The Wrongologist

A strong military is indispensable to our
national security and to our leadership position in the world. Since 2001, defense spending has soared from $287
billion to $718 billion in 2011, including the primary costs of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Now that those wars are ending and
austerity is in vogue, the Pentagon will have to start tightening its belt. But
very few believe that the sequestration cuts will be in place after the next
round of “fiscal responsibility” negotiations in Washington.

The real question is: Is defense truly on the table as a part of the deficit reduction
plan, or are the deficit hawks also chicken hawks when it comes to the
defense department?

The
sequestration may not be the best tool for cutting the defense budget; cuts
should be based on rational planning. But the Pentagon spending debate is driven
by politics, including the legions of lobbyists for the military-industrial
complex. It is also ensnared in the military’s effort to fit the ideology (and tools) of past wars to the
present world.

Our
national security strategy must be based on current and future threats, not
past war doctrines.

Consider this:

The US has
more than 1,000 international
military bases and another 4,000
more in
the 50 states and Washington, DC. This empire of military installations is unprecedented
in history.

A thousand
locations should be enough, yet we continue to add to the string of pearls: We
are building a new base in Vicenza, Italy, near
Venice. It is Dal
Molin,
a base that the US Army is readying for the relocation of 2,000 soldiers from
Germany in 2013.

It will cost
the tax payers $500 million dollars to build. Now, this may be a
well-considered decision, but we rarely think about these bases, let alone how much of our tax money (and
debt) goes to build and maintain them. Dal Molin includes a
natural-gas-powered energy plant, a hospital, two schools, a fitness center,
dining facilities and a mini-mall.

So how
much does the United States Military spend each year on its global
presence?  Estimates vary, but the Tom Dispatch blog says that it pencils out to $170 billion per year, while
the Pentagon’s public estimate is $22.1 billion a year. $22.1 billion is
about as much
as the budgets for the
Departments of Justice and Agriculture and about half the State Department’s
2012 budget.

But the Pentagon’s
figure contrasts sharply with Tom Dispatch’s estimate and that of economist Anita
Dancs, who estimates costs of $140
billion,
almost $120 billion more than the Pentagon suggests.

So,
What’s Wrong?

The US
government spent
about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in
2011, more than we spent on Medicare. That
includes the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159
billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign
governments. That $718 billion equaled 20% of the 2011 federal budget.

Defense spending does not include, however, benefits for veterans, which came
to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5% of the federal budget.

U.S.
defense spending is
expected to rise in 2012, to about $729 billion and then to fall in
2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps kick in. 

Here’s a
historical chart of US defense spending since World War II in
inflation-adjusted dollars. There’s a big spike for the Korean and Vietnam
wars. There’s another big ramp-up during the 1980s under President Reagan.
Defense spending was cut significantly during the Clinton years, then soared to
historically unprecedented levels after 9/11:

Source: WonkBlog

Two big
things are about to happen to military spending: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
are winding down. And given the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Pentagon is facing
both hard budget caps and the looming sequester that would further cut defense spending
by about $1 trillion over the next decade (compared to what was expected).

Source: WonkBlog

These are
serious cuts. Although, as the graph above from the Center
for Strategic and International Studies shows, even if the sequester
is fully implemented, which no one expects, the draw downs after Korea, Vietnam
and the Cold War were more drastic, even in 2013 inflation-adjusted
dollars. 

In January
2012, the Department of Defense unveiled its proposed budget for fiscal year
2013, giving us a look at how it would begin to deal with new budget constraints. As Danger Room’s Spencer Ackerman reported,
the Pentagon wanted to downsize about 100,000 human soldiers and ramp up
advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles. They asked for a budget of $613 billion.

Yet, in
December 2012, Congress passed its own $631
billion defense appropriations bill, more than the Pentagon had asked. Weapons systems that the Obama administration wanted to retire, such as
three Navy cruisers, were kept in.  

The
Wrongologist proposes three places to consider very large cuts:

1. The massive Military
base structure that costs $140-$170 billion/year

 

2. The F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. The F-35 program is slated to cost $1.5 trillion over its lifetime:
Today, the use of manned aircraft is more and more limited, so few of our future
threats will call for it. Developing this plane has cost more than was spent on
veterans in the last 20 years

3.  Nuclear weapons: Our
policy is based on Cold War conditions that no longer exist. The Pentagon is expected to spend more than $700 billion on
nuclear weapons over the next 10 years, for questionable added security. The
former US Strategic Command Chief Gen. James Cartwright has called for a drastic cut in nuclear
weapons, saying the US has a stockpile that is:

Conclusion:

Congress needs the political resolve to kill unnecessary
and expensive projects. Mr. Obama could use a shot of courage too.

In
2008, a
National Intelligence Estimate declared the economic crisis, not terrorism,
was the greatest threat to national security. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullin, along
with other senior military leaders, have endorsed that assessment.

As
retired Gens. Robert G. Gard and John Johns told CNN:

In
the last decade, we have fought two expensive wars that Congress never paid for.
That has been a large contributor to our precarious economic position.

As
Congress attempts to clean up its own mess and prevent sequestration, the Pentagon budget must be on the
table.

Instead of buying
new toys that we keep in the garage, let’s spend some of that dough to provide education and job training
to veterans. Recent congressional refusal to approve such a jobs program is a
disgrace.

(Full disclosure: The Wrongologist holds a
significant investment [for him] in a major defense contractor)