Out of curiosity, if we were to increase our manpower what hardware would you support giving up?

Hasn't one of the big complaints from the left been that we haven't gotten enough equipment for our troops in Iraq? Body armor, up armored hummers, etc?

I've heard that we spend 10 times as much on our military as the rest of the world COMBINED. This chart is not far from that.

For crying out loud, how about if we cut our "defense" spending in half?

What if we spend only 3 or 4 or 5 times as much as the rest of the world combined? Is that enough?

This post should be a reminder that sometimes history serves us poorly, when circumstances change. At the root of the growth of military expenditures is competition among the US military services (and the intelligence agencies as well).

If the Air Force wants/needs a new generation fighter aircraft, then the Marines and the Navy want one too. But not the same aircraft (we've tried that approach, and the services undermine or bypass every time) because their 'needs' are unique!

Here we are today, with a pressing need to coordinate our actions in regions, so we appoint a guy in each region to have overall command (Southern Command, Central Command, Africa Command, NATO, Special Operatons Command, Pacific Command, etc.). But all the Command CIC's forces are separated by 'service', and their desire to cooperate is checked by loyalty to their service and its command structures - all the way to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Now, I'm not arguing that specialists are not needed: clearly landing a fighter plane on a carrier is different than landing a B-2 bomber on its long runway. But every company and corporation in the world must have specialists of one kind or another. But we wouldn't even think about having the company broken up into rival branches that all require the same resources and have highly overlapped missions.

Any CEO worth hiring would realize that much of the time and money spent in the organization would be infighting among internal structures, and therefore inefficient and counterproductive. That's where we are today in the multiple services and branches of our military.

Let's take a page out of the Battlestar Galactica playbook and have "The United States Military Service" (singular). One flag, one uniform, one command structure, one consolidated list of needed weapons, one accountable entity.

Dave,

My vote is for missile defense. Why spend billions deploying a system that works 50% of the time in ideal conditions (e.g. we know where it came from and where it's going ahead of time).

How dare we keep our military so ill-funded compared to the other nations of the world? If we cannot manage to invest at least 1000 times the grand total of all other nations on Earth combined into our Defense budget, how can we call ourselves truly free?

Lost in this is how much Iran spends, vis-a-vis it's GDP.

That doesn't make it any less vile, how much the US spend.

If only all those military industrial corporations could diversify, get weaned off the war gig, and start sucking off a different government teat. It's just a lot easier to get gigantic no-bid contracts that supposedly attack terrorists, rather than say red-light camera running; something Lockheed Martin is doing here in Maryland.

One could argue that America has much larger trans-national interests than most other countries do. We spend more money than many other nations combined and have bases around the world because we want to protect the integrity of oil and gas pipelines, shipping lanes, and create a disincentive against other countries protecting such interests on its own, and thus becoming a rival with interests that don't align with ours.

It's not just about protecting ourselves. It's about ensuring that we're not even the least bit dependent on anyone else when it comes to protecting our interests.

Yes, to a degree, I'm sure a significant portion of the spending is "military spending to protect our ability to engage in more military spending." However, I also suspect that the spending necessary to protect interest as large as ours scales geometrically with the size of our interests, and thus is going to naturally look out of proportion to spending of other countries.

I think the thing that is being missed here is that we're looking at the watered-down DoD figure-- the one that doesn't include the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental.

When you include that, we spend more than half of the world's military spending. While we do have larger international interests than many countries, surely we don't have larger interests and commitments than everyone else in the wold put together?

What this shows is that the problems with our military do not lie with the amount of money being spent, but with the paradigms that determine how the funds get allocated.

Our military, personnel-wise, isn't really all that big. A disproportionate number of our military are support personnel, not frontline troops. There's something like a 10:1 ratio in Iraq. The current operating paradigm is screamingly inefficient, and proving to be ineffective for achieving our desired goals.

Rumsfeld wasn't wrong to suggest we need a new military doctrine. It's just that what he implemented is also unworkable given what we're actually using the military to accomplish.

I wish people woudl wake up an realize this and with it that radical Islam is no bigger a threat to the west than crime on the streets is!

thus contributing to a venture that most all security experts agree has dramatically reduced our safety

About teh above, oh come now! You got to be kidding. You sound like a republican fear monger.

Anyone who doubts whether Ezra is a good American should note that among the "hostile" nations, he includes France.

Looking at this at this chart leads me and, I think, every sane person to the same question. Why the hell haven't we taken over the world yet? They're clearly no match for us!

To the extent that oceans are protection, the United States is protected by three.

Looking at this at this chart leads me and, I think, every sane person to the same question. Why the hell haven't we taken over the world yet? They're clearly no match for us!

If you're looking for fat to trim, the Navy's a good place to start with its large collection of trillion-dollar carrier battle groups, or as Gary Brecher calls them, artificial reefs in waiting.

But actual defensive value isn't the issue here: it's feeding the mil-ind complex and perpetuating the idea that the US can outspend the rest of the globe combined. That's unsustainable.

The chart is highly misleading. Which I'm sure is the intent. The only comparable country on the chart in terms of per capita wealth is France. If you look at defense spending as a share of GDP, we spend maybe 1.6 times as much as France. And probably a similar multiple in comparison to most of the other wealthy democracies. So yes, our spending is high in comparison to our foreign contemporaries, but it's not that high. And it's pretty easy to explain in terms of our unique position in the world. We're basically the world's policeman, and our defense spending reflects that.

Our tax dollars are turned into so many arms and munitions that there is a surplus around the world, and these extra piles of bullets and guns and rocket launchers routinely get sold to the scummiest despots and criminals on the planet. More misery, more of the people's money shat away on more guns, more violence, more misery.

The chart isn't misleading. I really don't get why military spending as percentage of GDP would be a useful indicator. Does being a poor country and spending a high proportion of your small wealth somehow make you more dangerous? The point is that the US military is simply colossal. Making countries like Iran out to be a threat because they might spend a higher proportion of their GDP on arms is what's misleading; a high percentage of nothing doesn't get you much.

Also, this "trans-national interest" annd "world's policeman" stuff only makes sense if you think the USA should be an imperialistic power with the right to meddle anywhere is we see fit. After all, these unfathombale sums of money aren't being spent on peace-keeping missions, or defending American Samoa from marauders, they're being spent on shiny new aircraft carrier groups, long-range missiles, cluster-bombs, and garrisoning troops around the world where they're not needed.

Jason thinks it's misleading because he thinks the important thing is how militaristic the furriners might be in their hearts, rather than their actual military capabilities. Jason is an ignoramus.

and try running that giant military when the oil begins to run down. That'll be a real feat. And it'll also be the beginning of the end of our imperial ambitions.

It's been predicted that this alone will bring on Police-State America. And it may well.

I really don't get why military spending as percentage of GDP would be a useful indicator.

Why wouldn't you expect defense spending to broadly track GDP? Most other kinds of spending do.

The point is that the US military is simply colossal.

It's really only "colossal" because America is very rich and has so many people. If Britain or France had 300 million people, their military budgets would be "colossal" also.

Also, this "trans-national interest" annd "world's policeman" stuff only makes sense if you think the USA should be an imperialistic power with the right to meddle anywhere is we see fit.

No it doesn't. The role of a policeman is to maintain law and order, not "imperialism."

The role of a policeman is to maintain law and order, not "imperialism."

And precisely what standard of 'law and order' does the US apply around the world, Jason?

Stick that bullshit analogy in the trash.

Pseudonymous in nc,

If you're looking for an example of the U.S. military enforcing 'law and order,' then look no further than the war in Bosnia

If you think there's another policeman out there, pseudo, where is he? Or would you just prefer anarchy?

It's really only "colossal" because America is very rich and has so many people. If Britain or France had 300 million people, their military budgets would be "colossal" also.

Also, if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a pushcart. Why is this in any way relevant?

You know whose budget would be really colossal if it had 300 million people? Singapore. Cower in fear, America, you aren't really safe! The Singies will crush you all! (as a percentage of GDP)

Why is it in any way relevant to what?

"Anonymous"

I guess you also believe that our huge population and vast wealth is not "relevant" to why we spend so much more than other countries on food, or energy or toothpaste, either.

If you really can't understand the link between population, wealth and level of spending, never mind.

Shorter Tyro: empires cost money

Shorter (other) Jason: I don't know the difference between a policeman and a mafia don

Jason (not C.), you simply don't understand the topic of this post.

The question at hand is whether there's any valid reason for U.S. military spending to equal 43% of the total for the entire world.

You seem to think that the ratio between a particular country's military spending and the world's military spending should be equal to the ratio of its population to the world's population, or the ratio of its GDP to the world's GDP.

First of all, your argument is a non sequitur because its underlying factual premise is incorrect. The United States' population is far less than 43% of the population of the world. And even its GDP is less than 43% of the world's GDP.

Second, even if your facts weren't completely wrong, your point would still be wrong. To see why, let's work through this handy thought experiment. Let's say the earth is divided into three countries, and that the world's population is broken down as follows.

Country A: 90%
Countries B&C: 5% each

Should Country A set its military spending at 90% of the earth's total? Of course not. That would be pointless and stupid, because even if its military spending were one fourth that amount, there would still be no other country in the world who would be able to challenge it. The whole reason why it's advantageous to be that large and/or rich is that you don't have to rack up a proportionate share of world military spending. You can spend a much smaller amount and still be superior to any of your potential rivals. For the same reason, very small countries (like Singapore) are forced to spend a disproportionate amount of money on their militaries, and that is a disadvantage. The U.S. is one of the bigger countries in the world and has the biggest economy by far, yet it's acting like Singapore and that's stupid.

geez, guys, why so hard on poor Jason? we're the world policeman cause we enforce international law--oh. shit.

There are other factors here too. First, you need to take purchasing power parity (PPP) into account. I have no idea the exact figure, but recruiting, training and providing equipment to the US solider probably costs a few times more than that of a Chinese solider. So it would be appropriate to adjust the Chinese budget into international dollars (to take account of PPP), and it would probably be closer to $180 billion in 2005, not $60 billion. Also, many defense analysts believe China spends more than that $60 total, so the real PPP adjusted total might even be as high as $250 billion. Still smaller than ours, but the comparison is less ridiculous.

Also, right or wrongly (probably wrongly), the US prepares to fight anywhere in the world. Most countries only plan to fight on their home turf, so they only need a force structure for that contingency. The U.S. on the other hand feels it needs to have troops at home, at regional bases across the world, troops deployed in warfare (such as Iraq), and some further reserves to deter other adversaries. That means more soldiers and equipment since we can only use part of it in a conflict at a given time. It also has to be higher quality, since we can't bring all of our firepower to bear for one campaign without abandoning U.S. and our regional bases (the whole empire thing as another poster mentioned). So you have war planners thinking, "well, we can only probably base 300-400 fighters in south east asia if there is a crisis with China/Taiwan. F-15s /F-16s in that amount probably won't be able to guarantee air superiority against a Chinese force of J-10s and J-11s, so we'll need to buy F-22s, which cost significantly more than any other fighter aircraft to produce, but add 100-150 F-22s and we almost certainly would have air superiority in that event". As mad as fighting a large nuclear power sounds, our planners think that way. So we prepare based on those plans and it costs a lot of cash. We also guarantee the freedom of the seas via the U.S. Navy - no one else has a navy that could accomplish that task, and someone has to do it.

A good way to cut spending is to reduce the global police force mission down to patrolling the seas, and perhaps keep a few key foreign bases (maybe in the UK, Japan and Diego Garcia), and close the rest (I think we have something like 700+ overseas bases currently), and abandon the requirement to fight two simultaneous wars.

If you think there's another policeman out there--

Answer the damn question, Jason. Or, if you need a hint, look at metaleptic's comment.

Precisely what standard of 'law and order' does the US apply around the world? Who determines that standard?

What standard does a policeman apply, and who determines that standard?

The question at hand is whether there's any valid reason for U.S. military spending to equal 43% of the total for the entire world.

Several issues have been raised here. You suggested that a nation's wealth and population are not "relevant" to the size of its military budget. That claim is utterly absurd. Of course they're relevant. The larger the population, the more it will cost to defend. And the richer the nation, the more it will be able to afford to spend on defense. Just as with any other kind of product or service.

First of all, your argument is a non sequitur because its underlying factual premise is incorrect. The United States' population is far less than 43% of the population of the world.

I have made no argument that rests on the premise that the U.S. population is 43% of the world population. You are hopelessly confused.

Should Country A set its military spending at 90% of the earth's total? Of course not. That would be pointless and stupid, because even if its military spending were one fourth that amount, there would still be no other country in the world who would be able to challenge it.

Another utterly nonsensical argument. The magnitude of the global military threat to a nation, and the effectiveness of the defense that nation may wish to provide itself against that threat, is not simply a matter of the size of the military budget of its closest single rival nation. America faces many potential threats from many nations. It also helps to provide defense for many of its allies around the world. And defense generally costs much more than offense. Those are some of the other reasons for America's high level of military spending, in addition to its large population and great wealth.

I don't know what "standard of law and order" is supposed to mean, pseudo. What "standard of law and order" do you believe the U.S. ought to "apply?" Or do you believe it should just stand by and do nothing to stop other countries from attacking it, or one another?

The larger the population, the more it will cost to defend. And the richer the nation, the more it will be able to afford to spend on defense. Just as with any other kind of product or service.

Ezra makes the fair point that though our nation is large, its geographic peculiarities would seem to mitigate against the need for such outsized military spending.

Once we normalize for the higher salaries that our military is paid compared to, say, India's, the reason for our huge military comes down to:

o Certain strategic areas need to be secured by someone

o We have convinced ourselves that we don't want anyone else doing it

A common retort regarding the low military spending by other countries is that they benefit from the spending we do to provide security. The flip side is that our military has decided that it is in our interest that no one else take care of many military security issues. Plus, if there seems to be any lack of American military presence in a region we might consider strategic, like in Bulgaria, we try to put bases there. Are they necessary? Do we need them? Do they serve our interests in a way that couldn't be served some other way? Who knows-- but policymakers have convinced themselves it's necessary.

Several issues have been raised here. You suggested that a nation's wealth and population are not "relevant" to the size of its military budget.

No, I didn't. I said that your statement "If Britain or France had 300 million people, their military budgets would be 'colossal' also" was not relevant. Don't distort people's arguments and they won't take you to be a liar.

I have made no argument that rests on the premise that the U.S. population is 43% of the world population.

Well, there you go again. You have made the argument that relative defense spending should be proportional to relative population and/or GDP. For instance: "If you look at defense spending as a share of GDP, we spend maybe 1.6 times as much as France. And probably a similar multiple in comparison to most of the other wealthy democracies." I would advise you not to deny facts that can be verified by scrolling up the page.

America faces many potential threats from many nations. It also helps to provide defense for many of its allies around the world. And defense generally costs much more than offense. Those are some of the other reasons for America's high level of military spending, in addition to its large population and great wealth.

I'll give you partial credit for coming up with something that almost resembles an actual argument. Of course, it isn't an argument that you articulated in any of your previous comments. It's also a bad argument on the merits, because it presumes, for no good reason, that the US is somehow fated to keep on involving itself in the affairs of many other nations around the world. But this is not an obligation, it is a policy adopted by choice.

JD,

I think we have something like 700+ overseas bases currently

According to the 2005 Base Structure Report, as of that year the U.S. Department of Defense had only 16 large foreign military installations, where "large" is defined as having a total value of about $1.5 billion or more. The Army has 1, Navy has 6, the Air Force has 7, and the Marine Corps has 2.

The 700+ number you mention refers to every individually recorded DOD "installation" in foreign territory, even just small unoccupied storage facilities or undeveloped areas of land. Calling these military "bases" is highly misleading, to say the least.

I said that your statement "If Britain or France had 300 million people, their military budgets would be 'colossal' also" was not relevant.

That statement can only be "not relevant" if population is "not relevant" to military budget Make up your mind. Is it or isn't it?

You have made the argument that relative defense spending should be proportional to relative population and/or GDP.

No, I did not say that defense spending "should" be proportional to population or GDP. Read my posts more carefully, and stop attributing to me statements I haven't made.

It's also a bad argument on the merits, because it presumes, for no good reason, that the US is somehow fated to keep on involving itself in the affairs of many other nations around the world.

Yet another utterly nonsensical assertion. The statement of mine you quote describes some of the reasons for the high level of military spending by the U.S. It presumes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what the U.S. is "fated" to do, either now or in the future.

It is rather tedious to have to keep correcting your endless misrepresentations of what I write. I can only assume you keep doing this because you have no serious response to my actual statements.

Ezra makes the fair point that though our nation is large, its geographic peculiarities would seem to mitigate against the need for such outsized military spending.

I guess this is a reference to Ezra's bizarre assertion that "we're protected by an ocean." Apparently, he's never heard of ships, missiles or aircraft, all of which are capable of launching attacks across oceans. Even more naively than that, he seems to think the military exists solely to protect the U.S. mainland (and maybe Hawaii and Puerto Rico) from direct attack, when in fact its primary role since at least the end of the cold war has been to deter aggression against U.S. allies or interests in distant parts of the world.

The larger the population, the more it will cost to defend.

This is just plain weird. How much it costs to defend your country depends on the size of the threat, not the size of your country.

Iran successfully defended itself against Iraq's invasion with (let's say) an Iranian army of 30 divisions. Iran's 30 times the size of Kuwait. Do you honestly think that Kuwait should have been able to hold off the Iraqi army with a single division, just because Kuwait is small? That's irrational.

Just to throw a fact into this discussion (especially for Jamey upthread): according to the CIA world Factbook, in 2006 Iran spent 2.5% of its GDP on defense, and the US spendt 4%. This in a context where Iran was directly surrounded by highly unstable countries, two of which are occupied by an avowed enemy of Iran with a gigantic military. The US really is unusual in the proportion of money spent on defense, not just raw quantities.

its primary role since at least the end of the cold war has been to deter aggression against U.S. allies or interests in distant parts of the world.

Right. Just like the British in India or the French in the Maghreb. See, isn't it silly to call America's foreign policy "imperial"?

The graph is like the one on my True Majority pen.

Tyro makes a good point about spending per soldier and I would like to see the graphs normalized on that data point, because I have no problem if we provide more benefits per soldier than other countries.

I think its fair to say that military spending ought to be influenced by GDP, which is to say an indicator of our interests both home and abroad. But also by other factors such as the size and locations of our potential threats, and the ability to protect the mainland from aggressors, should ones arise. (I'm thinking of a future Chinese state who might be able to actually challenge us in areas.)

But still, we are talking about a really, really, really large difference in spending here. And there is argument to say that the US prepares for threats that simply don't exist and with some that do exist, certain things, like say diplomacy, might work better.

All most of us True Majority is saying is that we could really reevaluate our spending from the bottom up and use that money to build a better America at home and a more respected America abroad. But that takes leadership from the top down to make that happen.

Couldn't we at least defer the question of military size until the aberrational Iraq War is unwound? We might find that for sensible threat scenarios we have a right-sized force already.

Couldn't we at least defer the question of military size until the aberrational Iraq War is unwound? We might find that for sensible threat scenarios we have a right-sized force already.

According to Anthony Damiani upthread, the graph already does ignore the Iraq War. If this presentation looks ridiculous, then throwing in the hundreds of billions of "supplemental" dollars won't make it look any more sensible.

This is particularly true in light of the last few years, where the size and power of our military fueled a vast overconfidence in its capabilities, which in turn helped ease our decision to invade Iraq, thus contributing to a venture that most all security experts agree has dramatically reduced our safety.

I don't understand the logic here. What, we should spend less on our military so we will have less confidence in its capabilities, so that we won't engage in stupid wars? The answer to avoiding stupid wars is not being stupid. The answer is not arbitrarily reducing our military capabilities. This is like some leftist twist on the "starve the beast" inanity that we hear from conservatives re: social welfare spending.

Of course, I don't have any principled opposition to reducing military spending if we think there is stuff (and there probably is) that is wasteful. But that has to be evaluated on the merits, not by some logic that throws the baby out with the bathwater.

But still, we are talking about a really, really, really large difference in spending here.

When you take into account America's large population, high GDP, diverse national interests, and global defense committments to its allies, the difference simply is not that large. And there's a strong case that it's not large enough.

A raw dollars-to-dollars comparison between different nations is no more relevant to the question of how much we ought to be spending on the military than to how much we ought to be spending on highways or energy or food or anything else.

The chart is highly misleading. Which I'm sure is the intent. The only comparable country on the chart in terms of per capita wealth is France. If you look at defense spending as a share of GDP, we spend maybe 1.6 times as much as France.

Of course, you are correct.

Using the same technique, the libs would have to acknowlege that the US gives more in foreign aid than almost all other countries combined.

I don't know what "standard of law and order" is supposed to mean, pseudo. What "standard of law and order" do you believe the U.S. ought to "apply?"

Nah, you're not playing that game, silly boy.

Answer the fracking question. I've pointed you to a hint already. Here's another one.

If the US is the 'world's policeman', as you claim, and '[t]he role of a policeman is to maintain law and order', what standard of law and order applies to the US's world-policing activities, and who determines it?

In what way might that possibly differ from the standard of law and order maintained by, say, a sheriff's deputy in the US? And to what extent might those differences make your definition of 'policing' problematic?

I don't know what "standard of law and order" is supposed to mean, pseudo. What "standard of law and order" do you believe the U.S. ought to "apply?" Or do you believe it should just stand by and do nothing to stop other countries from attacking it, or one another?

Good point, Anonymous.

According to this source, the U.S. spends far more on foreign aid than any other country. More than twice as much as France, and more than 6 times as much as Canada, for example.

By the logic of those claiming U.S. military spending is too high, the U.S. is clearly spending too much on foreign aid and should cut its spending dramatically.

And now the silly boy is repeating himself.

Are you really that dumb, Jason, or do you just play dumb on the internets?

Let's start simpe, silly boy: what standard of law and order does your local police force apply? Who determines that standard?

You were the one who invoked the police analogy, so defend it. Defend it in terms of legitimacy and agency. What makes a police officer's actions legitimate, and from where does he or she derive agency?

Once you answer that, we can move on to the grown-up questions.

Military spending also transfers wealth from persons called 'taxpayers' to other persons called 'corporations'.

While the former may put forward all sorts of entertaining arguments about global policmen and GDP, it is the latter who rule the country and determine what its priorities will be.

Certainly some military spending is legitimate to defend the country. Even more military spending is a practical necessity if one is to maintain a global empire. Military spending must be truly staggering however, if one is to rule the world without the risk of the citizen getting his ass shot off. Why this is such a big deal when Americans kill each other at a rate that Al Queda can only envy is a thing we can only speculate about.

At any rate, whatever the appropriate amount of military spending might be in some abstract world that we invent, in the real world around us the political elites will always want more of it, due to the (for them) pleasant effects I pointed out in the first paragraph above.

Military spending also transfers wealth from persons called 'taxpayers' to other persons called 'corporations'.

Who in turn transfer wealth back to persons also called "taxpayers." And of course, most other government spending involves the same kind of transfers, so there's nothing special about military spending in this respect.

Let me, again, ask that we stop quoting the watered down 43% number.