BLOATED MILITARY THREATENS SECURITY RATHER THAN INSURES IT

"Standing armies are inconsistent with a people's freedom and subversive of their quiet." Thomas Jefferson 1775

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2009 indicates that the average family spends about 13% of its income on food annually. What would you think of an average family that spent more 26% of its income on food? They may be just spendthrifts, gourmands, food connoisseurs, or just unable to control a habit. Regardless, of the reason it is mathematically certain that this family has less to spend on other essentials. It food habits threaten its long term well being. Supporting evidence of this certainty is that such a family is likely to live in a home which has fallen into disrepair, its automobile is an old,junker, with bad brakes, and the family's youngsters may have teeth in desperate need of repair. One might conclude this family has fallen into a bad habit--- spending too much on smokes, expensive take-out foods, snacks, ice cream, and pizza, a habit that has compromised their well-being. Food rather than providing nourishment, health, and growth threatens to undermine this family's well being. That is analogous to what has happened to the USA. We are spendthrifts too. But our habit is not addiction to food or cigarettes. Our spendthrift habit is military hardware and overseas military adventurism, which threaten our long term well being.

In 2012 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published a list of the top 15 military spenders. Their publication lists the US at the very top and notes that in simple gross dollar amounts the US spends as much as the next fourteen other top military spenders. The SIPRI yearbook lists the top spender as the US, spending $712 billion dollars on defense in 2011. China our nearest competitor in this category spent $143 billion. Russia spent only $72 billion. While both the UK and France spent about $63 billion each. That is, the only possible (but very unlikely) opponent in any conflict---China, spends only one fifth of what we do. Russia another nation sometimes categorized (unrealistically) as a potential enemy by some, spends only one-tenth of what we spend. Though unimaginable, we're we to have to tangle with both of these nations simultaneously we would have a better-than-three-to-one military spending advantage over them. So just who are we girding up to fight? Even if all these top fifteen nations unimaginably ganged up on us in a war...we would still be on a better than even footing on the basis of our military spending.

Looking at it another way, the World Bank figures for 2011 list military expenditures of 74 nations as a percent of their gross domestic product (GDP). A quick calculation from the published World Bank data indicates that on average, the world's nations (74 of them in this 2011 analysis) spend on average about 2.8% of their GDP on defense and military hardware. The US expenditure for the same period is listed as 4.7% of GDP. that figure is 167% higher than the world average. (Note that this figure is our published "defense spending" category, and is the "base budget" which does not include hundreds of billions more in costs for overseas deployments such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, or secret wars elsewhere, nor does it include hidden costs such as maintenance of nuclear stock piles, transportation of troops, health care for wounded veterans, etc. etc. )

If we examine other western industrialized nations, similar to ourselves, the exceptionalism of the USA in military largess (at 4.7% of GDP) is even more pronounced. Canada expended only 1.4% of its GDP on its military in 2011, while Australia spent 1.9%, China 2.0%, France 2.3%, Belgium 1.3%, Netherlands 1.4%, Denmark 1.5%, Germany 1.3%, Poland 1.7%, Russia 3.5%, Sweden 1.2%, Suisse 0.8%, Spain 1.0%, Turkey 2.3%, and our closest ally, the UK, spent only 2.5% of GDP on its military. The average military spending of this group in percent of GDP is 1.7%. Or only about a third of what the US--the world's self-designated policeman--spends of its GDP. It is noteworthy as well, that these nations almost all claim longer citizen lifespans, better health care and health outcomes, lower infant mortality rates, higher school children math test scores, and better, more modern transportation systems, electric grids and infrastructure. The answer is simple, if, as our gourmand family above, if we are overspending in one category (by spending about four dollars out of every ten on military hardware, foreign bases, unnecessary interventions and wars, in this nation, and we maintain one of the world's lowest tax rates on the wealthy) there is little excess available to spend on pressing long-term domestic needs of our citizenry and to improve our infrastructure.

As a nation, in a mostly pacified world, we may have the most powerful military with a many bases, big ships and big guns, but our country is on decline in every other category. Thus in a real way our military over-expenditure which acts to protect the world as a whole, permits other western nations to sit back and "let the USA do it". Our citizenry pay in the form of taxes for our protection but also for the safety our nation offers the rest of the world. We pay for it also in shorter lives, a skimpy social safety net, insufficient health care and inadequate investment in the nation's infrastructure. We live more like a third world country here, while our bloated defense spending helps to permit the Europeans and our Asian allies, as well as much of the rest of the world which falls under our military umbrella, to avoid those expenses and to live more stable, well-cared for affluent lives.

Another way to evaluate our over-spending on "defense" can be measured as the percent of our military costs compared to total global military spending. Measured this way, the USA (representing less than 5% of the Earth's total population) spends about 45 % of the world total on battleships, guns, bullets, armor, bombs, planes, drones, uniforms, etc. etc. That is---one nation the USA--- spends the bulk, 45%, or nearly half of the entire amount of all the world's military bill! The total US economy in 2011 comprised about $15.2 trillion dollars. That amount represented only 22% of the total global economy (of about $70 trillion dollars). Thus a nation representing only less than 5% of the world's population and which accounts for only a bit more than a fifth (1/5) of the world's economy, spent almost half of the money the entire world laid out on equipment like, guns, bombs, ships, planes and bullets. Why? Who are we so afraid of?

Were our military expenditures more in line with our economy and size, we might expect that as a nation which represent a bit more than a fifth of the global economy, we might be expected to spend a similar amount, say 20% of the world's total military bill, but you would be wrong. For the US is a military spendthrift. We spend more than double what you might expect. We are gun-hungry squanderers and by necessity (there being little money left) are domestic pinch pennies.

Our stated and published "Defense Spending" for 2011 was about $711 billion dollars or 4.7% of our $15.2 trillion dollar GDP. I have noted elsewhere in this blog, and previous ones that this "base" figure is only a fraction of the actual total.

Suppose our defense spending was more in line with other industrialized nations? Say if our defense budget was more like the western industrialized nations above, which spend at a rate of about 1.7% of their GDP. That value (1.7%) of our 2011 GDP of $15.2 trillion would be about $258 billion dollars. That amount is a far cry from the $711 billion we actually spent ( and more) on defense. Were we constrained to that figure, we might have to stop building some of those expansive, sumptuous, air-conditioned, palatial, military bases overseas. We now have some nine hundred (900) of them around the world and growing. We might have to eliminate some of the unnecessary duplication and competition between our Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy. Trim down our forces so as to come into line with real and existing threats. Our top generals might actually have to do some real work, rather than sit around like Marine Corps General John R. Allen and write thousands of pages of flirtatious emails to friendly women "pen" pals. Former General Petraeus might have had to actually spent his time diligently working for the US citizens who provided him with cushy living quarters, free staff, servants, health care and free transportation, rather than spending illicit hours dallying with nubile female admirers. Were we to drop our spending to one more in line with other industrialized western nations we would have had ($711- $258= $453) about $453 billion in hand that we somehow spent in wasteful, unproductive ways abroad and at home. That amount might have been spent on US infrastructure, health care, our children's education, etc. Or perhaps we could have simply put it toward reducing our budget deficit for that year. We would not have had to borrow as much money as we did---$1.3 trillion and our deficit could have been reduced to "only" ($1,300 - $453 = $847) $847 billion dollars.

Why do we overspend so much on our military? Some reasons for defense expenditures are fully justified. We do have legitimate defense requirements. We are a nation which depends on trade. Our nation's access to overseas markets must be protected for our export industries. But these expenses are "benefits" a form of "corporate welfare" paid out or the benefit of highly profitable, (and in some cases--as in the oil industry--enormously profitable enterprises). Why should these costs not be borne more equitably by the industries that profit from our military efforts?

But much of our overspending is from long habit. Our military expansionism began way back in the press-WW II era. Before that war our defense spending was much like those of modern western industrialized nations. During the war our defense spending grew to close to 45% of GDP. In the post war era we began a great competition with the Communist world, the USSR and Communist China. The Cold War continued until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. During that period we continued on a war footing. Fighting hot wars in Korea, and Vietnam. After a brief spell of peace (too brief) our military spending declined to about the the 3% level then the Iraq War and on into the War on Terror caused the percentage to climb back up. Our only yardstick for what our defense spending should be like dates back to pre WW II days when it was in the one and two,percent of GDP range, and what similar economies spend today (see above). Today after nearly three quarters of a century spending on our military as if we were existentially threatened, as it we were in a hot war we are like a drug addict, hooked on war-related spending. We have a military monkey on our back and a "golden" arm. Today our heavy spending is in part the result of the cosy relationship between the military and the industrial giants which provide military hardware, materiel and services, and the Congress which is flooded by lobby money derived from these sources. We have built industries to build weapons, and industries to support the industries which support weapons builders.

Our emphasis on military spending has made us first class warriors and second class citizens in the world. Our infrastructure is antiquated, our health care is less than adequate, our transportation systems, electrical grids, energy systems are all in need of refurbishment and investment. But we are the world's policeman, making the globe safe for international business, opening markets for our industries and in passing for those of China and the Asians and Europeans, while at home we collapse under the burden of debt and excess armament spending.

You will soon hear howls from the Congress and the vested interests in the military as some minor cuts are proposed by the Obama Administration in our bloated defense budget. Keep in mind that even under the most stringent cuts envisioned (not the ones I discuss here), even the sequestration proposal (across the board cuts) our military/defense budget will still GROW by 16% over the next several years. The cuts being proposed are cuts IN THE INCREASE of the defense budget, a light trimming down from 21% to 16%. Our defense budget will continue to grow, from its now bloated level to an even greater bloated level, but just not as fast even if the very deepest cuts spoken about today in Congress are actually put into effect. (A good piece to read on what should be cut is: "We spend too much on defense" by Gordon Adams, July 11, 2012, in "Aol Defense", and for a full explanation of why defense spending is out of control.

I suggest that a truly strong nation and a powerful defense posture requires full employment, a healthy citizenry, up-to-date infrastructure, a healthy middle class, and a sound robust economy. Such a nation can best withstand any external threat. As it stands today, our bloated military establishment is actually more of a long term threat to our security, than it is a bulwark against such threats, since it gobbles up resources today which could have been invested in needed domestic spending, structural changes, improved energy supplies, better transportation, more investment in the future and growth in the nation as a whole. Our military and the complex of industries, lobbyists and Congressional supporters in league with it are hollowing out the nation they claim to protect. This is not a wise or desirable situation for our future.

Get the picture?

rjk Peru, Vermont