American experts complain about the chronic underfunding of the Pentagon
Since the end of the Cold War, the US Department of Defense has been constantly losing money from politicians in the amounts necessary for the military to replace aging weapons, maintain technological superiority over the armies of hostile countries and solve many other tasks facing them to ensure the national security of the country. This conclusion was recently reached by independent experts from the American Enterprise Institute and experts from the think tanks Foreign Policy Initiative and the Heritage Foundation, having conducted a joint study to assess the level of adequacy of US allocations. Congress for the War Department of America. According to the authors of this work, the US military budget is shrouded in many misconceptions, false assumptions and assessments that in no way correspond to the real state of affairs in various areas of the Pentagon's activities. Experts called all this analytics myths.
Lowest military budget in American history
According to the authors of the report, voices of protest against the increase in the military budget and calls for its reduction are constantly heard in America. The main argument is the fact that today the United States spends more money on defense than all other countries combined.
However, according to experts, all statements about the need to reduce Pentagon spending, based on claims that the increase in military spending threatens the national economy, are often based on incorrect analytical calculations and facts that do not correspond to reality.
Today, the United States is embroiled in many regional conflicts and has two major wars on terror. Therefore, the real actions of politicians to reduce defense spending only lead to the fact that the military department remains incapable of fully preparing for future wars and ensuring the solution of current tasks of national defense.
Analysts argue that at the present stage, no country in the world has such large-scale national interests and responsibilities to the world's population as the United States. Therefore, the Armed Forces of America must be able to access any regions of the earth in order to ensure the protection of their safety and the safety of citizens of other countries living there.
Experts say that the richest nation on the planet and historically "the only superpower" must have a first-class army, strictly proportional to the size of its economy. They are surprised by the fact that the Ministry of Defense receives very little funds from the national budget. According to experts, at the present stage, the expenses of the military department are approaching the lowest level in the entire history of America. In the period from 2010-2015. their volume from the gross national product (GNP) will decrease from 4.9% to 3.6%. And this despite the fact that over the past two decades, the scale of the tasks that Washington sets the military has grown significantly.
According to the authors of the report, the conclusions of some politicians and experts on the need to reduce military spending, based on strict adherence to numbers, are a simple delusion. They cite the Chinese army as an example. According to the official statement of the PRC leadership, in 2010$ 78 billion will be spent on defense spending. However, according to Pentagon analysts, Beijing's actual defense spending should have been nearly double the amount. This is due to the fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the PRC for soldiers, sailors and pilots of the People's Liberation Army has very small salaries, which cannot be compared with the funds that the Pentagon spends on the financial support of its fighters and providing them with all kinds of benefits.
These estimates move China, in terms of military spending, from fifth to second place in the world. In addition, it should be borne in mind, experts emphasize, that Beijing is focused on achieving military influence only in the Asian region, while America has assumed responsibility for monitoring stability throughout the world. However, in the near and distant future, the forces that the United States can deploy in the eastern theater of operations will not be able to significantly surpass the Chinese military contingents. In this regard, as the researchers emphasize, a simple digital comparison of the unique financial needs of the US Armed Forces with the costs of other countries only misleads the American and world public.
Wars require money
Analysts point out that opponents of military spending have argued that during the George W. Bush administration, the flow of funding from the DoD turned into a "gushing well", providing an unprecedented flow of additional funds from the federal treasury to the accounts of the DoD. This is precisely the definition of this process was recently given by Pentagon chief Robert Gates, speaking of his firm intention to reduce the unnecessary expenses of the Ministry of Defense by $ 100 billion over the next five years. His statement was immediately adopted by opponents and began to call for a cut in the military budget.
But all their statements about the excessive costs of the Ministry of Defense, according to the authors of the report, are erroneous. Experts note that the Minister of War said that it is necessary to reduce only unjustified expenses and that the budget growth of the department entrusted to him is mainly due to the need for financial resources necessary for waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and express their solidarity with opinion of the head of the Department of Defense of America.
They also highlight the fact that when the outgoing President Bill Clinton handed over the Oval Office to his successor, DoD spending since the end of World War II was at its lowest level at 3% of GNP. When Bush left the White House, they increased by only 0.5%. But this increase cannot be called a flow of new funds into the Pentagon's wallet, since it was caused by the waging of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and occurred against the backdrop of a certain cuts in the Defense Ministry's financial requests for military needs and a slowdown in the timing of the acquisition of weapons and military equipment for which the necessary funds were not allocated.
One of the main tasks that required an increase in the military budget during the course of the two wars was the task of reorganizing the US Armed Forces and bringing their combat readiness, at least to the pre-war level. At present, this problem, according to the authors of the study, is still very far from being solved. And it will take years to eliminate all the shortcomings that exist in the logistics system of the US Armed Forces today.
Experts also believe that very little funds have been allocated to increase the number of American ground forces required for the conduct of hostilities. The Pentagon continues to lack soldiers and marines. They believe that, despite the ongoing withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the setting by President Obama of a deadline for the end of the war in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of allied forces, which is scheduled for July next year, the Army and Marine Corps of the US Armed Forces will be forced to maintain their troop contingents outside America and conduct operations in different regions of the world, although there may be a lower rate.
The US government, according to experts from the three brain trusts, must fulfill a moral obligation not only to treat soldiers who have fought so long and well and properly support their families, but also to provide military personnel with everything they need to keep them motivated to continue serving. in the troops. In addition, the American authorities must fulfill a constitutional duty to their citizens to ensure the safety and preservation of their freedom, both today and in the future.
Military construction is a very costly undertaking
The restructuring of the Pentagon's expenditures and the channeling of the freed up funds into other areas of the Armed Forces development, according to some politicians and experts, will significantly eliminate the shortcomings inherent in them today. However, the authors of the report argue that such judgments are also misleading and belong to the category of myths.
The latest initiative of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reform the system of development and procurement of weapons, reduce unnecessary spending by the Pentagon and redirect the freed up funds to various areas of support for the life of the troops, as analysts say, "necessary and commendable." However, even if this positive intention is realized, it will not help narrow the gap between the needs of the Armed Forces and the resources allocated for their implementation. As an argument for the legitimacy of their judgments, they cite the conclusions made by an independent commission that considered one of the fundamental documents of US military construction: the Four-Year Review of National Defense.
According to the members of this commission, the funds saved by the Pentagon will be completely insufficient to carry out a comprehensive and deep modernization of the Armed Forces. According to the calculations of the analysts of the members of the commission, for those 10-15 billion dollars that can be obtained through the reform of the system of acquiring weapons and military equipment, the Ministry of Defense simply will not be able to purchase the required number of ships for the navy and aircraft for naval aviation, modernize weapons Ground forces, purchase new tanker aircraft, modernize long-range bomber aircraft and solve a number of large-scale tasks to re-equip troops and increase their combat capabilities. All this requires significantly higher costs.
The authors of the study write that reducing unnecessary costs and improving the practice of developing and purchasing weapons and military equipment of the Ministry of Defense are "worthy tasks." However, their implementation will not solve all the problems that have arisen in connection with the allocation of insufficient funds to the Pentagon over the past two decades. And the volume of military spending planned for the coming years will not give the military department the ability to eliminate all the accumulated costs in the development of America's military potential.
A tiny fraction of war dollars
The assertions of supporters of military budget cuts that America cannot afford to keep military expenditures at the current level, let alone their growth, are also not substantiated, as the authors of the report believe.
National defense spending is a very small slice of America's $ 14 trillion budget pie. And they are trying to reduce it even more. In fact, spending on national defense is actually decreasing and, in accordance with the plans of the head of the White House, will be reduced in the future as well.
According to experts, all the talk that cuts in the budget of the Ministry of Defense will allegedly lead to the restoration of America's financial health have no more or less real basis. The $ 720 billion allocated to the Pentagon for fiscal 2011 is only half of the $ 1.5 trillion federal budget deficit. dollars, expected next year. And if you compare this amount with the US government debt, amounting to 13, 3 trillion.dollars, then it is generally a "drop in the ocean". From the time of the Korean War to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States spent about $ 4.7 trillion on national defense. Doll.
According to experts, it makes no sense to assess the US military budget in isolation from national spending. According to a number of economists, spending by the Department of Defense simply cannot be a "financial headache for the federal government." They have always declined as all government social spending has risen, including spending on social security, health care and health insurance programs. Today, allocations for these programs have reached a record 18% of GNP - and account for 65% of all federal spending. According to economists, if in the future the average volume of taxes remains at the present level, then by 2052 all tax revenues will be spent on fulfilling the government's social obligations, and there will not be even a cent left to ensure national defense.
2001 to 2009 even without taking into account the $ 787 billion allocated by the federal government to stimulate the economy and ensure the US emerges from the financial crisis, the Ministry of Defense accounted for less than 20% of the total increase in federal budget spending.
World Police Officer
The statements of some American politicians and opponents of the White House’s foreign policy that Washington should not assume the role of “world gendarme” are also considered by the analysts who compiled the report to be a very incorrect statement.
For every dollar that goes into the federal treasury from the pockets of American taxpayers, the US government spends less than 5 cents to maintain stability in various regions of the world. And at present, the White House is not only waging two wars, but is also a pivotal part of the security system for many states of the world, which requires significant costs.
America's investment in peacekeeping during the Cold War continues to pay real dividends to this day. For the first time in many centuries, lasting peace has been established in Europe. The states of East Asia, whose territory for a thousand years was the scene of fierce battles of Western countries that fought for influence in this region, today are rapidly developing their economies and hundreds of millions of their inhabitants are rising out of poverty.
While diplomacy and development activities around the world continue to play an important role, the primary problems of many states remain and will remain in the field of view of the US national security system. As the last 20 years have shown, America cannot give up the role of world leader and will continue to defend its national interests in various parts of the world. The reluctance or inability of the United States to respond in a timely manner to emerging conflicts that may threaten the national interests of the country, and to control their course does not lead to the resolution of the contradictions that have arisen and the resolution of contradictions without outside help. As follows from historical practice, the further growth of this or that confrontation leads only to destabilization of the situation in the world and to an increase in the level of hostility on a global scale. Therefore, in the end, Washington simply cannot but take part in resolving them.
The costs of maintaining America's leading role in world processes are much less than the funds that it would have to spend on restoring its primacy in the world, and simply cannot be compared with its losses in the event of a complete loss of the rank of world leader. Although many Americans believe that the US allies and partners should take on a somewhat larger share of the responsibility for ensuring the security of the Western world and its freedoms, not one of the American presidents, not one of the American parties has ever deviated from the principle of maintaining the dominant role of the United States in world processes. …
The military budget cannot be cut
A number of American politicians are convinced that the allocations to the Pentagon should be focused only on ensuring victory in the wars that America is currently waging.
But, as experts emphasize, this is only part of the tasks that the American military needs to solve. The Pentagon must be able to provide a very wide range of functions, including protecting the territory of the United States, providing access to the world's oceans, air, space, and now the information space, maintaining peace in Europe, stabilizing the situation in the Greater Middle East, and ensuring preparedness. confront India and China, which have every chance of becoming superpowers and a significant force in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as ensure the presence of military contingents of the Ministry of Defense in various regions of the world to maintain stability in them.
The authors of the report note that in one of his speeches, Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed concern that today the situation in the world is becoming less and less stable. Currently, an increasing number of states are becoming insolvent or in a state of crisis. Today, a number of countries, primarily Iran and North Korea, are investing heavily in building up their military potential. More and more threats are emerging, from cyber attacks on the country's information space to ballistic and cruise missiles that appear in the arsenal of countries hostile to the United States. In such conditions, according to Gates, it is simply impossible to cut the military budget.
“The main goal of the US military is to defend the country's territory, to wage wars in defense of national interests, if necessary, and to win victories in them. America's military power holds back its enemies, has a significant impact on potential aggressors, and is a good sign for US allies, friends, and partners around the world who can feel safe and have the support they need in times of crisis.
The benefits that the United States receives, being the only superpower in the world, are determined precisely by maintaining this strength and maintaining it at the required level,”the authors of the report conclude.
