The wars in Iraq and Libya are over, and Afghanistan is winding down. As President Obama has repeated, "the tide of war is receding." So why are we still spending one-third more on the military than the Cold War peak, double the level of the 1990s -- some $9,000 a year per American household?
Apparently, Americans believe that the post-9/11 world is more dangerous than ever, brimming with existential threats. This belief, however, is delusional. Hard evidence shows the opposite to be true.
First of all, the world's big, uniformed national armies with all their heavy weapons are no longer fighting each other anywhere. Those head-to-head clashes have produced the deadliest and most destructive wars -- India versus Pakistan, Iran versus Iraq. Today's wars are smaller-scale insurgencies with different and less expensive military requirements.
Second, wars are confined to smaller areas of the world than in past decades, and the fighting is more localized. Whole regions consumed by war a decade or two ago, such as Central America, the Balkans, and West Africa, are now at peace. We don't need to be everywhere all the time with 11 super-expensive aircraft carriers.
Third, when researchers count the world's deaths from war violence, the numbers today are a third lower than during the Cold War. It doesn't feel that way because war reporters are eager to tell us of the horrors of whatever wars remain, and some horrible ones do remain. Nevertheless, we live in a less violent world overall than any in memory.
While military spending must prepare us for future dangers, not just today's situations, are those dangers really greater than 30 years ago? The Soviet Union is long gone. China has not fought a single military battle in 25 years, and its leaders depend on trade-based prosperity, not war, for their legitimacy. The world's nuclear arsenals have been reduced by three-quarters in the past 30 years, and further cuts have been agreed upon.
U.S. military commitments around the world have also shrunk. Over the past decade we've pulled out 30,000 troops from Europe, 25,000 from Japan and Korea, and 10,000 from Latin America. By the end of this year, 45,000 will come home from Iraq and next year, 33,000 will return from Afghanistan.
Are we spending so much to train our allies' counter-terrorism units, to buy more drones, or to build up our special forces? No, those things are relatively cheap. Rather, we are spending huge amounts to prepare for a major state-to-state war using heavy formations in massive air, land, and sea operations. In other words, to stop the Soviet Red Army from invading West Germany or to fight land wars in Asia like Vietnam or the invasion of Iraq.
Last February, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that any American leader who would "again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined." As Gates points out, the defense bureaucracy plans for "high-end conflicts" based on "what transpired in the last century." Gates has also noted the "wasteful, excessive, and unneeded spending" that bloats today's military budget. That's a defense secretary speaking, not an Occupy Wall Street protester.
To adjust to our radically changed world, the diminishing threats we face, the end of our decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the changing nature of warfare, the military brass and politicians have a plan -- 5 percent cuts from our current record-high spending. That would leave us way above Cold War levels, still matching the rest of the world combined.
What we need instead are deep cuts, phased in over some years in a well-planned process. Even returning the spending levels of the 1990s, half today's total and one-third below the Cold War peak, would leave us with the world's largest and most capable military force by far.
It's true, military leaders can do their jobs best with unlimited resources -- but so could teachers and firefighters whose budgets we are slashing in the face of massive deficits. In a country whose economic weakness is far more dangerous than any military threat, big cuts in defense spending simply must be on the table.
And don't say that military spending creates jobs. Study after study has shown that the same money invested in education, infrastructure, or other productive activities creates far more jobs than military spending.
America's wars are ending, and heavy tank formations cannot solve what ails this country. It's time to end the delusion of a violent, threatening world and stop wasting money on forces we no longer need. Trimming by 5 percent just isn't going to cut it.
Follow Joshua S. Goldstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/goldsteinjoshua
Ryan Berger: NATO and Libya: A Model
Marty Kaplan: How Occupy Will End
Andy Ostroy: Not Everyone in the 1% Deserves 'Occupy's' Scorn
My question is "When in history has the US government ever needed forces ? ".
Even the revolutionary war was unnecessary since Canada did not rebel against Britain and yet Canada got its independence without war.
Has the forces of the US government ever been a blessing to Americans or the world ? this link will answer that question :
http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=4301034126#4301034126
Instead of merely making incorrect comparisons (schools are local, and bridges are highway/gas taxes), why not get specific. How many infantry, artillery, tank, etc., formations WILL be required in 2/12/22/102 years. Accurately show us the answer to that, satisfying all the skepticism your claim will generate. You might get some concurrence from me and those like me.
Semper fi
I don't know how many heavy formations we need. I do know that Secretary Gates went to West Point earlier this year and told them to prepare to lose heavy formations because we're not going to fight that kind of war.
Rumsfeld was right about fighting with the army you have. It's what we did in WWII when we were woefully unprepared. But the mistake wasn't reducing spending after the Cold War, it was doing it badly, led by the U.S. Congress, and then going into Iraq in 2003 without enough troops to keep order afterwards (my opinion). If Rumsfeld had listened to Shinseki we might not have needed armored HMMVW's. It would have been hundreds of billions of dollars cheaper.
I don't want to disarm unilaterally but I don't believe the only way to cut is to hollow out the force under Congress's ideas like keeping open unneeded bases in their home districts.
Mr. Gates has no more prescience than do I. He cannot predict. His words are opinion only.
The Federal government has only a few Powers. One of those is building and maintaining an Army and Navy. However, it spends a tremendous amount of money on things NOT empowered to it. Reduce spending, and we can not only afford our military, but pay down our debts.
You didn't ask for unilateral disarmament. You merely asked for disarmament! We have not only our own continent to watch over, but broad international interests. It isn't cheap. And the men and women who man this effort need the best we can give them, and plenty of it!
I don't fault a desire to find the best, fiscally responsible, way to do things. But how to do it, why, and by whom, is the question.
Thanks for civil discussion.
Semper fi
The attacks on 9/11/01 was the result of the US government collaterally killing civilians in the middle east , ever since the US government helped the British government conquer and collaterally kill civilians in the Middle East during WW1, which in turn resulted in 80 long years of blow back policies in the middle east which in turn resulted in Osama bin Laden launching a 10 year terror campaign culminating in the attacks on 9/11/01
Take a look at the history of collateral killings of civilians by the US government, not only in the middle east but around the world :
http://forum.isi.org/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=5270060552&f=9310035552&m=4280031492&r=4301034126#4301034126
Semper fi
And another, if people want schools then they advocate for them to their state and local governments, who's responsibility it is for such building. Bridges are paid out of highway taxes and gas taxes, and do NOT suffer from defense spending.
Semper fi
You are correct that military spending comes at a cost. What I would rather see is a complete overhaul of HOW the military spends and that process. However, I contend it is a reflection of the government itself -- cumbersome and ineffecient!
A long time ago, I went to a 3-way debate. The was one person each with the positions of cutting or increasing military spending and their arguments were primarily political. The third person was Larry Klein, who got a Nobel prize for his work in econometrics. When the discussion came to him, he explained that he had no political position either way, but that his models of the economy showed that each 1% cut results in a more than %1 cut in GDP. This is a far more complex situation than you make it out to be,
Your pretty little pie chart seems to be missing some important parts of the Federal Budget. Now, what ends might be served by such exclusion?
Social Security and Medicare are funded separately.
This would seem to be a good representation of the proportions that defense has over other federal income taxed activities.
True if you mean they are morphing into something much more profitable for MIC. The idol and national mascot Mamon demands its due.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/what_withdrawal_means_for_an_empire/singleton/
Look, I'd like to agree with you that the tide is turning, but that's not what I see.
Semper fi
http://cutnukes.globalzero.org/