The Bush administration seems to think the definition of arms control is being able to hit your target with more weapons that are better controlled than ever before. The US is spending ridiculously too much on the military, and nobody seems to want to do anything about it. We are rapidly being pushed into the same mounting deficits and military expenditures as in the Reagan era, though this time the Pentagon is getting even more. Does anybody care?
For a minute, let's not consider whether that money is spent wisely, but only the pure numbers. Mr. Bush asked for $396.1 billion for the military, when you count the money going to our nuclear programs through the Department of Energy as well as the Pentagon. This is an increase of 13 percent from last year and 15 percent higher than our average cold war spending. It is six times larger than our closest competitor, Russia, and when considered together with our allies is more than the rest of the world combined.
Of the US's discretionary budget - the money that Congress is free to play with - the military currently takes around $60 billion more than every other category combined. Education gets $45 billion, healthcare gets $41 billion, housing assistance gets $30 billion and international affairs gets $24 billion. The amount requested by Mr. Bush for the military would eat up 51.6 percent of these discretionary funds. Such a large increase in military spending will continue to push us further into the red.
Furthermore, of this year's budget request, $20.3 billion is going to classified programs over which the public has no control. That money could be paying the mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro or to research the effects of LSD - we have no idea (both programs were actually funded during the cold war).
Now, if we consider exactly where the money is being spent, the picture gets worse. The missile defense budget increased 57 percent last year and is likely to increase another 25 percent this year, without any corresponding increase in threat. If anything, this money should be used only for research and development, since the technology is clearly imperfect. Yet there is tremendous pressure to push ahead with construction, even though a national missile defense system has never shot anything down that was not meant to be shot down. Proportionally, more money should be spent in theater missile defense systems, as these more effectively meet current threats - such as those to troops deployed in Korea and Saudi Arabia, for example.
Most of the spending increases in research and development go to traditional weapons programs, such as conventional fighters, rather than in unmanned aerial vehicles, which will have a greater role in the future. Our current research and development program is five percent above the previous high in 1987, when the Soviet Union was pouring huge resources into weapons production. That does not make sense.
It is said that military strategists are always planning to fight the last war. Without any conventional military competitor, there is little need to develop completely new fighter systems; the existing ones work fine. If anything, the money should be going to the development of new programs such as better reconnaissance systems. Building a quieter submarine is pointless if none of our potential enemies can hear the ones we already have.
The current military budget that is 15 percent higher than the cold war average is supporting a force structure one-third the size. The US keeps far too many nuclear warheads and ballistic missile submarines, both of which are extremely expensive to maintain. As it is, Moscow cannot afford to maintain its existing nukes, so there is no reason we should not continue to cut down on ours.
Why is military spending so hard to control? President Eisenhower back in the '50s warned of the military-industrial complex: the close ties between defense contractors and the Pentagon. More recently, this relationship has been described as the "Iron Triangle" between congressional appropriation committees, industry lobbyists and the Pentagon. The Pentagon wants its new weapon system, the industry lobbyists want the contract, and the congressional committees want to bring home the production to their districts. Of all pork barrel spending, military appropriations have been some of the hardest to control.
The biggest surprise in all this is how little the public seems to care. Congressmen argue endlessly about the National Endowment for the Arts, which uses around $100 million when they gleefully approve the construction of another B-2 bomber, costing $2.1 billion a pop. The UN estimates that $9.2 billion each year is needed to adequately fight AIDS. The US spent a mere $500 million last year on AIDS while purchasing 397 Trident II missiles (weapons of the cold war)for $17.9 billion. Why does Congress not find it cost-effective to develop cleaner fuels while at the same time approving the development of a giant laser (no, this is not Austin Powers) to be carried aboard 747's to shoot down ballistic missiles?
Our priorities have really gotten mixed up. It is extremely important to have a powerful military, and to a certain extent, there is always an arms race. But do we really need to finish that race several light-years ahead of our nearest competitor? Rather than spend more, we need to spend smarter. The US must be a leader, not just militarily, but in support for fighting AIDS and other diseases; in developing cleaner technologies; in providing loans to deserving development causes; in investing in education. For some reason, the Pentagon budget always seems to escape the same scrutiny other federal agencies face. This must change. Until it does, taxpayer money will continue to be spent with reckless frivolity on the Pentagon's pet projects.
