Defense Budget Cuts - Essay Example

Defense Budget Cuts Lecturer: Undoubtedly, the US enjoys a huge advantage with regard to the defense budget partly because of its large and technologically advanced army, air force, Marine Corps and various other defense agencies that require substantial funding. Opponents of defense cuts point out the economic arguments in making their case pointing out that that defense budget has decreased as a percentage of the GDP since the end of WWII. The main economic dispute by individuals in the military is that budget cuts would result in key job losses since the pentagon is an essential employer within the US economy. The defense cuts are likely to cause irreparable harm not only on the capabilities of institutions but also to the men and women in uniform. However, compared to education, healthcare and green economy, spending within the military is a deprived basis of creating jobs1. Pollin and Heidi show that $1 billion investment in clean energy, education and healthcare generates between 50 % and 140% more jobs compared to similar amount spent by the pentagon2. Nevertheless, it is impossible to separate concept of economic security from that of national security since they are both dependent on each other because the current threats to US economic and national security are identical3. Therefore, regardless of whether the US remains a super power or not, the country has to invest in military capabilities to respond to these threats. Although maintaining robust defense is essential, the prevailing economic challenges to the US pose a unique challenge to defense budget; hence, the need for the defense sector to rise to the challenges of the turbulent times. Although many defense experts believe that the defense sector requires extra funding in modernizing its weapons, they mostly fall short of quantifying certain shortfalls with recent comparisons targeting defense budget with regard to the GDP4. With regard to capability, depth and conventional power, the US military remains the dominant force in the world, which is also true to the size of the nation’s defense budget. For instance, the country’s defense spending is 7 times that of the second leading nation; moreover, the US spent 29 times more compared to the 6 rogue states of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and Sudan, in addition, US defense budget is greater than the GDP of these nations5. Therefore, it is clear that the US enjoys a substantial advantage in its size of the defense budget owing to the largely technologically advanced military that requires substantial funding. Individuals against defense budget cuts point out the percentage of defense budget with regard to the GDP as indicated by senior leaders in defense showing defense budget as a percentage of the GDP to be low. In the past, defense spending used to be at least 4% of the GDP since it was the modest level sufficient for offering adequate military without undue burden to the economy; however, establishing these standards pose many challenges. One such challenge is that the current defense is smaller, technologically advanced, more lethal and can use more precise weapon system around the globe compared to any other time in the past. Hence, establishing a funding standard that is based on GDP may result in focusing military requirements in an incorrect criteria like spending opposed to other criteria learned from history like threat levels; therefore, the need to review both sides of the equation. Besides, GDP measures the strength of an economy and does not determine the amount that needs to be spent; moreover, it does not explain, predict or even measure military requirements that are determined by world threats and politics6. Since external factors beyond the control of the defense department affect defense budget, the department has to be able to organize and change with the external challenges accordingly. Moreover, with national debt in US putting strain to the country’s economy, the defense budget gets negatively affected by the external factor since political leaders have used the national debt to often to a point that is straining the economy. While the external factors like the increase in mandatory spending programs and the national debt affect defense budgets, defense departments have little control over them. Nevertheless, with the tough times, defense departments can manage the internal factors that influence its budgets like the military personnel costs, bonus programs and funding priorities7 8. Because of the increasing pressure in defense budget, it remains essential for the department to use the scarce financial resources in an efficient way. To ensure that defense departments cope with budget cuts, the departments have to concentrate on military personnel costs and its procedures of establishing funding priorities9. Even though, defense budget in 2014 decreased by $3.9 billion, it still continues to embark on its strategic priorities that reflect the country’s renewed commitment to its historical role. Regardless of the cuts in defense budgets, it is clear that the US military continues various strategic priorities like increasing the ability to navigate effectively security challenges and opportunities within the cyberspace and the continued funding in research and development as well as combating terrorism. The budget still maintains defense’s commitment to offering service members with the right equipment, infrastructure as well as training while at the same time sustaining the backbone of the nation’s modern military10. Opponents of defense budget cuts believe that progressive defense budget cuts will hollow out the military and will be devastating because they can make the US lose its position as a global power11. These opponents of defense budget cuts consider investment necessary in future technologies and emphasize key missions that include counter terrorism and improving capabilities in the cyber space, because the pentagon has been essential in nurturing the internet and other transformational technologies. Nevertheless, the claims that significant reduction in military budget would devastate US defenses and cause major damage to the economy is demonstrably false because the spending cuts are modest12. The desire to reduce federal deficit in the US faced defense budget cuts as one of the contested items; however, supporters of the move consider it the right time to carry out the cuts regardless of the opponents who believe the military cannot afford cuts. Proponents of the move to cut defense spending believe that America has never been militarily safer in the past as it is today because there is no nation that poses existential threat to USA. Currently the US military remains the only military with a truly worldwide logistics, infrastructure, transportation, communication and intelligence. This has been possible because in the past 10 years the nation’s military managed to upgrade all of its vehicles, bought more ammunition, and acquired a new fleet of cargo aircraft and lots of new naval vessels. Currently the US faces a big security problem with regard to the deep economic recession together with the federal deficit make the nation’s debt the most significant threat to the nation’s security. Hence, proponents to defense budget cuts believe is time to discipline defense along with federal budget and spending policies in order to promote economic recovery. The defense budget managed to double in the past decade to constant levels unprecedented in peace or war since the 1945 and the surge in funds meant that the defense department lost the ability to prioritize and make hard decision, tough analysis and even making tradeoffs13. The acknowledgement of the need to impose budget spending in defense is that the nation is at a turning point after a decade of war as well as the substantial growth in defense budget. Moreover the nation is facing a large debt and deficit problem, which saw the congress impose reduction in defense budget in the next decade; hence, the turning point require strategic shift under any circumstance14. The study disagrees with the notion of sizing the defense budget in accordance with GDP because this does not clarify the requirements and perpetuates the fallacy of one right amount for defense budget. As history shows, there is no one right amount in defense budget because the amount is dictated by the strategy and politics. The notion of proportional defense budget to GDP implies that as GDP increases so will the defense budget and military capabilities, which may end up having unintended consequences. The study agrees with the need to cutting of defense budget since the US military is way above any other military in terms of military capability, strength and technological advances that partly contribute to the prevailing huge nation debt. Although opponents of the spending cuts in defense are concerned with economic impacts, it has been clear that other sectors are capable of offering more job opportunities compared to the defense sector. Hence, the study embraces decreased defense spending to help decrease the nation’s debt and also help promote economic growth and even allow more job opportunities to the unemployed and offer more education opportunities. Bibliography U.S. News Digital Weekly. "Are Cuts to the Defense Budget Necessary?." U.S. News Digital Weekly 3, (2011). no. 44: 17 International Debates. "Does the Obama Administrations FY 2013 Defense Department Budget Request Adequately Address U.S. Security Needs?." International Debates 10, (2012). No. 3: 25-41. Babbin, Jed. "A Conservative Defense Agenda." American Spectator (2012). 28-33. Conetta, Carl, and Charles Knight. "A New Deal For Defense." Government Executive 45, (2013). no. 2: 44. Department of Defense (n.d). “US Department of Defense.” Goldberg, Michael. "Its Time for Tough Choices." Aviation Week & Space Technology 175, (2013). no. 38: 50. Peccia III, James D. "Defense Budgeting Challenges: Uncertainty and Unpredictability." Air Force Journal Of Logistics 32, (2008). no. 3: 34-46. Pollin, Robert, and Heidi Garrett-Peltier. "Benefits of a Slimmer Pentagon." Nation 294, (2012). no. 22: 15-18. Read More