Frenzy of Armament and Militarization

If the military clout of different countries were measured by the amount of money allocated for military spending, the United States would emerge the closest to a “military nation” with distinction!

Statements by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) indicate that the United States occupies first place internationally in the allocation of resources for armament, and it is responsible for the 58 percent increase in total global spending on military affairs. The last report from the institute states that U.S. “defense” expenditures amounted to $607 billion in 2008. While the entire world spent approximately $1.46 trillion on military matters last year, the U.S. alone burned through close to 41 percent of this astronomical figure.

These facts present us with quite the paradox, and a reflection that, in a nutshell, is: How do you reconcile the democracy pioneering position of the American system with it also having the most well-financed military system?

Some might argue that systemic militarization is one thing, but spending on defense and armament is another. Militarization means that generals are in positions of power that allow them to influence decision-making, and this is a foreign concept in the U.S. system.

The flaw in this observation lies in its superficiality and failure to see the details, which reveal that massive military spending is tied to broader interests economically, financially, and certainly politically. Some pundits and shrewd politicians realized this association and warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex, which “can devote and utilize both domestic and foreign policy to its advantage.” Other noteworthy inconsistencies in the report include the rise of military spending throughout 2008 on a global level by 4.5 percent compared to 2007. The Middle East alone witnessed a decline on this front, even though this region is considered to be the most volatile and within its breadth some of the oldest and most dangerous conflicts are simmering.

The report seems unconvincing when it attributes this phenomenon to the impact of the world financial crisis. Its results presumably should have reflected on the spending of other hard-hit countries more clearly, with the United States at the forefront. The fact of the matter is that countries in the Middle East are more likely suffering from an oversupply of armament that does not leave anyone wanting for more.

Using an undisclosed source, the report seems to reveal that many countries consider the process of beefing up their military institutions and amassing weapons a measure of their status on the regional or international ladder, or on both levels. Based on the actions of China, Russia and Iran, which doubled their military spending several times over the past decade, this is accurate. What is distressing in this context is that the entire world allocates 2.4 percent of its wealth to armament and readiness for battle. If these budgets were diverted to humanitarian service sectors such as health, education, social welfare, hunger and the eradication of poverty, we would be living in another world that is brighter and more magnificent.