-SJS
Is $500 billion in yearly DoD expenditures really “cheap”? A more meaningful analysis would compare of our defense spending to that of the rest of the world. That analysis reveals that we spend about as much as the rest of the world combined.
The drop in percentage illustrated in the post is driven by increases in GDP rather than decreases in defense spending. In fact, DoD expenditures have been rising for the last decade or so. To call US defense spending cheap based on two graphs, no context and zero opposing viewpoints is pretty disingenuous. (Although I admit that we used to show the captain a pretty graph and/or worn part out of the junk pile when we wanted to get some buy-in.)
If I want to determine whether something is cheap, I ask myself 1) How much it costs and 2) what I get out of it. There may be some day in the future when a democratic Iraq and a stable Middle East prove that the US really was getting a functioning military on the cheap in the early 2000s. Today, though, having lost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives for the reward of a destabilized Middle East, a weakened Army/Marine Corps and plummeting standing in the international community, that “cheapness” is pretty damn hard to see.
Golly “anon”, you came in here with a bag of knots and a bad attitude. $500 billion sounds like a lot to you and me, but the point of the charts is that it isn’t much in the context of history, including a prolonged period when troops weren’t actually engaged in combat. You may not like the news, but it doesn’t make it untrue. Nor does it make it untrue that the force structure has continued to become smaller even as maintaining it has become more expensive. I could also show charts that show how much money (most of it) is spent on personnel costs and readiness rather than the small wedge reserved for R&D, but that probably wouldn’t make you happy either.
And as for your point that the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, true but so what? We’re a unique country with global concerns, global reach and global responsibility. Europe has managed to maintain a tremendously expensive social system – one that will either collapse of its own weight as the continent ages, or fundamentally change the character of Europe as it imports more bottom tier labor to support it – by abdicating any responsibility for its own defense, or the ability to project power to the corners of an increasingly interconnected world.
“How much it costs” is an interesting metric. If you overspend on a candy bar by a hundred bucks you feel the sting, but most of us would pay another hundred bucks on a new car just to get the salesman out of our face. It’s the same hundred bucks, but you place it in context of what you’re buying. The PRC’s expenditure on defense – the transparent bit anyway – is nearly as high in a developing economy, and by some estimates defense spending in Russia – a purely regional power with a GDP behind Italy – continues to far outpace even the US as a function of both GDP and GDP per capita.
The experiment in Mesopotamia is indeed an expensive one, and is designed to discover whether Arabia can be induced to self-government rather than continued rule by tyrannies which survive by fanning the resentment of the West – and especially the US – to cover up their own inadequacies. It might be that we fail, but in my opinion the question was worth asking as these tyrannies continue to exhale murderous terrorists into our midst.
While I’m on that subject, I wouldn’t pay 25 cents for “increased standing in the international community” if that meant that we made the likes of Syria and Iran more pleased with us, and the EU less dyspeptic because Syria and Iran are more pleased. You can link hands and sing kumbaya with the “rest of the world” if you want, but what they’re chiefly after is a way to restrain American influence in the world.
Like it or not, globalization involves competition. It’s not surprising that competitors throughout the world are interested in shackling America. What is surprising is how many Americans are interested in facilitating them, all so they can feel better about themselves in Parisian salons.
Chacun a son gout, I suppose.
“plummeting standing in the international community…” hehe…these type arguments always seem to close with something like: “and they don’t like us; we’d better pay some attention to what they think of us…”
That’s quite a “community”, that international one…and we all recall those gravy days when we were universally admired and imitated in international affairs, don’t we? Well, don’t we?
I’m perfectly happy and can be contacted through these comments for this discussion (my comment reflected a bad attitude? Is the YWCA?). I’ll feel bad about posting “anon” when I can pick up a phonebook and look up a number for “Therapist1″ or “neptunuslex”.
I’ll address points directly, in bullet format, because that seems to be more effective in communicating (sad, but it’s a PPT world).
Claim 1:
DoD expenditures are cheap because they represent a smaller fraction of US GDP than they did in years past.
Responses:
-They are not cheap because they have grown significantly while providing little benefit to American security.
-In fact, the vast majority of increases over the last 6 years or so have funded OIF, which has significantly *reduced* US security (weakened USA/USMC, increased middle east instability, increased Islamic radicalism).
-Expenditures/GDP is absolutely the wrong metric for determining whether the expenditures are “cheap” or “low”, because changes in that metric have been driven by increases in GDP. The main takeaway from those original graphs is: “US GDP grew as the US economy dominated the world”.
-Increases in GDP bear little relation to the security requirements of the US. Would you say $100 candy bar is cheap because your income suddenly rose 100x? Probably not. $/GDP or $/capita metrics have little to do with military requirements or capabilities.
Claim 2: The US is unique so comparisons of its defense spending to the rest of the world are irrelevant.
That’s pretty tangential, but I’ll bite:
-We should compare our spending to that of other nations, because spending reflects capacity to exert force. Superiority in military spending equals (roughly) superiority in military power. Do we really need to have more military power than the rest of the world combined? I’d say no. A couple hundred billion or so could do wonders for the education or health care systems in this country. It could also do pretty well sitting in your (and my) pocket.
If every other country in the world spent zero on defense, would it still be fine to spend $500 billion/yr on defense? Probably not.
Claim 3: The principal function of international dialog is to restrain US influence.
-The principal function of international dialog is to prevent escalation of economic and military conflict, which lead to failed economies and wars respectively.
-The UN (and WTO, and G8, and World Bank etc etc) certainly does cause some restraint in US actions, but it also allows the US to influence other nations through multilateral negotiations. As a concrete example, the prevalence of tariff wars has dropped dramatically since the inception of the GATT and (later) the WTO. This is good for everyone.
Globalizaton refers to the removal of barriers to transnational capital and labor flows, as well as their attendant cultural homogenization. It does not refer to some worldwide battle-royale for hegemony. That particular brand of “globalization” is nothing new and we’ve had experience with it already, on the receiving end, about 230 years ago.
We have fundamentally different views of the world it seems, so I despair of trying to change your point of view. But your assessment that our expenditures have done little to nothing for our security is merely an non-rebuttable assertion of faith. You are welcome to it, and I – with as much validity – can assert that “yes it has.”
Your assertion that OIF has reduced our security is a similar expression of faith. Were there no radicalized Islamists before? Have we never before suffered at their hands? What about all those attacks on the US since 2001? Well, never mind that last bit.
Yes the land forces are stressed, but they are stressed fighting and killing terrorists. I guess we could bring them home the better to rest them in preparation to kill terrorists but it seems to me an unnecessary extra step.
And if expenditures as a proportion of GDP is “absolutely the wrong metric” what do you counter-propose as the right one? Pick a date in history and inflation adjust from there? When your pay doubles, do you plan to stay in the same car, or maybe pay a bit for a newer, better one?
There are many streams at work in globalization, and it is one of the factors that brought “Westoxification” into the outraged Islamist living room. Their reaction to modernity is as much as anything what we’re up against in a war against violent extremism. The people who flew airliners into office buildings didn’t do so because we were occupying Iraq and liberating Afghanistan, and the plot was hatched while a previous administration slashed military spending and made nice with Paris. The hate won’t stop when we come home.
Europe prefers “soft power” – treaties and international organizations, etc. Soft power is fine as far as it goes, and so long as you are dealing with actual countries that have negotiable interests and if it’s the only tool in the toolbox, well you do the best you can with it.
But hard power is required too because not every actor on the international stage 1) represents an actual country and 2) has anything to offer us worthy of negotiation. Especially the Islamist terrorist threat.
Saving a “couple hundred billion” from DoD budgets means cutting them in half, or nearly – “education” by the way is a state expenditure, and I for one don’t feel over-taxed.
Since the US military is already strained meeting global commitments, what you’re really talking about is “coming home” from abroad. That will be a provocative power vacuum which other states will feel compelled to fill. Sharp regional military competitions have a way of getting out of hand, and in any case they don’t do much for a trading nation.
Lex said:
“… and I for one don?
Actually, no – we had a lovely series of tax cuts just a few years back. And, being as I’m on the federal anyways?
I look at it as an investment.
anon,
One thing you have to keep in mind is that when it comes to the security of our country most Americans don’t give a sh*t what the French think, nor do we give a sh*t what the Russians or Germans think about what we’re doing to keep our country safe.
fliterman,
You said: “…Asymmetric war renders a majority of our highly complex and ultra expensive military equipment and manpower irrelevant. Rather than incredibly and exorbitantly priced new warships, aircraft, and complex weapons systems, COIN and anti terror warfare relies on far less expensive and less complex, but much advanced intelligence, law enforcement, and smaller special operations forces…”
I disagree. What expensive military equipment has been rendered irrelevant? Just because the terrorists place some explosives in a stolen car, does that render an F-18 or Apache helicopter useless in combating those terrorists? I would say no, it doesn’t.
Furthermore, it amazes me that there are still those out there that see this as primarily a law enforcement matter. I’m sorry, but a couple of hundred new FBI agents, or a couple of hundred new cops on the street in our home towns WON’T DO ANYTHING to end Islamofacism or Islamic terrorism.
Yes, this is an asymetric war. But, it is a war. It’s a war that will cost us much in both blood and treasure, but it must be won.
Jim C
I’m not over taxed, but I am underpaid. My services are worth at least twice what the Federal Government pays for them. Are you listening Dr Chu?
I’m not very PC. Spend whatever it takes such that the Military is effective in detering any threat out there and then use it to smash those threats that evolve into actions that injure our intrests.
Well, aren’t you an arrogant as!ho!e!
So, military wives bug you?
Take a walk pal because they are fighting this war as hard as anyone else, even if you want to degrade them…
Blood, meet boiling point…
Wow!!!!!
You know, I could challenge you on a few of your assumptions, especially the NoKos but, I am not even going to bother. After you took a slam at the military wives I realized that you aren’t even worth the pixels with wich to debate.
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983 (241 dead Marines);
Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan Am flight to New York;
First New York World trade Center attack 1993;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
Naiirobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Aden, Yeman USS Cole 2000;
New York World Trade Center 2001;
Pentagon 2001;
…
Bali
PI
Thailand
Madrid
London
So, anon, fiterman, you post much huff and ask plenty of questions, but what are your solutions?
You sir, are my hero…can I have the name of your lawyer?
“And large parts of the budget will continue to grow disproportionately, especially the Veterans Administration costs.”
This is probably the biggest canard being pushed. Go down to a local VA Hospital…it isn’t filled with OIF Vets…it is filled with WWII, Korea and Vietnam Vets.
There are 26 million living veterans. The vast majority of VA expenditure is providing income qualified services. I know a WWII vet…took advantage of the GI bill and got a home loan in the ’50s…never had any further dealings with the VA until his doctor put him on some $300/month medications 3 or 4 years ago. The VA pays for his medications.
[...] than throttling them. Barney Frank has bills to pay, and we’ve already had that whole mandatory vs. discretionary discussion. It ain’t like you can just print the [...]