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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
The arrest in France of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has brought into sharp focus one of the major conflicts of our age. On one hand, we want privacy in our digital lives, which is why we like the kind of end-to-end encryption Telegram promises. On the other, we want the government to be able to stamp out repugnant online activities — such as child pornography or terrorist plotting. The reality is that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Durov last month was charged with complicity in crimes taking place on the app, including distributing child pornography,
RSS