Money for the Military Industrial Complex

GLOBAL RECESSION/MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SPENDING

• World Bank now warning that developing countries face a financing shortfall of up to $700 billion

• Governments are throwing billions into military industrial complexes

• Obama’s Department of Defense budget included $534 billion ($9 billion or 1.7% greater than last year’s budget after adjusting for inflation), as well as $130 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• China announced would increase its defense budget by 15% over last year’s level.

• India said its increase would be 34% over last year’s level.

• In 2007 (the most recent year for which accurate data is available from the International Institute for Strategic Studies), the U.S. spent more on defense than the next 14 highest spending countries, accounting for 43% of the world’s total defense spending

• U.S. spent 5 times more than China, 8 times more than Russia, 85 times more than Iran, 100 times more than North Korea.

• Fastest Growing Defense Budgets in the World 2005-2007: Kazakhstan-84%; Angola-80%, Ukraine-57%, Jordan-57%, Slovakia-55%.

• The Obama Administration plans to cut 1,000 nuclear warheads, which could yield, when completed, a $14.6 billion savings.

From: “The Worst Kind of Stimulus: Why a global weapons boom is the last thing we need” (by Travis Sharp, Foreign Policy, March, 2009)

OBAMA’S FIRST BUDGET: How does he measure up on defense spending?

• Obama’s Administration has slowed the rate of increase in the base military budget, but still has requested more money for the Pentagon than the Bush Administration ever did.

• Total budget for engaging the world militarily (including the two wars): $663.7 billion

• State Department had slight increase in funding, $4 billion over last year’s budget

• If Obama passed the budget he requested, U.S. would be spending 13 times the money engaging the rest of the world through the military as by any other means.

• Under Obama’s budget, we would be spending $16 on military force for every dollar we spend on homeland security.

• The Unified Security Budget for FY2009 outlines $60.7 billion in cuts.
  

From: “Budget Makes No ‘Sweeping Shift’ in Security Spending Yet” (by Miriam Pemberton and Suzanne Smith, 2/26/09)
How will we know that discipline has begun to return to defense and foreign policy budgeting when the supplemental request arrives? Here are a few benchmarks for the Defense request (likely to be around $75 billion):

• Is Defense asking for funds to replace equipment lost in combat, or is it asking for more equipment than it lost and/or a new generation of equipment? Research by Stephen Abott at the Stimson Center shows that supplementals have been used to replace older helicopters and fighters with new, more expensive V-22s and F-35s. If the equipment is next generation, this need should be debated as part of the regular procurement budget.

• Is the Pentagon asking for funds to replace equipment "stressed" by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not lost in combat? Repairing and replacing worn-out equipment should be included in the planning for the basic budgets for the military depots that do this work.

• Is the department asking to replace weapons with systems they already have in the long-range defense budget plan? Again, these should be considered in the regular budget debate.

• Is Defense asking for training equipment or simulators? All of these should be part of the regular budget debate where training is funded.

• Is the Pentagon seeking funds for health-care infrastructure? Only short-term, combat-related health care should be funded through the supplementals. Long-term health infrastructure investments belong in the basic budget discussion.

• Is the department asking for funds to increase the size of the ground forces or for reconfiguring those forces into brigade units? These are long-term plans that belong in the basic budget discussion.

• Is Defense asking for funds to improve services or repair facilities at U.S. bases from which forces have been deployed in combat? Only the operational costs of forces being deployed to the theater should be in the supplemental request.

• Is the Pentagon asking for funds for the activities of special operations forces anywhere in the world, or just in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area? If used outside CENTCOM, these funds should be part of the regular budget debate.

Similarly, here are some benchmarks for the State and USAID budget requests:

• Are they asking for funding for humanitarian-assistance programs and food aid that are part of predictable State or USAID activity? Or are they asking only for humanitarian funds that are directed at emergencies that weren't known when the fiscal year 2009 budget was put together--a la Gaza? Only the latter belongs in the supplemental request.

• Are they asking for funds to support the budgets of other countries or the Palestinian Authority? If so, these funds should be part of the regular budget discussions at State. Research by Molly Lewis at the Stimson Center suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's commitment of $900 million in budget support to the Palestinians should be considered as part of State's base budget.

• Are they asking for embassy construction and security funds for Iraq? These are now predictable and should be part of the basic budget preparation. As the United States expands its presence in Afghanistan, there may be reason to seek emergency construction and security funds there, but only for the first year.

• Are they asking for additional counternarcotics funding for Mexico or current South American programs? If so, these funds belong in the base budget planning process, as they are anticipated requirements.

• Are they asking for additional security assistance for Pakistan? If so, these probably belong in the base budget discussion, as they may not be executable in fiscal year 2009.

• Are they asking for funds to expand State and USAID staff or to increase the size of the planned post-conflict reconstruction corps? If so, these are expected costs and need to be part of regular budget planning.

The point of such an analysis isn't to prevent either Defense or State from planning budgets that include some of these items. They may be important priorities. But all budgets are finite, and programs and activities that are part of the core activity of Defense, State, and USAID should be scrutinized as part of the regular budget planning process in these agencies. That is what long-term strategic and budgetary planning is all about--making choices and setting priorities, given realistic limits on resources. If families have to do this, so should federal departments.
From: “The War Supplemental is Coming Soon” (by Gordon Adams, The Huffington Post, 3/20/09)

Key findings from US Army report on Army Policy on Combat Fitness:

• Confusion exists over who makes the final decision to send a soldier with a health issue to war: a soldier's commander or a medical officer, and the Army has "no clear resolution process" to settle disagreements between a doctor and commander over a soldier's fitness.

• Many commanders and Army doctors are not aware of new Central Command guidelines that add medical conditions that would make a soldier unfit for combat. Last year, the command added vision and hearing loss as conditions to the list of problems that would stop a soldier's combat deployment.

• The Army has "no clear resolution process" to settle disagreements between a doctor and commander over a soldier's fitness, the report says. "This lack of clarity may result in confusion and conflict regarding a soldier's deployability determination."

• Electronic systems containing the medical records that allow commanders to track a soldier's readiness are "not always timely or accurate." Many soldiers are still required to hand-carry to their commanders medical documents explaining their physical limitations.

• Most commanders and the doctors who screen troops to deploy are not aware that a waiver from a war-zone medical commander is required if a soldier with a medical problem was going to Iraq or Afghanistan.

From: “Report targets Army policy on combat fitness” (USA Today, 3/24/09)

GUEST ARTICLES/OP-EdS
“Despite Economic Slump, Global Defense Spending Soars: Key Countries Modernize Militaries, Increase Expenditures” (by Travis Sharp, Common Dreams, 3/19/09)
“U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending” (by Travis Sharp, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, 2/26/09)
“The Worst Kind of Stimulus: Why a global weapons boom is the last thing we need” (by Travis Sharp, Foreign Policy, March, 2009)
“Signals from President Obama’s first budget” and “Obama’s Budget Signals Modest Correction to Our Highly Militarized Foreign Policy” (Suzanne Smith, Miriam Pemberton, National Priorities Project)
“A Unified Security Budget FY2009” (by Miriam Pemberton and Lawrence Korb, and Task Force for a Unified Security Budget, September 2008)
“The War Supplemental is Coming Soon” (by Gordon Adams, The Huffington Post, 3/20/09)
“Hold the Line on Defense Spending” (by Gordon Adams, The Huffington Post, 2/13/09)
“Groups unite to urge Congress to redirect federal spending to meet human needs and rebuild the economy. They believe the U.S. can trim excess “defense” spending and find new solutions that make the country safer and stronger.” (Women’s Action for New Directions organized this letter, other groups have signed on)
“Is the Next Defense Budget a Stimulus Package?” (by Frida Berrigan, The Nation / New America Foundation, 3/12/09)
“We Arm the World: The United States once again leads the world in exporting weapons” (by Frida Berrigan, In These Times, 1/2/09)
Democracy in Print: The Best of the Progressive Magazine, 1909-2009 (Edited by Matthew Rothschild, University of Wisconsin Press, Spring 2009)
NEWS, OP-EDS and Other Resources
“Gates against the complex” (Globe Editorial, Boston Globe, 3/23/09)
"Contractors Defend Their Programs as Pentagon Cuts Loom" (by Dana Hedgpeth, Washington Post, 3/24/09)
"China criticizes new US report on its military" (Associated Press, 3/25/09)
"Defense Stocks Aren't Safe" (Forbes, 3/26/09)
"Lawmakers, officials see cuts to U.S. missile defense" (Reuters, 3/23/09)
“Miltiary Recruitment 2008: Significant Gap in Army’s Quality and Quantity Goals” (National Priorities Project, 2/18/09)
“Defense Department details stimulus spending plan” (by Tim Kauffman, Federal Times, 3/24/09)
“Pentagon’s Unwanted Projects in Earmarks” (by Jeffrey Smith and Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, 3/7/09)