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
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
Last month, two major diplomatic events unfolded in Southeast Asia that suggested subtle shifts in the region’s strategic landscape. The 46th ASEAN Summit and the inaugural ASEAN-Gulf-Cooperation Council (GCC)-China Trilateral Summit in Kuala Lumpur coincided with French President Emmanuel Macron’s high-profile visits to Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. Together, they highlighted ASEAN’s maturing global posture, deepening regional integration and China’s intensifying efforts to recalibrate its economic diplomacy amid uncertainties posed by the US. The ASEAN summit took place amid rising protectionist policies from the US, notably sweeping tariffs on goods from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, with duties as high as 49 percent.
RSS