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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS