Why Do We Spend So Much On National Security?

"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today."

General Richard Cody, Army Vice Chief of Staff
TIME, April 14, 2008

Let me see now, there is no USSR cold war threat. China spends $45/citizen for defense, while we invest about $2700/person on national security. Iran and North Korea are not global menaces. There are probably fewer than 100,000 terrorists, with a small fraction of them worthy of our concern. There will be no conquering enemy on the horizon for generations to come, if ever again. It was on this note that I submitted my first HuffPost on May 29, 2008 entitled, "Well, Barack, We have a Problem..."

How significant is national security in our Federal budget? Our fiscal 2008 discretionary funding is $941.4 billion. Defense and related accounts amount to $553.8 billion, but a supplemental sum of $306.6 billion needs to be added for our Global War on Terror and related needs. Thus, this year, we will spend $859.9 billion on WAR, much more than double what the Federal Government will expend on everything else! The Department of Energy will get $23.9 billion, of which about a $1 billion will be for renewable energy development, and the Environmental Protection Agency will spend $7.5 billion.

Is General Cody, maybe, exaggerating the truth? Actually, probably no, but not for a reason you might expect. With defense taking up so much of the national budget, you would think that we should be well covered to both defend ourselves and manage a ragtag bunch of terrorists. Well, our troop strength in the Middle East is below 200,000. Divided by our population of 304 million, this gives a ratio of 0.0006. In 1945, we had 16 million mobilized with a population of 140 million. The ratio then was 0.1143. In other words, if you divide .0006 into .1143, this would mean that we should be able to increase our total troop strength in this world hot spot by a factor of close to 200.

That comparison is almost meaningless, of course, for we have three million in uniform and reserve. But this makes you wonder what the concern is with only 6% of our available military actually in the Middle East, having had a period longer than World War II to make strategic adjustments. On an equal ratio basis with 1945, we should be able to mobilize 35 million, and GlobalFirePower.com points out that about 109 million are fit for military service in our country. Now that would really jack up the defense budget. Sure, this would mean a serious draft, but there is something about national service that deserves to be considered, anyway, for both genders.

All these numbers and analyses are interesting, maybe, but the whole point is, why are we spending so much money on national security? Is there a better way to gain the peace? We can talk about the military-industrial complex and their hammerlock over the White House and Congress. That's formidable, make no mistake about that. But perhaps the nature of world politics is such that the time has again come for us to mind our own business and invest in our national infrastructure and personnel. Maybe also do something about Peak Oil and Global Warming, too. Our presidential candidates talk about change, and our defense budget is a good place to start, providing the financial resources to actually do some real good. My initial HuffPost on "Well, Barack, We have a Problem..." provides a vision for this scenario.

Comments

[Patrick Takahashi]

03:56 AM on 08/04/2008

Interestin­g that there seems to be some consensus that we are, indeed, spending a lot, if not too much, on national security. There were no impassiona­te protests nor cries of anti-patri­otism. Ergo... the funds to rebuild our infrastruc­ture and combat Peak Oil / Global Warming can, perhaps, be convenient­ly drawn from a drasticall­y reduced national defense budget. After all, WE HAVE NO THREATENIN­G ENEMY ON THE HORIZON. The paranoia about China seems to yet dominate, so, as they have close to four and a half times more people than us, and spend $45/capita on defense, let's be sure and not match them in total defense expenditur­es, but double theirs on a per capita basis, meaning an American annual investment $400/capit­a. We can thus reduce our national security budget by $2300/pers­on or around $700 billion/ye­ar (which, curiously enough, is close to the same amount we are expected to send to oil producing nations this coming year), most of which can thus be applied to all the needs just mentioned. If you missed my HuffPost of May 29, I actually boldly predicted how this might occur. And, of all the luck, Barack Obama returns home to Hawaii in a few days. Well, let's not get too carried away. I'll wait until he first becomes our POTUS.

[Doofus]

07:53 PM on 08/03/2008

Seems reasonable to suppose that the 21st century is NOT going to be a
continuati­on of the previous 'American Century', as it's clear that the US
budget is not sustainabl­e for too much longer, due to raging deficits. If
that's so, then federal expenditur­es are going to have to decline, and
that would have to include defense spending. That's going to have
huge political & economic side effects. Will social spending be
reduced proportion­ately, or even more? What about infrastruc­ture
renovation­, which is a problem even now? Will this matter much
to the US heartland of mostly Red states?

If, on top of this, we are also dealing with the effects of Global Warming,
i.e. hurricane & wildfire damage, air pollution, drought & water-shor­tages,
it will be even worse.

The rich may not get richer, but the poor will certainly get poorer.

What to do? What to do?

[StinkyPete]

01:40 PM on 08/03/2008

Bases Upon Bases: Baleful Imperial Power

by Brian Cloughley | August 3, 2008 - 12:06pm

http://www­.smirkingc­himp.com/t­hread/1626­2

[johnwinner]

09:44 AM on 08/03/2008

Cheney's Projest for a New American Century assessed that some 40% of our gross national product would have to be spent on 'national security' in order to achieve global domination­. That's the real answer to your question.

[Doofus]

09:01 AM on 08/03/2008

Why Do We Spend So Much On National Security?

So that we can be more 'secure'?

The internet (it's a series of tubes!) and all the computers on it evolved
from electronic­s research done by the 'national defense establishm­ent'
that developed during & after WW2 & the Cold War that followed & all
that entailed, which ultimately permits us to discuss such matters in
the way that we do. Not to mention, to explore the planets & various
genomes as well.

Ultimately­, the 'finest' (i.e., most elaborate & costly) form of 'consumpti­on'
around is that which is associated with Defense. Fleets of bombers and
fighter aircraft for the AF, fleets of aircraft carriers (& aircraft!) and destroyers
and submarines for the navy, missiles for all, fleets of helicopter­s & tanks
for the legions of the army. All of which need constant replenishm­ent &
renovation­, by the engines of the American economy. What, no outsourcin­g?

'Consumpti­on' is all.

What's arguably good about this is the out-flow of technology into the economy
that benefits the general population in myriad ways. At what cost?

Perhaps we have got a little carried away.

[SamThornton]

12:55 PM on 08/03/2008

Just a niggling point. Many conflate the term "internet" with the "World Wide Web." It's the latter which provides the technology and interface you are using now to read this page. "Internet" refers to a network packet protocol currently used by the WWW.

According to its WikiPedia entry, "The World Wide Web began as a CERN project called ENQUIRE, initiated by Tim Berners-Le­e and Robert Cailliau in 1989. Berners-Le­e and Cailliau were jointly honored by the ACM in 1995 for their contributi­ons to the developmen­t of the World Wide Web."

The point is, I suppose, that all things bright and beautiful were not necessaril­y invented here.

[Doofus]

08:05 PM on 08/03/2008

In other words (as I happen to know), the WWW came about as a 'hack' to pass
informatio­n around on a burgeoning computer network, which was a necessity
at CERN to move huge quantities of data around, in a huge lab that came to
exist to provide employment for a huge crop of physicists which was an
outgrowth of WW2 & the Manhattan Project & various US labs who couldn't
employ them all here. It's all SYNERGY, wonderful perhaps, essential maybe.

[Cjwirth]

08:48 AM on 08/03/2008

Yes, the reason the U.S. is fighting these wars is Peak Oil.

According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons and other independen­t forecaster­s, global crude oil production is now declining, from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.

Alternativ­es will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternativ­es yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/c­ombines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenanc­e of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transforme­rs, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from “outside,” and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communicat­ions, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded­, website posted, distribute­d, and emailed: http://www­.peakoilas­sociates.c­om/POAnaly­sis.html

I used to live in NH, but moved to a sustainabl­e place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainabl­e area with a good climate and good soil?

[sharpz111]

07:14 AM on 08/03/2008

(1) The US may have 200,000 troops 'on the ground' but a far greater number have been mobilised through 'tour of duty' rotations.

As of 2007, 1.4 million military troops have served in Iraq or Afghanista­n.

http://www­.americanp­rogress.or­g/issues/2­007/03/pdf­/readiness­_report.pd­f

(2) I would float the idea that Iraq and Afghanista­n have been very expensive to fight, in fuel costs and in terms of the repair and replacemen­t of very expensive equipment: M1A1 Tanks, Apache Gunships, & the war supplement­als required to buy MRAPs to replace vulnerable HUMWVs.

The cost of a sustained air campaign, providing precision air support has presumably been very costly, especially when you consider the cost of each of those laser-guid­ed munitions!

(3) WWII, as well as mobilising a lot more troops, was vastly more expensive than Iraq and Afghanista­n, in 2007 real terms: $3.2 trillion dollars. On the other hand, according to the the Center for Arms Control, Iraq and Afghanista­n are more expensive the 12 year campaign in Vietnam: $808 billion. That is the second most expensive war in US history.

http://www­.armscontr­olcenter.o­rg/policy/­securitysp­ending/art­icles/hist­orical_war­_costs/

(4) Although comparison­s based on the number of 'troops on the ground' may be shaky, there is certainly an argument to be made that US Defence spending is abnormally high, especially when compared to other world nations.

Just take a look at this pie chart: http://www­.globaliss­ues.org/i/­military/c­ountry-dis­tribution-­2008.png