By Jim Talent
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Rachel Zissimos and Thomas Spoehr over at the Heritage
Foundation have done a service to American national security. They recently
published a
paper debunking, one hopes finally and forever, the oft-used argument that
the American defense budget is adequate because the United States spends more
on its armed forces than the next eight nations combined.
The English language, rich as it is, is inadequate to
describe the falseness of that mode of comparison. I am not accusing those who
use it — or most of them, anyway — of deliberate deception. The argument has a
facile appeal, and most of those who succumb to it do so in good faith. But the
comparison is completely, and I mean completely, misleading.
The reasons rehearsed in the paper are so extensive and
well documented that I cannot possibly do them justice here. But here is a
summary.
First, many other countries, and especially the
authoritarian regimes who are America’s chief adversaries and peer competitors,
hide much of their military budgets. To put it bluntly, they lie about their
spending. The Chinese, for example, do not count their research-and-development
expenditures, the considerable amount they pay for foreign military purchases,
the huge subsidies for their defense industry (which is composed mostly of
enterprises owned by the state), or their spending on the Chinese coast guard
despite many of their “maritime law enforcement” ships being in effect naval
vessels.
Second, the purchasing power of America’s defense
spending is far less than that of other countries. As Zissimos and Spoehr
conclude:
The cost of generating and
sustaining relevant combat power is more expensive for the United States than
for nearly any other country, especially when compared to major competitors
like Russia and China. U.S. concerns for the safety, health, and financial
security of its workforce; recruiting, training and sustaining a skilled labor
force; and the impact of industrial operations on the environment impose costs
not borne by most other countries.
One big factor here is that the American military is an
all-volunteer force. The United States does not draft its military personnel,
which is a good thing, on both a principled and practical level. But it means
that the Pentagon must compete against the private sector for very skilled
people. Other countries don’t. As the authors of the Heritage paper note, if
China, for example, spent what the United States spends per service member, its
personnel costs would consume almost the entirety of its current defense budget
— or at least the entirety of what it admits to spending.
Third, since the American military must project power
globally, it maintains a worldwide logistics infrastructure that dwarfs that of
other countries. To take one example, the United States must maintain one
tanker or transport aircraft for every three fighters or bombers, whereas
Russia and China’s requirements are, respectively, one-half and one-seventh as
great.
To be sure, the logistics system is critical to combat
power, but it is not itself combat power. It does not deliver ordnance on the
target, yet it is an enormous additional burden that the United States must
carry, especially when compared with its competitors.
Finally, the missions of the American military are much
greater and more complex than that of other countries because the latter mostly
use their power regionally, while the interests and responsibilities of the
United States are global. So even if a dollar-for-dollar comparison were valid,
it would need to be a comparison of what America is spending compared to what
its competitors are spending in each region of the world. Judged by that
standard, America is being outspent substantially in both East Asia and Eastern
Europe.
Again, the comparison with China is instructive.
Virtually all of China’s military is concentrated in East Asia and the East and
South China Seas. Only a fraction of American power is based there. Zissimos
and Spoehr quote a Rand Corporation study about the implications of this for
the United States in the event of a confrontation over Taiwan:
In a hypothetical scenario
involving Taiwan, the Rand Corporation found “39 People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
air bases are within 800 km of Taipei (roughly the range of unrefueled fighter
aircraft), whereas there is only a single U.S. Air Force base (Kadena AB)
within that distance — and only three within 1,500 km.” . . . Although the U.S.
could supplement limited basing and host nation support with rotational forces
or bases beyond the unrefueled range of U.S. aircraft, it would require a force
approximately three times that of the Chinese force.
America maintains a robust, standing military primarily
to prevent war, or at least to prevent escalating armed conflict. Deterrence
isn’t cheap, but it’s a lot cheaper than the alternative. “The only thing more
expensive than deterrence is actually fighting a war,” as the Army chief of
staff, General Mark Milley, has said.
Those who argue against increased funding for defense are
certainly entitled to make their case, but they should do it by comparing
apples to apples. Here’s the right standard for determining the size of
America’s defense budget: We should spend what we need to defend the homeland
and sovereign national interests of the United States at an acceptable level of
risk. The Russians and Chinese are defending their interests, as they define
them; the longer we fail to do the same, the greater the risk that somewhere
the balloon will go up and we won’t be prepared.
No comments:
Post a Comment