By Greg S. Jones
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Donald Trump’s recent military overtures toward Syria and
North Korea have revived one of the more resilient myths in American political
history: namely, that Washington makes defense policy according to the desires
of a mysterious and immensely powerful “military-industrial complex.”
From former Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich to
late-night talk show host Bill Maher to former Presidential candidate Ron Paul,
Trump’s newfound militarism has unleashed a torrent of conspiratorial pundits
bemoaning the ill-defined network of politicians, generals, and defense
contractors that supposedly enriches itself at the republic’s expense.
But while there is certainly no shortage of symbiotic
back-scratching between Washington and the defense industry, the notion that a
shadowy cabal drives defense policy doesn’t jibe with reality.
The idea of a military-industrial complex originated with
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned in his farewell address of the
increasing coziness between the state and vendors of war:
This conjunction of an immense
military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American
experience. The total influence — economic, political, and even spiritual — is
felt in every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize
the imperative for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its
grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is
the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we
must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Eisenhower’s words were apropos for the time. Military
spending accounted for roughly 10 percent of American GDP in 1961, a staggering
figure considering that the Second World War had been over for more than 15
years and the Korean War for nearly a decade. It was a time of relative peace,
and yet big bucks for the defense industry.
Since then, however, defense spending has steadily
declined as a proportion of GDP, albeit with a few occasional upticks; by 2016
it had shrunk to just under 3.2
percent. In fact, it has only exceeded 5 percent four times since 2001,
despite America’s involvement in two wars, and several war-like entanglements,
over that period.
While these wars and engagements were certainly expensive
in terms of real dollars, the steady decline of defense spending as a
percentage of total economic output puts the lie to the idea of an all-powerful
defense industry controlling the country’s purse strings. And while one can
certainly make the argument that the federal government spends too much money
on instruments of war — and that that money is not always utilized efficiently
— the military’s shrinking fiscal footprint in terms of GDP should be celebrated,
not disingenuously demonized.
But blind partisanship has made this particular truth
inconvenient, so the leftist (and sometimes libertarian) effort to discredit
the defense industry continues apace. A simple Internet image search for
“defense spending meme” reveals numerous charts and diagrams purporting to show
federal defense spending dominating the federal budget at the expense of nearly
everything else.
These infographics are so prevalent, in fact, that
left-leaning websites Politifact
and FactCheck.org
have stepped in to point out the obvious fallacy that plagues them: They only
reference “discretionary” spending, or what Congress spends via appropriations
bills, which accounts for roughly one-third of the total federal budget.
“Mandatory” spending — mostly on entitlements such as Social Security,
Medicare, and the SNAP food-stamp program — accounts for the lion’s share of
the budget. In 2015, for instance, defense spending consumed 54 percent of the
discretionary spending, but only 16 percent of all federal spending.
Though I like Ike, his warning was way off the mark: the
Democratic-entitlement complex is the real Leviathan threatening the integrity
and spirit of America. In fact, while defense spending as a factor of GDP has
steadily declined, welfare and entitlement spending has ballooned to nearly
four times what it was when Ike began his second term. Social Security and
Medicare alone consumed nearly three times more money than defense last year.
And that’s the good
news. While advances in technology, and hopefully policy, may well continue to
increase the efficiency of America’s defense spending, the costs of the
entitlements beloved by Democrats are only set to increase. By 2047, the CBO
projects that Social Security and Medicare alone will consume half of all
non-interest federal spending.
Don’t get me wrong: There is certainly plenty of room to
streamline defense spending and reduce bureaucracy and backscratching in the
Pentagon’s contracting processes. But furthering belief in an all-powerful
military-industrial boogeyman serves no one, particularly given the current
climate.
History has demonstrated time and time again America’s
need for a robust, capable defense that nevertheless knows its own limits.
Unfortunately, Trump has inherited a historically deficient military — a recent
Heritage Foundation analysis rated America’s armed forces “marginal” — and a dangerous,
fast-changing geopolitical landscape. Threats abound, from Russia to China to
North Korea to ISIS, and Trump has pledged to increase military spending
accordingly.
But that’s just good defense policy; it’s not the result
of some sinister conspiracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment