The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex 87 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children."
These must be the words of some liberal Democratic Senator running for President in 2008. But no, these are the words of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, five decades ago.
The United States, the only superpower remaining on earth, currently spends more on military than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. The U.S. accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending. Where did the peace dividend from winning the Cold War go?
click to enlarge images
The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. The Cold War has been over for 20 years, but we are spending like World War III is on the near term horizon. There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.
So, why are we spending like we are preparing for a major conflict? The impression on the rest of the world is that we have aggressive intentions. The administration is posturing like Iran is a threat to our security. Iran spends $7.2 billion annually on their military. We could make a parking lot out of their cities in any conflict. Does anyone really believe that they would create a nuclear weapon and use it on Israel? Their country would be obliterated.
Defense spending had peaked at just under $500 billion in 1988. The fall of communist Russia did result in a decline to the $350 billion range from 1995 through 2000, and an economic boom ensued. Since 9/11 we have doubled our spending on defense.
This seems like an overly extreme reaction to 19 terrorists attacking our country. Bin Laden and his terrorist network numbered less than 10,000. The initial response of invading Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban, and cornering bin Laden in the mountains was supported by the entire world. The success of this response was sufficient to deter any other country from allowing terrorist organizations to operate freely within their borders.
The natural response of the United States should have been to increase spending on border protection, upgrading the CIA, and increasing our ability to gather intelligence. Instead, we spent billions on weapons, aircraft, tanks, and missiles. The neo-cons, led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, saw the 9/11 attack as their opportunity to change the world. They’ve gotten their wish.
Of course, we took our eye off of bin Laden and Afghanistan. The Taliban has experienced a resurgence, recently freeing 800 fighters from a prison. Bin Laden continues to issue videotapes exhorting his followers to continue the fight.
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech in January 1961 is a brilliantly perceptive analysis of the future of our country.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
This last sentence describes what George Bush has managed to do in the last 5 years. The arrogance of believing that we could invade a country on the other side of the world and expect to be treated as liberators is beyond comprehension. Our reputation abroad has been grievously damaged. The voluntary sacrifices we’ve made in the U.S. were to receive tax cuts and multiple tax rebates, paid for by our grandchildren. President Bush has sacrificed by not playing golf for the last 5 years.
How noble. Not exactly the Greatest Generation, quite yet.
Did President Eisenhower envision that the U.S. would have troops stationed in 70% of the world’s countries? According to the Defense Department’s latest "Personnel Strengths" report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries and 10 territories. This is the greatest number of countries that the United States has ever had troops in. Why are we policing the world? What is the point of having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 troops in Japan? Germany and Japan each spend $40 billion per year on their military. Can’t they defend themselves at this point? We defeated them 60 years ago. It is time to leave. This is a prelude to decades of occupation in Iraq. Don’t believe the blather about withdrawal. The military has no intention of withdrawing.
It is a shame that after 9/11, George Bush didn’t read President Eisenhower’s farewell speech. I wonder if he has ever read the speech. Instead he chose to follow the “wisdom” of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. President Eisenhower’s words describe the crisis that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
A spectacular and costly response is what the Iraq invasion has turned out to be. We have now spent more money on this venture than any war in history except for World War II. And there is no end in sight.
I live in Pennsylvania. Taxpayers in Pennsylvania have paid $20 billion for our share of the Iraq war, so far. This amount of money would pay for 1,650,000 scholarships for University students for one year. Does a $20 billion investment in rebuilding Iraqi bridges that we blew up with $1 million cruise missiles make more sense than investing in our best and brightest young people? $20 billion would provide 24,000,000 homes with renewable electricity for one year. That is 20% of all the homes in the United States.
After paying their utility bills this coming winter, I think I know what the majority of Americans would choose. Some further perspective on this out of control spending is provided in the following chart:
President Eisenhower, as a former commanding general of Allied forces in World War II, knew exactly what the implications of having a permanent armaments industry were to the United States. He was also worried about the implications.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
These words were spoken 5 decades ago, but are just as true today.
President Eisenhower, as a former commanding general of Allied forces in World War II, knew exactly what the implications of having a permanent armaments industry were to the United States. He was also worried about the implications. These words were spoken 5 decades ago, but are just as true today.
The top five U.S. defense contractors generated almost $129 billion in revenues and $8 billion in profits in 2006, double the revenue and profits in 2000 when George Bush became President. The War on Terror has been a windfall for the defense industry and their shareholders. These companies have intertwined themselves into the fabric of our government and defense department. They contribute tremendous amounts of money to Congressional candidates and have thousands of lobbyists pushing for more defense contracts. Many politicians end up working for defense contractors (i.e. Dick Cheney) after they leave public service. This leads to conflicts of interest negatively impacting the American public.
It appears that the biggest winners of the War on Terror are the CEOs of the defense contractors. I wonder if they realized how rich they would become as they watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground. They have virtually tripled their annual income, while the average American scratched out a 20% increase over 6 years. They have managed to generate the tremendous profits and personal wealth while only employing 10% more employees. Boeing and Raytheon were actually able to reduce their workforce. How productive. These contractors will do everything in their power to retain and increase these fabulous profits.
President Eisenhower clearly understood the moral implications of a huge armaments industry and the costs to a free society.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
We have some of the brightest engineers in the country developing weapons to kill human beings more efficiently. There is an opportunity cost that is being paid. These engineers could be concentrating their brilliance on developing alternative energy solutions which could free us from our drug dependence on the Middle East. Which effort would benefit our country more, weapons development or energy independence?
President Eisenhower’s final words are the most chilling.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We did not heed his wisdom. Laurence Vance, author of What’s Wrong with the U.S. Global Empire?,contends that our foreign policy
is not right, it’s unnatural, it’s very expensive, it’s against the principles of the Founding Fathers, it fosters undesirable activity, it increases hatred of Americans, it perverts the purpose of the military, it increases the size and scope of the government, it makes countries dependent on the presence of the U.S. military, and finally, because the United States is not the world’s policeman.
War and non-stop conflict benefit the military industrial complex. It is in their best interest for them to support candidates that favor an aggressive foreign policy. This could lead to Defense companies using their influence to provoke conflict throughout the world.
In conclusion, I again turn to the wisdom of Ron Paul, the only presidential candidate speaking the truth to the American public. In a speech before Congress several months before the Iraq invasion, his words were reminiscent of President Eisenhower’s.
The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.
If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits.
If as a country we continue to allow our politicians and their military industrial complex corporate sponsors to spend $700+ billion per year on weapons, to the detriment of higher education, alternative energy projects, and national infrastructure needs, we will be paying an extremely high price.
We are in a classic guns or butter scenario. The Bush Administration has decided to choose guns while borrowing from our grandchildren and the Chinese to pay for the butter. This can work for awhile, but as deficits accumulate, the dollar plummets, and inflation rears its ugly head, our great country will decline as other empires who overstepped their bounds declined.
Disclosure: Author holds no positions in the stocks mentioned above
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
TraderMark
-
4
Peter Schiff
-
5
Serge Hagopian
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 87 comments:
Ike was miffed by the propensity of the DOD brass to oppose strategies to not spend money and to retard program growth, and thus the staff generals hated him for his efforts to limit defense spending. The DOD brass tried to undermine him for it. (Sounds a bit familiar as Mr. Rumsfeld also tried to exert civilian control over these "fruit salad" wearers in the Pentagon, also with a poor reception.)
Hopefully the articulate author also knows that Ike was adamant that the US not retreat back into isolationism because 20th century technology had bridged the previous US security barriers of the 2 oceans resulting in forced US involvement in 2 major land wars in Europe in Ike's lifetime, and he was determined to maintain a US presence in Europe to prevent a 3rd.
The dirty little secret is that most countries either cant or won’t spend appropriately on their defense (in lieu of socialized medicine and 35 hour work weeks). This is their right to do so, but in the event that peace breaks down it always affects the US either from a security standpoint or market access, which impacts the non defense economy that the well spoken author is so enamored with.
Having myself worked in the Aerospace/defense industry for several decades, I might respectfully remind the author he may have forgotten the relentless string of consolidations and job displacement in this industry that occurred from the late 1980s well into the 90s. (I didn’t read many stories at the time about a corresponding retreating influence of the Military Industrial Complex, as it was becoming a smaller part of the US economy)
Its widely known in many segments of the Defense industry that there is currently a brain drain, people who graduated from college in the 1960s are now retiring and somehow the industry doesn’t seem glamorous enough to capture a fair share of new college grads. (so much for the all powerful "Complex")
I don’t have the figures in front of me, but US defense spending, as a percent of GDP is modest at best. (I happen to know the percentage of DOD related semiconductor sales is in the 1 percent range of the total for example). On a pie chart, compared to the rest of the total burgeoning US economy, the Defense biz is a dot at best.
Like many things that Ike said, his statements were certainly applicable at the time he said them, however the world and economic environment has changed drastically in 5 decades and I would respectfully ask the readers to consider that before applying Ike's template to today.
As a platoon leader in Iraq (2003-2004) I had more than $2 million worth of equipment for my 32 soldiers. Yes, that was expensive. However, that expensive equipment is what let me bring all 32 soldiers home. In one specific instance, I can credit thermal optics ($.5 million each) with saving the lives of myself and ten others.
My question to you: If one of your sons were in the military, would your beliefs on defense spending change?
Inadvertently ommitted facts are that we engaged in WW2 for example because of the INTERCONTINENTAL missiles that Germany was testing, not just developing.
Vietnam? well, that was unnecessary. Interesting however that a Democrat was killed and then another Democrat escalated the war and left that mess for others to work out.
After several dozen bombing attacks (under a Democrat ) culminating in one final attack 9-11, (that would be waiting until the enemy got to our shores) we finally had some adults in office who didn't care whether a counterattack "polled well."
Bottom line: I agree, we are WAY overextended and should pull back significantly (bye bye Middle East and Japan), however consider the alternative scenarios, regional conflict with lots of smaller armies (see Africa) that is constantly destabilizing? Witness Russia/Georgia and now Ukraine? I think one big way for us to be able to reliably disengage is mining and drilling in our own backyards and not have to go to Saudi Arabia's aid when they snap their fingers.
As much as you dislike it, this is still about freedom vs. communism. And it will take volunteers and guns to defend freedom.
The more we engage these countries via trade/exchange, the better off we will all be. Great article.
Equally up for consideration for future articles - the education/industrial complex and the "healthcare" industrial complex: As an example health and human services is 3 times the DOD budget. Food for thought.
The author understates the true cost of the military. There are many hidden military expenditures in other government departments. For example NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Admin., most foreign aid is not for schools and hospitals but tanks and guns, etc.
There is also the intellectual opportunity cost of all our scientific talent going to develop weapons. Useful science and technological advancement has been retarded by decades. It has been conjectured that we will not be until the year 2025 where we would already be today if not for the siphoning away of our minds and money by the war industry.
To the author: Another balancing thought though, have you also considered the incredible number of technologies that have been spun out of the DoD? to name a few:
The internet (funded by DARPA, not al Gore)
medical technologies
Advanced materials (kevlar among them)
GPS
fuel cell technologies
nanotechnologies
solid state storage
imaging technologies
While it certainly can't be listed entirely here, an incredible number of the things we use today, started as a DoD sponsored research project at some point, either in development or in basic research - half of MIT, and other leading universities have been BUILT with defense money.
Only by spending though. You see what the troops are capable of in Iraq: 4 years after the declared victory they are still there trying to finish things up.
Political articles do not belong on this website.
1. Inflation is highly correlated with war. War's are funded by printing money. This results in greater upward pressure on interest rates to maintain the dollar, or if no adjustments, continued devaluation of the dollar.
2. This is an optional war, making it a real option. If McCain is elected, it is reasonable to expect the status quo or further escalation into Iran. This would cause greater restrictions on oil supply which would further straining the US's resources and increase the likelihood of a collapse of the US economy.
3. If Obama is elected, we can expect a near term pull out.
A pullout will result in a huge reduction of oil demand as the army is no longer burning oil. Speculation would be reduced as their would be less likelihood of further military action in Iran, which would further constrain oil supply.
4. Gold - Gold's prices are related to a collapse of Iraq's financial infrastructure driving Iraq citizen's to buy gold and the devaluation of the US dollar.
5. Equity - Oil and Defence sectors are way up. Is this scenerio likely to be true without the war?
You get the leaders you deserve!
In the book "Epicenter" by Joel Rosenberg, a man named George Sada is mentioned in chapter 12 who was a senior adviser to Saddam Hussein. He admitted that Saddam made plans on December 17, 1990 to drop chemical weapons on several major cities in Israel, and that he (Sada) was able to talk Saddam out of it. So there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it would be a mistake to think we shouldn't have gone over there.
Americans have a wonderful sense of tolerance and acceptance of others. We also are a generous and forgiving people, and most foreigners who come in contact with the average American on vacation acknowledge this. Unfortunately, this also makes some of us pretty naive as we can't fathom cultures like Iran that still live with a medieval mentality or the need to protect ourselves from these fanatics.
D
The only thing I could add is to expand on Woodhead's comment: You get the leaders you deserve! Yes, we do.
But the greatest oxy moron of the last 20 years: Political Leadership!
Continuous investment leading to weaponry and technilogical advancement will continue to reduce the need for manpower (i.e. manless drones as one example), leading to reduced costs (i.e. payroll, pension, benefits, etc). It's simple economics really.
Why don't you stop comparing apples to oranges and look at how much US spends on its military as percentage of GDP. If you did this, you would see that there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about how much is spent on the military. In fact, it probably has to be increased when you compare it to historic norms.
Ohh, and the Cold War peace dividend was just an excuse for politicians to take money away from the ultimate insurance policy and invest it in income redistribution schemes.
www.bloomberg.com/apps...
But don't even mention the phrase "Social Security reform" or the liberals will go crazy.
“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.
The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.
“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.
Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.
“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”
Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.
“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.
Any fool can point out that war is bad and that spending money on military might is a waste of money. And of course there is the pubertal reactions of dumb American government and so on. And blaming the previous generation. (The problem is that most Americans have grown in a time of peace and cannot conceive that things could be otherwise. Travel a bit you man to less stable parts of the world and consider than most of the world would be like that without Pax Americana. Before that there was pax Britannia)
What is the alternative - and before you answer consider how difficult it would be to do business and earn a decent living in a world without stability.
The pie chart is also misleading in that China has a much lower cost structure than the US and that is applicable to the military as much as manufacturing. China has a larger army - head count wise - than the US
a) Invaded the only secular government in the Middle East, which was ideologically opposed to Al Quaeda and had been crushing them for years. The resulting chaos 1) exposed the inability of the US to translate trillions in military funding into results on the ground, and 2) provided a new safe haven with new supporters for Al Quaeda and allied groups.
b) Overthrew the Taliban, which only resulted in elections that continued the Islamist agenda and expanded sharia law. Turns out, that's the ideology of Afgans. Accomplished zilch.
c) Destabilized Pakistan by paying off the government there. As a result, an Islamist coup or revolution is now imminent there, which will put nukes in the hands of Al Quaeda sympathizers.
d) Borrowed heavily to fund all these trillions in expenses, resulting in the dollar crashing in value. As in Zimbabwe and Argentina, this will result in lowered living standards for Americans as our paychecks buy less and less each month.
e) Expanded the national debt to an unsustainable percentage of GDP, which will eventually lead to further currency devaluation and inflation. Future generations will never get out of the debt hole we've dug which might mean that the US empire is doomed long-term.
f) Caused geopolitical uncertainty which drove the price of oil up five-fold. Much of these funds went to the Russians, Iranians, Saudi Wahibists and other enemies. We're indirectly financing the Iranian nuclear program, madrassas in Saudi Arabia/Yemen, and the war on Georgia. Very counterproductive.
g) Squandered the perceived moral superiority of the US that was the predominant attitude in the world before govt. lies about Iraq and Gitmo torture.
All this was accomplished with 20 men and $500k dollars. The result may well be the long-term decline of the American empire. No attack in history has resulted in so much damage to an enemy at so little cost - not even the Trojan horse. In addition, we're not even close to emerging from the mental haze that this event shrouded us with. We're still hurting ourselves.
Buy defense stocks, foreign currencies, a passport, and language classes. Keep your real estate holdings low and your money portable. Be prepared to move, as your ancestors did, to a country that recognizes that national strength comes from within.
The fact that hundreds of billions of dollars get spent outside the USA on offense means that not nearly enough money gets spent on the decaying infrastructure in America, on declining education and health care quality for the benefit of all American citizens.
The fact that America has an electoral system dependent entirely on private funding means that the corporate world will continue to control both political parties and that a necessary large cut in military spending will never happen and that only the corporate world will profit going forward, not American citizens.
www.guardian.co.uk/wor...
The economist Julian Simon used to warn about advocates skewing data by where they choose to start. Professor Simon always said to take it back to the start. And economists never use absolute dollars. The proper way is to show expenditures as a percent of the GDP. “Where did the peace dividend from winning the Cold War go?” Quinn asks. It went up in smoke on 9/11 after a defense holiday, which is where, not coincidentally, he begins his chart of U.S. military expenditures. Numbers don’t lie but it appears that “strategic planners” like Quinn do numbers.
Quinn claims that the piece is “not anti-military,” but, “… about unnecessary foreign intervention and the choices this country must make regarding our spending priorities.” Fine. If five percent of our GDP has been invested in removing a tyrant who started two wars that killed over a million people, creating a battle ground that’s been like flypaper for al Qaeda terrorists, with the chance of creating a democracy in the center of a volatile and strategic region of the globe, then I say it’s money well invested.
Thank God the French didn’t use Quinn’s logic back in the 1770’s.
The chart of expenditures starts in 1998. I believe it was 9/11/2001. The numbers speak for themselves.
Guess whose side the U.S. was on during the Iraq/Iran war. We supported Sadaam with weapons and money because we hated Iran, so I guess we are responsible for the 1 million deaths.
Russia just invaded a sovereign country this week. Should we launch the ICBMs towards Moscow?
The French supported our war of independence. They didn't start it. There was no conflict in Iraq when we invaded.
-Quinn
Obviously not, however it does bring up an interesting point. When US intervenes in countries like Iraq it is often villified. However, when it didn't intervene in Rwanda and currently in Sudan it too is seen as wrong by the liberals.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Stop overreacting. First of all, we are not the only country thats currently facing the effects of the credit crunch. Nor is gas only expensive in US. The whole world is falling into a recession, its not like its only America that has it bad.
Second of all, by ANY means of evaluating material wealth, US citizens enjoy a better lifestyle than any other people on Earth. Just go to our closest rival, Europe, and spend a few months there. See how much you could afford. I find it funny how Americans complain about inflation as if it only affects us. As if we are declining because of higher gas prices. As if the whole world still enjoys $1/gallon gas and cheap food. In fact, the complete opposite is true. Everything is cheaper and better in America.
The same holds true for the credit crunch. In fact, we haven't even seen the full extent of the damage on the European side because of their more lax accounting rules.
Many of these countries, especially those in Europe, can afford to have the luxury of "free" healthcare paid for by their government because their government doesn't have to pay for a large part of their own defense.
What is most disturbing about this article is that the author takes it for granted that if we don't spend the money on defense it should be spent on domestic needs or social programs.
Has the author forgotten we have a $10 trillion debt??? Has the author forgotten that we just put another $5 trillion on the debt table by bailing out Freddie MAC , Fannie Mae etc?
How about we CUT SPENDING and reduced our financial commitments to the untold $trillions in unfunded liabilities that face us from Social Security and Medicare.
How about some leadership from Washington that sets some realistic expectations that the taxpayer is not here to bail out:
1. Europeans too cheap to pay for their own national defense
2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are mismanged
3. Citizens that don't plan for their retirement, their own healthcare insurance or sign on for a mortgage they can't afford
I asked why our troops are in Germany and Japan. They need to be brought home.
I mentioned absolutely nothing about spending the money on social programs. We need to balance our budget and cut spending across the board.
I guess your warped interpretation of the article says more about you than me.
While the US expenditures on DoD might be massive, nothing is more important than having a strong defense to protect citizens, domestically and abroad, as well as to defend certain ideals around the world. Without paving way for further argument from those on this board who seemingly post only for the sake of argument, I feel that "American must remain good to remain great." While I will never support the US allowing its military to become less of a global force, I do think that more humanitarian work could be done. The US does a lot right now, but more can always be done.
Additionally, more technological advances have come from DARPA and even NASA than we could even fathom...not just missiles, tanks, etc...but surgical techniques, transportation, and synthetic materials. Without healthy funding, many of these advances would not exist.
Cheers
Force structure must meet the tests of suitable, feasible, acceptable. The current policy goals beg the question of feasibility.
I was pleased to see you quoting one of my heroes David Walker, one of the few adult commentators on the subject of our fiscal posture. His insights into the approaching trainwreck of unconstrained appetite in every dimension of federal spending are compelling.
I commend to you the book "Military Reform" by Winslow Wheeler and Lawrence Korb, James Fallows' National Defense, and Robert Coram's "Boyd", the biography of COL John Boyd. I am quite sure you have already seen the documentary "Why We Fight" which I think does a responsible job of laying out the 2d and 3d order effects of policy choices made without a clear grasp of long term strategy. It also references Ike in the opening moments.
One can concede that there are threats in the world without agreeing with the method, scope, and cost of the current response, and the 2d mortgage we have signed for future generations for our current foreign policy.
cheers,
Ken
Ken Long
Asst Professor
Department of Logistics & Resource Operations
US Army Command & General Staff College
US Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027
[The chart of expenditures starts in 1998. I believe it was 9/11/2001. The numbers speak for themselves.]
No – you tortured them to say that. U.S. military spending didn’t start in 1998 or 2001. See Pype’s comment above.
[Guess whose side the U.S. was on during the Iraq/Iran war. We supported Sadaam with weapons and money because we hated Iran, so I guess we are responsible for the 1 million deaths.]
Actually it goes back further – when Jimmy Carter brought Khomeni back to Iran. It was similar to the Germans back in WWI shipping Lenin back to Russia. Your argument is like the gun control problem where people blame the guns and not the gunner. In England they’ve outlawed handguns and now they have a “knife problem“.
[Russia just invaded a sovereign country this week. Should we launch the ICBMs towards Moscow?]
No, would you? And neither would I invade Pakistan as Obama advocated. You can always tell a weak argument when someone tries to put words in your mouth.
[The French supported our war of independence. They didn't start it. There was no conflict in Iraq when we invaded.]
There was no conflict in Iraq before we invaded if you ignore the suppressions of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. However, putting that aside for the moment, the point of our efforts was to remove a serial aggressor who was a threat to his neighbors and world peace, collaborated with al Qaeda, had used WMD and was estimated by the CIA and all the leaders of his neighboring countries at the time to have WMD capability. We just finished removing 550 tons of yellow cake from Iraq and Saddam’s no 2 ranking Air Force General has said he shipped several truck and plane loads of WMD to Syria in the days leading up to the invasion.
I’m glad we liberated Iraq. I’m thankful that GWB had the cahonas to do the right thing. Had the “Father of the Internet” won the 2000 election, we’d still be negotiating with the Taliban for extradition of Osama and have incurred a couple more 9/11’s. As it is, Osama is rotting in some cave in Pakistan, Saddam has been removed, Iraq is toddling toward democracy, we’ve had no more 9/11’s, and Qadafi coughed up his WMD.
And I’m still glad the French didn’t use your logic back in the 1770’s. Instead of surging to Yorktown, they could have packed up and left.
The most dangerous thing about a society dominated by the "war merchants" is that inevitably there is a desire to create new markets for their goods. Thus the expansion of NATO to include countries that have no business being part of NATO and the twin towers were as the Reichstag fire was to the Nazi's-- the perfect platform upon which to hoist the wardrum. Terrorism was like a godsend for the war merchants. An invisible enemy, impossible to defeat and a victory never to be achieved.
Combine that with a little dose of fearmongering and there is your perfect recipe. One of Hitler's henchmen once said-"To control a people, give them something to fear and anyone who does not tow the line accuse of being unpatriotic."
In final analysis, I would argue this: to support the military i.e. our troops means supporting the military industrial complex. If the support from our troops is pulled the following will be achieved: Politicians will be less fearful to cut expenditures, the military will be a less attractive option--our boys' and girls' desire to "serve" the country will become less pronounced, a draft will be reinstituted to ensure proper staffing and wars will once again be open to public scrutiny.
SocSec,Medicare,Medica... are not discretionary government expenditures: they are already paid for by dedicated tax.
On the contrary, military spending is discretionary and along with other discretionary spending sucks about 500bn per annum in taxes which were collected for the sole purpose of paying future pension benefits.
You are finding it normal that the gov't taxes you with SocSec tax and then spends half of it waging pointless wars?
How will you (and everyone else) react to a new payroll tax of 3% called Misc War Miscarriages?
User242985 - Did you read the article or are you just spouting rhetoric.
I changed my pseudonym after you read my post.
You didn't mention social programs? You lead the article off with this quote form Eisenhower:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children."
I presume you agree with it. Then to close you have this:
"If as a country we continue to allow our politicians and their military industrial complex corporate sponsors to spend $700+ billion per year on weapons, to the detriment of higher education, alternative energy projects, and national infrastructure needs, we will be paying an extremely high price.
We are in a classic guns or butter scenario. The Bush Administration has decided to choose guns while borrowing from our grandchildren and the Chinese to pay for the butter. This can work for awhile, but as deficits accumulate, the dollar plummets, and inflation rears its ugly head, our great country will decline as other empires who overstepped their bounds declined."
Guns OR butter????
OR --- that is exactly the problem I am talking about. You are saying either we spend on guns or butter without a thought to not spending it at all.
Unless I missed it you did not mention anyting about the national debt or the deficit.
I have a few other articles on seeking alpha that will give you my view on the deficit and spending. Take a look at them and see if you agree.
The world needs a righteous police force. We should have been in Rwanda, and we should be in Sudan right now.
We were right to fight communism, and we're right to fight islamofacism now.
The military spending as a percent of GDP has fallen from about 5.5% in 1992 to 3.1% in 2007. (Per Wikipedia Total Military 2007 Funding is $439.3 Billion, US 2007 GDP is 13.8 Trillion)
In the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts more has been accomplished with fewer American lives lost than in any previous conflict.
Smart weapons, sophisticated communication, command & control systems save lives, all with less money.
I think we're doing pretty well, keep up the good work!
Those on this post that defend the spending need to read another book written by a Marine corps Major General and 2 Medal of Honor winner
Smedley Darlington Butler and his book "War is a Racket"
I thought like many on this site do at one time, that read the newspapers and believed what they were told and felt that they were well informed. This is a short book and worth reading here it is for free: www.horstwisdom.com/wi...
This is very relevant to an investment forum because we Americans are all being robbed by our government!
Lookup the Hegelian Dialectic and, if you have a thinking bone in your body, you may begin to research and truly understand our past, present and future as mankind. You won't like the future, but it may save you and those you love.
> jack
Has anyone seen the last month's inflation numbers? Almost 10% annualized. Did you know that a quarter of your federal income taxes go to pay INTEREST on the debt?
Did anyone notice that the Soviet Union collapsed, not from invasion, but from within, when its economy could no longer support its military expenses? They went from superpower to a 3rd world "developing" country in about 20 years because they were persuaded to devote more and more resources to non-productive military expenses. Why not worry about this kind of damage occurring to us? Collapse from within is the most likely situation that could END the US. Impoverished religious nuts from the Mid East with box cutters - not so much.
> jack
> jack
Considering the Great Game as if players are identically motivated, unicultural, playing for the same purpose and even keeping score the same way is a recipe for disaster.
Treating policy goals as an endstate or a destination is to misunderstand the complex, dynamic and uncertain nature of the world.
The policy questions of what goals to pursue, the size of the committment in view of other competing options, considerations of risk and reward, the opinions of other players and observers, alignment with core values, all are important aspects of the same wicked problem, as well as the technical debate on how to achieve the stated goals. Sometimes you have to talk about just the individual components in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, but you have to remember that they have to be put back together and understood from a systems dynamics perspective as well.
I found your thoughts thoughtful and balanced, and am glad you took the time to write.
If interested in more dialogue in a different forum, my email is longke@yahoo.com
cheers,
ken
This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history. The top 20% in the U.S. received 89% of the economic growth since 1983. Supply side economics only benefits the rich, period. The lower 40% achieved a negative growth in wealth over the same period. I suppose 80% of us are just lazy communist sympathizers. The right has it wrong on just about every issue.
What the author fails to note is the part that conservative thinking has played in this massive military buildup. Conservatives have embraced an ideology of never negotiating with those who it deems to be "evil".
This black and white, us and them, good verses evil thinking is absurd and childish. This has been going on since before WW2 and is the mind set of the whole conservative movement, as far as foreign policy goes.
And this thinking has proved to be wrong in every case.
I would suggest reading the new book "U.S. and Them" by Scoblic. You will see that this mindset has always been wrong on foreign policy issues, and we see the same thing today with the administration's refusal to negotiate with countries it doesn't like. It was negotiating from strength that got us through the cold war. If it had been up to conservatives, we would have already had a nuclear war with the Soviet Union long ago. They couldn't let go of the idea of a winnable nuclear holocaust.
What's odd about this is that much of conservative thinking comes from an uninformed interpretation of Darwins theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest. The
fit survive more by cooperation, not by beating the other side over the head. If you look at nature, symbiosis among species, is how species survive, not just by killing off other species.
In the conservative way of thinking, individual freedom and responsibility has become every man for himself, which makes no sense, since the whole point of having any society or civilization is for the mutual benefit of the members thereof. These days, the mere suggestion of sharing, is met with accusations of communist sypathizing.
Want to solve the Social Security problem? Simple, stop giving it to those who don't need it. McCain gets close to $2000 a month in SS payments, yet he is managing to run for president, and doesn't seem to be hurting for money. He also receives full military medical benefits, yet won't vote for more benefits for veterans. So much for supporting the troops. The same can be said of the Republican party in general. They support sending young men to war and won't help them when they return.
Worried about nuclear proliferation. Good, lets fill the world with nuclear reactors, that ought to help. But invest in renewable energy that will never need any fuel ever?
If I am to understand some of the comments above, it is more cost effective to spend billions being the worlds policeman, than to spend it on our own citizens. Ok!
Does the MIC abuse or misuse some of the monies provided them? Of course they do ... just like the government, et al, does, especially our elected officials at ALL levels.
So please tell me how much a nation must spend to become the holder and deliverer of nuclear devices, ranging from dirty bombs to the BIG one? No, this author's thesis is a most spurious one, to say the least; and to say nothing of how dangerous it is to even have this mind set. There is NOTHING more important than the safety and security of this country and no greater responsibility of government. So I say keep the MIC honest through serious oversight, but beyond that I say God Bless our MIC.
And finally, while this author loves to quote Eisenhower I can tell him that while Eisenhower may, and I stress may, have been a great general (and that is open to serious debate when one looks at many of his decisions that caused far more casulties than was necessary and when compared to other commanders), as the President he was hated by the military, and I'm not speaking of the MIC but the soldiers, as he systimatically lowered their pay and destroyed their benefits (as one example, he put them under the Social Security system vs. an excellent retirement pension program). No, not only was Eisenhower not a friend of the MIC but as President he was equally no friend to those who chose to continue service for the protection of this country. I know because I was one of those he screwed!
Let me start my main comments by looking at the larger global picture and drill down to the 50 meter target. We only have one planet. It’s a fact that if our third rock from the sun disappears tomorrow the human race will cease to exist. So if we as the human race don’t take action to protect the planet know of us will have a future? Who care’s who started the war or first implemented poor environmental management, we will all suffer. Now it’s already been discussed how many great minds we have that are developing new ways to kill. To be fair there are an also a lot of great minds who know how to create things so wonderful that everyone has to take notice. Our dilemma as a human race is how to work through our issues and increased technological capabilities to allow our kids to have a future. I just have to reflect back to the closing scenes of Stanley Kubrick’s movie “Doctor Strangelove” to see the results of a global lack of corporation.
Therefore I think we have to be careful and good stewards of our planet. We need a better global long term plan. The UN is a place to start, because it’s the only recognized world body that almost everyone still respects. However, the human condition being what it is, you will always have one country on top. Right now that appears to be the United States of America. So in my opinion America should act like a world leader and work within the UN to help solve the world’s problems? I am not saying we should also police the world, but we should use our influence to help and persuade other countries properly govern their own territory. America just cannot go it alone anymore. Globalization has ended that forever. The world community is too interconnected. For example America went to war with Iraq without the full backing of many of the major world powers. Well guess what? Now we are almost begging for many of these same world powers for assistance. Reason our short war was not properly planned and many who raised concerns were replaced in our government. I am not saying we should have gone into Iraq or not gone into Iraq, its academic now, but I am saying if we had planned it better by listening to both sides of the argument and worked within the UN, we may have accomplished more in a shorter amount of time. Another example is what America was able to do with UN backing for Desert Shield / Desert Storm. The mandate was to liberate Kuwait and that is exactly what we did. It operation was short, violent and successful. The UN mandate was not to topple Saddam at that time. Now deals will have to be made. Why do you think America is taking a small profile in the Russia verse Georgia crises? America needs Russia help in other international arenas. International politics is almost never black and white, it’s almost always grey.
This brings me to my final point. I have seen the arguments in this blog and on actual government reports concerning how much America spends on national defense. America spends a lot, but we also spend a lot of money on health care and other domestic infrastructure concerns. I think we need a better balance between military and domestic spending. One thing we can use to achieve better balance is to enforce better accountability. Money is a resource that should give me capability. With that new capability I should be able to influence a local or global situation either at home or abroad. If an international defense contractor or a local government public health official promises me that with so much money they can deliver a capability by a certain date then I expect that promise to be kept. Too many public, private and government agencies get away with wasting money, because they are not held accountable. This simple oversight action will cut down on waste and ensure the American public get’s what it needs. This oversight does not mean increased government involvement; it’s not a one agency take charge issue. It’s a mind set and way of thinking to better enforce the rules and regulations already in place. Let’s face it everything cost money, however; if you enforce accountability you will help ensure the American people get the capabilities they need to better manage American society and help in the development of a new long term plan for the country. On an international level a new sense of American accountability could rub off on the UN and with American leadership ensure we have a long term vision for the future to give our grandchildren.
I have a great place to start to cut our military budget, how about we don't send our ships to help Indonesia when they get hit by a tsunami. How about we don't send them to help all other huminitarian problems. When did our military become the world's meal on wheels?
Furthermore, and more importantly, we spend so much because we value technology. We would rather spend more and lose fewer men, while countries like China and Russia trade technology for dead soldiers.
We spend to protect the entire world. Europe spent nothing on defense in the cold war, we did all the heavy lifting. These same Europeans whose continent is on the verge of total collapse can not keep an economy going even when they spend nothing on their own defense. Then they have the audacity to tell us that we are wrong in our Iraq pursuits? Yeah we were wrong in their eyes becuase Iraq was one of their major trading partners and all they care about is trying to make money any way possible. Now we are going through the same thing with Iran.
I don't care what the world thinks of us when they are completely irrational. So France and Germany are being bribed by Iraq and then I should care that they think badly about us acting against Iraq? These people should have no say in what the US does, and rightfully so. I don't take foreign policy advice from losers like France. Losers like that caused WWII and rolled over to the Nazis in two weeks. In the end it was our dead boys lying on the beaches and hedge rows or Normandy, paying for their dream of "can't we all just get along."
It's probably just cognitive disonance but when you have the same opinions as the French, Germans, Wussies, Russians, Chinese and Losers maybe you should check your opinions instead of questioning the greatest country that ever existed.
And thanks Realist... your nonsense neocon rant was some of the most despicable arrogance I have seen in a long time... and a perfect explanation for much of what is wrong with America in the eyes of the the rest of the planet these days. Not that a cretin like you would care.
You are a comunitarian! If you don't know what you are look it up.
I am a libertarian. I don't want to have a group of people that regulate me, with out my say. Remember what Paine said in "Common Sense"? Probably not if you spout out the crap like you just said, yet you claim to be an American.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Paine “Common Sense” 2/14/1776
Being an American is about personal independence and ownership, yes ownership, "I am" is the phrase we use not "ours". It is MY work, not our work, it is MY property not our property. I am not a slave, I own my life. I am sovereign and I delegate to the government I don't ASK government for permission they ask ME for permission! That is being American! Liberty is what America stands for, the shining city on a hill that leads by example. I said Example not Coercion.
People like you, that wish to regulate, and regulate and want for the common good and want to rule by committee and like averages. You know what average is? It is half way to terrible! I want excellent and you don't get excellent by making everyone average. So if you want average and you want community and common good and you want everyone to be equal through regulation by the Elite then go back to Europe or where ever you spent those 8 wonderful years but, don't go to Asia because they at least know what being excellent is! This communitarion crap you spout will not work there, they have had their chance to have a good long look at average and below average for quite a while and you know what. The Asians don't like it, who could blame them.
I want freedom to let people do what they want to do, be what they want to be. What is good for me is usually good for others.
Before you say you’re proud to be an American learn what it means to be an American! Read Paine, Monroe, Jefferson & Adams ( the guy on the beer not the president).
And if those aren't your ideals then you might not be an American. It is your Ideas that make you an American not your birthplace. If you love liberty and hate violence. If you own your life, labour and ideas and would never be a slave or steal those of others. If you take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Then you are an American I don't care where you were born! If these don’t apply to you then YOU are NOT one of us! You should then find your own people and do what ever it is that you all want to do and stop trying to OWN us!
We Americans have had about enough of this crap, we are unbeatable. America is an idea you can’t kill ideas. We can’t loose! Your system will not work, it requires control, our system does not
Anyone thinking that's the way things should be knows nothing of history, imperialism, the evils of big government mercantilism and demonstrates diminished, anti-logical, anti Constitutional, erratic behavior and thought. We've now been in Iraq longer than it took us to win WWII with no end in sight and the costs to our government have been paid by debasing our money and killing our economy (not to mention thousands of our young men and women in the military), in my opinion, George Bush has done more harm to our country and our economy than any terrorist could have ever hoped to achieve and is the worst president I've seen in my nearly 54 years on Earth (and this ain't your mothers DemocRAT talking here either. The only thing worse than a George Bush style Republican is an aqueousing, go along to get along, tax and spend, BIG government loving DemocRAT. Did I mention my choice and respect for Ron Paul?)
George Bush as a respected American president, who stands for freedom and liberty as well as free markets and honest money making our country respected throughout the world?? PLEASE!!! George Bush and his cronies ( especially Henry Paulson and every Wall Street insider currently in the employment of the Treasury Dept, as well the pagan worshiping atheists at the FED) should be arrested and jailed at once and ON THE SPOT for crimes against America dating back many years. Till that happens, which it won't, we'll continue being the scorn of the world, nothing in our economy will improve or change except for getting worse and eventually their all-mighty dollar will fail just as their form of government will fail, taking millions and their wealth with them. These vermin that're left should then be hunted down and jailed like the common criminals they really are. But until that happens I'll stick to my contrairian ways and buy more gold and silver and pray every night that God is good and that criminals both at home and abroad, get their just rewards. After all, their days are numbered and as history shows, their game is about up. You know it, I know and it and (most importantly) they know it...
To your second point about terrorism being everywhere-there acts are visible but the perpetrators are not. The acts are not the enemy-the terrorists are. So-to answer your question-I live on Earth and do not get my "news" from FOX, nor do I get my history from the Discovery Channel (though the Discovery Channel can be great)
The retirement system of US soldiers is *still* one of the best in the public or private sectors not made of gold - what other company out there will pay an inflation-adjusted pension of 50% of your pay *for life* after only 20 years on the job? Find me a job that will pay someone a pension beginning at age 37 *for life*, guaranteed by the federal government, and I'll be at their doorstep looking for a job.
For a LtCol, that's a mortgage payment, food, utilities, car, and a country club membership, and that's just a mid-grade officer...
Article of course is spot on ... the USA is a great country but its storehouse of wisdom and wealth has been criminally squandered in eight years by this administration. A wrecking operation of historical proportions. Contrast the eloquence and insight of Eisenhower in his MIC speech - and remember this was a real military man and a Republican - with the cynical, comicbook fantasy, lies and manipulation of GW Bush's 'smoking gun mushroom cloud' speech.
YES! 100,000 members of the U.S. military perished during that EXPERIMENT to convert NORTH KOREA and VIETNAM to CAPITALISM...
Presently, the FEDERAL RESERVE and CONGRESS are EXPERIMENTING with ideas...these 100,000 men would not accept!
Defense $ are being spent, as if one is perparing to confront the "BIG BOY'S"...
Since WWII, only three men had the... to confront the "BIG BOY'S"...
Size of Japan=California and present day Germany=1/2 of Texas!
One can surmise who the "BIG BOY'S" are...
The Three: Patton, MacArthur and Kennedy were all soon powerless after their "chest beating"...
IRONICALLY, it is the "BIG BOY'S" who finance our "spendthrift" ways!
DO NOT BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU!!
How exactly did the investment in our nuclear submarine and carrier fleet prevent any of the attacks culminating in 9/11? And yet we are still building more of them, for instance the "George H.W. Bush". Funny, huh? A strong defense is vital, and the technology geek in me marvels at some of this stuff as much anybody, but even now, a single kayak paddling over from Canada could pack enough biological agent to wipe out Detroit. We're lucky any would-be terrorists aren't that bright after all.
Mathematics of Rule:
www.nazisociopaths.org...
Bill Ross
(electronics design engineer)
Department of Homeland Security: $46.4 billion for defense of the country.
Department of State: $25.3 billion is spent on foreign military assistance
(primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt, and Pakistan).
Department of Energy: $23.4 billion goes toward developing and maintaining nuclear warheads
Department of Veterans Affairs: currently gets at least $75.7 billion, 50% of which goes for the long-term care
of the grievously injured among the at least 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and another 1,708
in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate.
Department of Justice: $1.9 billion for the paramilitary activities of the FBI
Department of the Treasury: ; $38.5 billion for the Military Retirement Fund.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $7.6 billion for the military-related activities.
Add to the the well over $200 billion in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays.
This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during 2008, to at least $1.1 trillion.
First, this nation spends less that 5% of GDP on defense. Even taking into account the amount spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, expenditures are still less than 10% of GDP. Now compare that with WWII where over 45% of our GDP was tied up in the War effort. Hmmmm........not an overly significant amount.
Second, the axe you are grinding perhaps doesn't take into account that the success of US economic power is directly linked to access and the preservation of US national interests. Which by the way is often dependent on relationships that not only are fostered by Corporate America and Dept. of State, but Dept. of Defense as well.
So, while I enjoyed your article (and it was very informative) I think if you are going to make a cogent argument for shrinking defense spending I would recommend that you expand your research and include all the facts. I also recommend that if you are concerned about bloated Govt spending then perhaps you should capture some of the ridiculous social spending that goes on to appease voter blocks and special interests. There's plenty of it to go around, both liberal and conservative.
Also be sure to give the Army or Marines a call the next time you go oversees for vacation or business and find yourself in place not to friendly to the US and you suddenly have to leave. Good thing we built those extra helicopters and that additional aircraft carrier. The world is a dangerous place - thank God for a strong defense establishment.
And for all of you who think the Department of Homeland Security, Dept. of State, FBI, CIA, Dept. of Treasury, etc..... make up the Defense Establishment you need to go back to Govt. 101. Those organizations make up the Interagency, not the Department of Defense. I think I would call that "Big Government" which by the way is a liberal concept. Unfortunately for the conservatives they drank the "Big Government" kool-aide; look where it got them.