Immodest proposal: Cutting military spending

Christian Century, May 12, 1999 by James L. Hecht

EVERY GUN THAT is made," said Dwight Eisenhower, "every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children."

These words are as pertinent today as they were when spoken 45 years ago. They are especially relevant since the U.S. is senselessly wasting tens of billions of dollars in military expenditures--many that could be used to address needs at home and abroad.

Why do we have this waste? Americans rightly support a strong defense. National security is the most important function of government. Not surprisingly, an opinion study found that 72 percent felt it was better to err in the direction of having too much defense than too little.

However, when asked how much the U.S. should spend on defense, 42 percent favored spending a little more than the strongest potential adversary and another 41 percent thought spending should equal what all potential adversaries spend (the potential adversaries listed were Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya). But the U.S. actually spends more than twice as much as all potential adversaries combined. (For per annum figures, see chart on p. 539.)

If we are to reduce military expenditures, we must understand how the Pentagon and Congress have justified huge expenditures and what is wrong with the arguments they've used. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon established a new criterion for American military capabilities: the U.S. should be able simultaneously to fight and win two major regional wars without the help of allies. This two-war doctrine is rooted in the idea that the U.S. should be able to exercise unilaterally its "global responsibilities." There are, of course, advantages to acting alone. We spare ourselves the frustration of having to compromise with countries that do not share our worldview. In addition, unilateral action allows us to respond more quickly.

But acting alone has huge costs. We focus the anger of our opponents directly on us, making Americans more likely to be targeted by terrorists. And there is a financial cost. A public opinion study indicates that not only do a clear majority of people oppose the two-war doctrine on principle, but fewer than one-quarter of Americans favor it after they are told of the cost.

But there is an even stronger argument against the two-war doctrine. While the world needs a policeman, and the U.S. has the military capability to pursue such a policy, we do not have the popular will to pursue it, for Americans are unwilling to accept casualties.

The military budget is driven much more by the desire of members of Congress to get reelected than by the country's needs and realistic aims. The best-known example is the difficulty of closing unneeded military bases. The most egregious example is the role of defense contractors in promoting unneeded weapons systems. Eisenhower warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex--influence that has become much greater than could have been predicted in Eisenhower's time because of the increased importance of money in political campaigns. Campaign contributions in 1996 by weapons-makers averaged $18,065 for every member of Congress, almost three times the level of tobacco-industry influence peddling.

One result is that although the American F-15 and F-16 fighters are better than any other military aircraft, the air force has developed the F-22, an even better fighter, and is now purchasing over 300 at a cost of $187 million each. At this cost there is no reason to buy fighter planes "better than the best"; worn-out planes can be retrofitted for $20 million or replaced with a new plane for $40 million.

But that would mean less business for the defense industry, which is currently developing the Joint Strike Fighter, an even better plane.

Another example of an unneeded weapon is the New Attack Submarine. This submarine was developed to hunt down and destroy the next generation of Soviet submarines. Never mind that there is no next generation of Russian submarines, and that most Russian submarines are rusting away because there is no money to maintain them--we are building four New Attack Submarines at a cost of $13 billion.

The C-130 is a good cargo transport plane, but there is already a huge fleet of them. Thus the one C-130 the Pentagon requested for this year's budget probably was not needed. But that didn't stop Congress from increasing the number to seven at a cost of $435 million. (The planes are manufactured in Newt Gingrich's district.)

THE CURRENT NATO action in Yugoslavia underscores the point. There is no evidence of a need to upgrade the weapons systems on which tens of billions are being spent yearly. The only evident lack has been in spending for air-launched cruise missiles; there is no shortage of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are launched from navy ships. Spending for precision-guided missiles for the air force has averaged $130 million per year during the past decade, about 0.05 percent of the military budget.