As the US and the world mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, debates are raging about the consequences -- for Iraq, the Middle East and the US' standing in the world. But the Iraq War's domestic impact -- the Pentagon's ever mushrooming budget and its long-term influence on the US economy -- may turn out to be its most lasting consequence.
The US Defense Department's request for US$515.4 billion for next fiscal year dwarfs every other military budget in the world. And this huge sum -- a 5 percent increase over next year's military budget ??is to be spent only on the US military's normal operations, thus excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since he took office in 2001, US President George W. Bush has increased the US' regular military budget by 30 percent, again not taking into account the cost of the wars he launched. Last year, the US' entire military and?counterterrorism expenditures topped US$600 billion. One can assume that next year's total spending on military affairs will be even bigger. Adjusted for inflation, US military spending has reached its highest level since World War II.
Is there any limit to this spending boom? The US is allocating more money for defense today than it did during the war against Nazi Germany or the Cold War. The Bush administration seems to think that today's military threats are graver. Talk about the so-called "peace dividend" that was supposed to come with the fall of the Berlin Wall has been silenced.
Of course, because the US economy has grown faster than military spending, the share of GDP dedicated to military expenditures has fallen over the years. The US spent 14 percent of its GDP on the military during the Korean War, 9 percent during the Vietnam War and only 4 percent nowadays.
Yet, given the sheer scale of military spending today, one can wonder if it is rational. The US economy is probably in recession, clouds are gathering over its pension and health-care systems, and its military budget may not make sense even in strategic terms. The US alone accounts for around 50 percent of the world's military expenditures, which is historically unprecedented for a single country.
Most other countries don't come anywhere close. Indeed, the second-ranked country in terms of total annual military spending, the UK, lags behind, at US$55 billion, followed by France (US$45 billion), Japan (US$41 billion) and Germany (US$35 billion).
China and Russia, which can be considered strategic rivals of the US, spend US$35 billion and US$24 billion, respectively (though these figures probably underestimate expenditure, the true amount is certainly still far below the US level). Iran, depicted by the Bush administration as a major threat, is a military dwarf, spending US$6.6 billion on its military.
Some voices in the US are calling for even bigger increases. Indeed, the Pentagon wants to enlarge the Marine Corps and Special Operations forces. Since it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain soldiers, to do so will probably require raising their wages and improving their quality of life.
Disabled soldiers also will cost a lot of money, even if the Pentagon won't automatically pay everything for them. But fulfilling the ostensible rationale for this seemingly interminable spending orgy -- success in the so-called "war on terror" -- does not seem anywhere within reach.
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell recently admitted to a US Senate panel that al-Qaeda was gaining strength and steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and even attack the US.
That assessment is stunning, yet few US leaders appear to be wondering if military power is the best answer to security issues. Indeed, by relying on military solutions, the US seems to be increasing rather than reducing the threats it faces.
After all, the dangers that the US faces today do not come from nation-states, but from non-state actors against whom nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers are useless. It would be less expensive and more fruitful for the US to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, return to a multilateral approach and respect the moral principles that it recommends to others.
Pascal Boniface is director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations, Paris.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS