Opinions | Columnists
Pentagon's soaring budget
Adjusted to inflation, it has reached its highest level since the Second World War.
- By Pascal Boniface, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 01:04 February 9, 2008
The Pentagon has just unveiled its new budget request, for the 2009 fiscal year, of $515.4 billion (Dh1.89 trillion). This huge amount of money will be spent on standard Pentagon operations, but won't include additional spending on the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an increase of 5 per cent compared to last year's budget.
Since he took office, President George W. Bush has increased the regular military budget by 30 per cent, again not taking into account the cost of the wars he has launched. Last year, the military and counter terrorism expenditure reached a peak of $600 billion. One can only assume that next year's budget will be even bigger.
Adjusted to inflation, it has reached its highest level since the Second World War. Is there any limit to this increase?
The United States is dedicating more money for defence today than it did during the war against Hitler or during the Cold War. Washington seems to think that today's military threats are more serious than those presented by the armies of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito or by the armies of the Soviets and their puppet regimes.
Due to the development of the American economy, which has grown faster than the country's military spending, the share of GNP dedicated to military expenditure has been reduced. Washington spent 14 per cent of its GNP on the military during the Korean War (1950-1953, at the peak of the Cold war), 9 per cent during the Vietnam War, and spends only 4 per cent today.
Nevertheless one can wonder if these figures are rational. Money is in short supply due to domestic social needs in America. The US economy is facing recession. There are uncertainties regarding retirement pensions and medical care. America accounts for about 50 per cent of the world's military expenditure, a figure never before seen in history. The UK comes a far second ($55 billion) followed by France ($45 billion), Japan ($41 billion) and Germany ($35 billion). China and Russia officially spend $35 billion and $24 billion but the real figure may be much higher.
Military dwarf
Depicted as a major threat by the White House, Iran is a military dwarf, with its $6.6 billion military budget. So is North Korea, ($2.3 billion) and Venezuela ($1.6 billion).
Yet, some are already calling for a bigger increase in defence spending in the US. As operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are far from over and still require big spending in the near future, the Pentagon is thinking of increasing the size of the Marine Corps and the special forces.
Since it is increasingly difficult to recruit soldiers, wages have to be hiked, and the quality of life of soldiers has to be improved in order to keep these men and women in the army. Disabled soldiers will also cost a lot of money, even if the Pentagon won't automatically pay everything for them.
Despite this never-ending increase in military expenditure, success does not seem within reach. Michael McConnel, director of national intelligence, recently admitted to a US senate panel that Al Qaida is gaining in strength and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and even to attack the United States.
One can only be stunned by this assessment. While the United States is pouring more money every year into the Pentagon's pot, its security has in no way improved. Perhaps it is because America is not following the right path. By solely relying on armed forces to solve political problems, the US is worsening the threat, not diminishing it.
Americans are caught in a vicious circle. As they increase their military power, they tend to prefer military options: when you have a big hammer, you tend to see nails everywhere. But by resorting to the military option too often, they are increasingly being perceived as aggressive and dangerous.
The danger is not coming from nation states but from groups against whom nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers are irrelevant. It would be less expensive and more fruitful for Washington to really tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adopt a multilateral approach, close down Guantanamo and respect the principles they preach to others.
Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques). He has published or edited more than 40 books dealing with international relations, nuclear deterrence and disarmament, European security and French international policy.
Share this article
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Tough love
What ways do you use to discipline your child?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Dissenting neighbours
The cultural and political divide between Indonesia and Malaysia widens
-
Striving for peace
Hasib J. Sabbagh has worked for the betterment of the society
-
Mr Consul General, you're out of line sir
Is Mr Otsuka representing Japan in the UAE?
