What the Abolition of the Overseas Contingency Operation Budget Means

When it comes to policy, follow the money.

In detective novels, it is often said that the key to finding the culprit is to “follow the money.” When it comes to understanding the policies of a foreign country, it’s critical. Regardless of how marvelous a speech the American president gives, or how many joint declarations he issues together with America’s allies, if the money is not there, it will not lead to action. And indeed, the Chinese Communist Party is always scrutinizing actions, not words.

On April 9, the Joe Biden administration unveiled its discretionary budget request for the next year. This is a policy budget separate from mandatory expenditures for civil servant salaries, etc., from which one can straightforwardly read the policy positions of an administration.

As expected, funding for items related to welfare and the establishment of a carbon-neutral society greatly increased. On the other hand, on the subject of defense, while it prioritizes “the need to counter the threat from China as the Department’s top challenge,” the budget itself increased by a mere 1.7%, a paltry amount compared to growth during the Donald Trump era.

Given that it is an increase, however, at first glance, this seems as if it might not be a problem. The concurrently planned “significant budgetary reform,” on the other hand, is very significant. To wit, it proposes to discontinue “requests for Overseas Contingency Operations as a separate funding category, instead funding direct war costs and enduring operations in the DOD base budget.” This is the context in which the U.S. is proclaiming its increased cooperation with allies.

In other words, when it comes to overseas contingency operations, America’s allies in each region will be asked to shoulder a greater responsibility. One cannot read this passage any other way.

The national defense base budget is largely consumed by the development of new weapons, the procurement of equipment, and in the Biden administration’s case, by the decarbonization of military bases.

In the case of the military superpower, America, which, as one country, accounts for 40% of the world’s military spending, the footprint of the military industrial complex is amazingly expansive. Even pacifist politicians, when they consider elections, do not consider cutting the very military spending that flows into their constituencies.

Both houses of Congress have been controlled by the Democrats since January, and the anti-interventionist Bernie Sanders has assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee. As one would expect, he is advocating for cutting back military spending, and redirecting those resources for social welfare.

Military Spending Cuts: Where Is the Blade Pointed?

However, even Sanders couldn’t help but lobby passionately for basing a squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multipurpose stealth jets in his home state of Vermont. And indeed, as he briefly led the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he successfully accomplished this mission. As a result, Vermont’s aerospace industry is growing. His home state enjoyed benefited from his lobbying. Indeed, there are those who playfully suggest that this was the real reason why Sanders ran.

This was the case even for a pacifist like Sanders. As for the others, one can easily guess. If we consider the current political dynamic, it becomes clear that, when considering military spending cuts, the blade can only be pointed at overseas operational expenditures. One can say that, with the Democrats holding the presidency and the majority in Congress, it was inevitable that the OCO budget would be eliminated.

Right after the budget was decided, Biden announced that, on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, all American troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. The American fiscal year begins in October and ends in September. Rather than merely being conscious of that anniversary, one can say that this decision was taken with the expectation that the OCO budget would be eliminated in October.

In the event that the Biden proposal passes Congress intact, if some incident occurs overseas after October, and theoretically, the American military decides to deploy, it would not be able to draw from a special budget, and would have no choice but to conjure up funds from the base budget. Next year is a midterm election year, and there are almost certainly no legislators who would find it acceptable to take funding allocated to their home state’s industries and redirect it to an overseas operation.

Preparation for a Crisis

The idea that, in the event of an international dispute that does not directly impact America’s security, it should not be the American military, but the military of the relevant countries or allied counties in the region that bear the burden, is not just limited to the left wing of the Democratic Party. It is also supported by Trumpist Republicans. For the time being, the interventionists are staying out of sight. Congress will soon scrutinize the budget proposals, and their deliberations will reach a peak during the summer. Republicans, who ostensibly desire as a party to cut spending on welfare and wasteful decarbonization measures and increase military spending, are regrettably in the minority.

Beginning this fall, Japan must prepare for a crisis in the Senkaku Islands, keeping in mind that the OCO budget will be eliminated.

Biden is known for being indecisive, as he demonstrated during his time as vice president, when he repeatedly expressed concerns about the mission to assassinate Osama Bin Laden ordered by President Barack Obama. Even if the American military does deploy to assist us, one must presume that it will not be able to respond as quickly as it might have, and will only be able to conduct a short-term mission. As a deterrent, America’s existence remains very helpful. However, in the event of a crisis, Japan will have to hold its own ground to maintain control over the Senkakus.