In discourses concerning the armed forces of the United States, the matters of scope, necessity and mission are aspects which ought to be allotted substantial consideration. To wield the most effective fighting force in history is a heavy burden, with an even heavier cost. The viability of the U.S. defense budget has undergone extensive criticism, particularly during the past decade. Spending on defense has at times accounted for more than half of the federal government’s digressionary budget, prompting opposition among – mostly – Democratic and Libertarian viewpoints. The gamut of opposition to defense spending is diverse. Fiscal, moral, or political motivations to substantially reduce not only the budget, but the size of the military are assertions worthy of consideration. To generate a sustainable plan for the American military, lawmakers must recognize the economic and moral outcomes of our global presence, while ensuring that the United States remains the premier military superpower with the means to engage, and defeat any enemy which threatens the sovereignty of the United States or its allies.
To understand the current scope of the American military, and the moral or fiscal implications that accompany its status, we look to the regulations prescribed by the Constitution, and how these guidelines have been implemented and altered since the country’s founding.
It is emblematic of the American Republic that the Congress – and by extension, the people – are charged with determining the size and aim of the armed forces. The framers of the Constitution displayed incredible competence by allocating responsibility of the national defense to many individuals, rather than at the hand of a monarch with unilateral authority. Nonetheless, successive decades of military action without congressional approval have brought this principle into question.
The Vietnam War, and the advent of global terrorism, have changed the way, and by whom wars are fought. Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States, and European allies found it pertinent to break the tide of communism which had proliferated in several Asian and South American countries throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. With new adversaries, came a new means of combat. Proxy-wars and limited warfare became standard operation in these theaters. The focus shifted from direct confrontation via declaration of war, to military aid carried out under the direction of a sitting president. Often, these actions would be directly ordered by the president, such as the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia by President Nixon from 1969 to 1970, and had been conducted to a lesser extent since 1965 under President Johnson. Similar executive powers were exercised during the first and second invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003, as well the war in Afghanistan following the 2001 September 11th attacks.
Taking into consideration the lasting effects of U.S. military campaigns in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The purpose of this article is not to diminish the service of current or former military personnel. On the contrary, it is of capital importance that the United States not relinquish its military responsibilities. The three previously mentioned aspects – scope, necessity and mission – are the factors which this article will consider when discussing American military maintenance and action.
Scope
As of this year the estimated number of United States military installations currently owned and operated globally by the Department of Defense is eight-hundred. These bases range in size from minute radar outposts manned by a few individuals at any given point, to massive complexes comprising several square miles and housing thousands of stationed military and civilian personnel. The frequency of American military bases has undergone intense scrutiny both by lawmakers and their constituents. A good example of the noted opposition to broad American military influence, is a dated article featured in a July 2012 issue of Mother Jones. It is worth mentioning that this publication is often cited as left-leaning, however, offers good a perspective into viewpoints which find fault in the means of sustaining influence via American military outposts. The article titled: “The Pentagon’s New Generation of Secret Military Bases,” discusses the recent shift in strategy by the Department of Defense in turning from traditional, large-scale military installations in allied or occupied states, to smaller, more discrete bases. These affectionately named “lily pads” are small, strategically placed bases in areas of current military significance. The article offers examples of East African military installations possibly Somalia or Ethiopia.
East Asia, and Australia have seen an increase in American military presence as well, with the introduction of the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot.” This initiative is aimed at shifting surveillance to China’s burgeoning military presence in the region. It is tempting to question the efficacy of these new spheres of influence, to assume that they are nothing but a power-play, and void of justification. The reality of the situation is that it is in the best interest of the United States to oversee the construction of this class of American base. The fact of the matter is that the United States is an economic and military superpower which has key allies in these areas. It is understood, that the United States is a force which such allies including Australia, Japan, and Korea depend on for leverage against the premier Asian power – China – and its proxies, most notably North Korea.
A CNN report from May of last year involved China’s continued construction of artificial islands, and occupation of natural land formations (specifically the Spratly Islands) in the South China Sea. Both China’s policy of island construction and its combatively secretive means, let alone the purpose of these islands, have raised concerns from American allies in the area. It may seem hypocritical of the United States to condemn China’s activities, while American land, air, and sea bases continue to sprout up as well, but this is the nature of national defense. The point is not to look after China or Russia’s interests, but those of the U.S. Furthermore, the United States has not engaged the Chinese in a confrontational fashion, other than routine surveillance of the islands’ progress. Such reconnaissance flights are also conducted by several other South East Asian countries. In addition, the United States is in the “business” of ensuring the safe, and unobstructed passage of goods to and from trading partners, including China. Those who find U.S. policy in not only East Asia, but the Middle East among other regions to be consistent with modern imperialism, must understand that many of these bases are in the best interest of the national defense, as they are a mechanism of threat surveillance.
It may be a hard reality to accept, but the United States must maintain some capacity of global presence to fulfill its obligations to its allies. Should the means of global presence be altered is a different question. Is the current method of influence (that is the large number of military bases) the most effective? Possibly not. Regardless, the U.S. must facilitate a system to aid military partners (such as Iraq and South Korea), maintain influence in areas where other powers might aim to displace American interests (Ukraine, South China Sea), and establish a robust network of armed installations from which to monitor foreign activity.
Necessity
Per data taken by the Congressional Budget Office, as of 2014, more than half the American discretionary budget for that year had been allocated to defense spending. In fact, this has been the case since 2004. During that year, fifty-one percent ($512,884,897,774) of discretionary funds were spent on defense. Since 2004, defense spending has not sunk below the fifty percent mark in terms of discretionary spending. As of the 2017 fiscal year, it appears that spending on defense will total $583 billion of the 1.2 trillion-dollar discretionary budget.
These initial figures may be jarring, but there are other aspects which must be addressed when discussing federal spending. First, there is a distinction between the discretionary, and mandatory budgets. The U.S. discretionary budget is the sum of proposed federal spending requested by the president and approved by Congress for a given year. Transportation, education, government, and national defense fall under discretionary spending. Mandatory spending on the other hand is required spending via existing laws and regulations, and is not determined by Congress on a yearly basis. Social security, unemployment, labor, and Medicare among other mandatory programs are included in the mandatory budget.
Consider the combined revenue of the federal government. The combined federal revenue proposed for fiscal year 2016 is $3.5 trillion; recall the mandatory and discretionary budgets and what percentage of discretionary funds are allocated to defense (~50%). The comprehensive federal spending amounts to $4.1 trillion (hence the deficit). Under these conditions, the entirety of American military spending amounts to roughly sixteen percent. By comparison, the cost of social security, unemployment, and labor amounts to thirty-three percent ($1.4 trillion). This value does not include Medicare, of which twenty-seven percent ($1.1 trillion) of federal spending is allocated.
It should be noted that these budget statistics are not necessarily provided to degrade social programs including social security and Medicare. Rather, the figures are vital to understanding the process by which Congress distributes funds. Furthermore, once the entirety of government spending is accounted for, the spending awarded to defense appears far more modest than if only the discretionary budget is considered. The notion that the federal government is allowing half of all collected revenue to be spent on defense is simply false. Too often is the defense budget cited to encompass “half of all government spending” when it accounts for less than a fifth.
Mission, and the Future of National Defense
“The Congress shall have Power To … make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions…” – The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.
The power of Congress to raise and maintain a military is one of the vital functions prescribed to the legislature by the U.S. Constitution. The federal government, and the Constitution have been duly altered since the country’s founding, but it has remained the responsibility of Congress to see that the United States is outfitted with the necessary soldiers and equipment to deter conflict, or defend itself in a time of war. Of all priorities allotted to the federal government, national defense ought to be among the most important. Combat readiness is not best looked upon as a paranoid or nationalistic waste of time. Military preparedness is quite a responsible endeavor. It is the job of the American government to represent and protect the public, the maintenance of a strong, capable military is among one of the most visible and worthwhile efforts it can engage in.
Concerning the topic of national defense, there is often great misunderstanding regarding the discussed aspects – scope, necessity and mission. Particularly worrying is the tendency of passionate, yet misinformed voters, during the 2016 presidential campaigns to draw wildly false conclusions about the state of our national defense. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in his typically simplistic fashion has expressed his belief – and it is a belief – that the state of our military is one of weakness. Mr. Trump’s call for more spending on defense is misguided at best. The candidate’s base seems to think that the more federal funds spent on defense, the better off the country will be. That fact of the matter is, the United States must responsibly allocate money to a variety of different efforts.
A twenty-first century superpower, must keep and equip a capable and powerful military to combat current enemies, and deter potential threats. True, the United States spends far more on defense than other nations. This however does not necessarily equate to complete dominance over nations like China. A New York Times article published in September of 2015 titled “China Announces Cuts of 300,000 Troops at Military Parade Showing Its Might” attests that China wields a military of more than two-million total members, and is making strides to modernize its battle capabilities. The United States has less active troops at its disposal, but is a significantly stronger force than the militaries of China or Russia due to its cutting-edge military ability. The reality is the United States must be wary of such increases in foreign military prowess.
The point of this article is not to advocate for a Trumpian model of defense in which the nation blindly awards trillions of dollars to national defense, believing that this will return the country to its post-war “utopia” – which it won’t. The purpose of this article is to stress the importance of our national defense, provided the costs are responsibly managed. The purpose of this article is to convey the necessity of the current state of our armed forces, specifically regarding the continued monitoring and neutralization of threats to our safety, or the safety of our allies. The purpose of this article is to refute the notion that the United States of America, by maintaining the strongest most effective military in history, aims to disrupt the sovereignty of foreign nations, or the citizens thereof.
