The Military in the U.S. Won’tBe Poor No Matter HowPoor the U.S. Becomes

There’s a saying in China that education can’t be poor no matter how poor we become. In the U.S., the situation applies to the army.

At a time when the national debt is as high as the loan limit and the unemployment rate is around 9 percent, two facts can indicate the ostentation of America’s expenditure in national defense.

First, under the circumstance of government financial difficulty, many domestic projects were either cut or could hardly apply for funding, but national defense is an exception.

The 2010 White House budget was $664 billion. The budget needs to be discussed in Congress and get passed before it becomes a law. However, Congress finally allotted $680 million to the national defense department, which was $16 billion more than Obama administration had requested.

In the 2010 fiscal year, the defense department budget was 19 percent of the total federal budget and 28 percent of America’s tax revenue. If the military budget separate from the defense department is added, then the total military expenditure is 28-38 percent of the federal budget and 42-57 percent of the tax revenue.

Based on the data of the Congressional Budget Office, the national defense expenditure increased on average 9 percent every year from 2000 to 2009.

The second fact is that the U.S. is still paying for two costly wars. In 2010, America’s expenditure in Iraq was $71 billion; its expenditure in Afghanistan was $94 billion. This year it spent as much as $120 billion in Afghanistan.

Until the end of 2008, the direct expenditure in Iraq and Afghanistan was $900 billion. This fund doesn’t include the medical expenditure for 33,000 wounded people. Experts estimated that the medical expenditure may ultimately exceed the directly funded $900 billion used in the war.

What needs to be pointed out is that during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised several times that he would withdraw the army from Afghanistan. However, in the past two years, he didn’t withdraw the troops; instead he rearranged America’s deployment, transferring from the non-essential Iraq war to the Afghanistan war, which he called vital to America’s interest.

In 2009, he specially added 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Now, facing the pressure of remaining in office, he announced he would withdraw part of the added army next year at the latest. Nevertheless, retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan will be a long process.

In a country like the U.S., whose military spending accounted for 40 percent of global military spending, why can’t it cut part of that expenditure and use it in economic construction? In America, many people have called for the cutting of military spending; it turned out to be loud thunder but small raindrops.

For instance, this April, Obama announced that he would cut $400 billion in defense expenditure over the next 10 years. But he also pointed out that by no means would he cut the vital projects that related to national security and America’s overseas interests, so he would absolutely support overseas military operations. The $400 billion will come from “non-essential” projects like decrease of waste and unnecessary arms purchases.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates is a very mild secretary. Even though he’s mild, he stated several times that while he advocated cutting military expenditure, he reserved his opinion on large-scale cutting of military expenditure. He also claimed that America’s defense spending was not the reason for the economic depression.

Well-known Republican historian Robert Kagan said that America’s strong army was not for conducting military operations but for preventing wars. This explained why the U.S. needed a powerful army in peacetime.

Kagan firmly opposes cutting military spending, and he thinks that right now is not a good time to do so. If the U.S. cuts military expenditure, its allies will lose confidence, which will compromise their cooperation.

The world seems to feel the declining of America’s strength now. Many people worry that the economic crisis will lead to America’s withdrawal of overseas troops; the cutting of military spending will be interpreted as proof of America’s strength declining.

Gates had a similar reason for maintaining a powerful army. Once he testified to Congress that America’s potential opponents worldwide — from terrorists to rogue countries to emerging countries — have realized that it’s unwise to challenge America’s regular military power. However, America should not take its advantage for granted, so investing in military projects, equipment and personnel is necessary to guarantee the duration of America’s leading position.

Apparently, maintaining a powerful national defense is a consensus between the two parties. In this situation we can predict that Americans living frugally to support the world’s leading army will not change in a short time.