An Open Letter Summer 2010
ON
THE COST OF COMMITMENTS ABROAD
1. The United States has more than 662 overseas bases costing the United States 41 billion dollars a year (Ahn & Hong). In addition, it is running three contingency operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. These and other contingency operations cost an additional 118 billion per year according to the Department of Defense (DOD) 2012 Budget Proposal. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states that these commitments are made in in order to protect United States interests (iii). While U.S. interests are promoted by these commitments, there are three areas were these commitments may be damaging to the United States. First, cost of overseas commitment is competing with resources at home for military sustainment and advancement. Second, extreme spreading of military resources renders the nation vulnerable to calculated attack. Third, commitments abroad contribute to severe debt, which result in more expense for the military and possibly creates national and world instability.
2. The QDR states “as a global power, the strength and influence of the United States are deeply intertwined with the fate of the broader international system—a system of alliances, partnerships, and multinational institutions that our country has helped build and sustain for more than sixty years. The US military must therefore be prepared to support broad national goals of promoting stability in key regions, providing assistance to nations in need, and promoting the common good” (QDR iii). Actions taken in accordance with this vision have resulted in success. The US military has removed or defeated significant enemies worldwide including Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi. In addition, United States presence in Korea, Japan and Europe have contributed to stability in those regions for decades. There are however, unintended consequences.
3. In 2012 a full 23.4% of the entire 671 billion dollar military budget will be spent on maintaining bases outside the US or in overseas contingency operations (DOD 8). With projected military budget cuts of 350 billion in the next 12 years, this percentage will likely grow. In an era of aging air frames, aging ICBM structure, and new environments requiring changing expertise and technologies, there is a lot competing for limited military funds. The 2012 DOD budget only allocates 113 billion for procurement of equipment and 75 billion for research (DOD 2). Directing 23% of the military budget to operations outside the US effectively reduces the money available for procurement and research by about one half. This loss of attention has taken its toll as Navy and Air Force forces have shrunk, and the Army is using rundown, overworked vehicles and equipment (Youssef).
4. The thinning of our military resources renders the US more vulnerable to attack from two angles. First, military responsibilities in the US are left to be managed by fewer personnel because so many personnel are directed to overseas locations. This creates situations that encourage sloppy habits to ‘save time’. This type of environment promotes mistakes such as what occurred in 2007; nuclear weapons were misplaced and flown between bases without anyone knowing about it (The Defense Science Board Permanent Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety 5). Mistakes like this can be costly and dangerous, and are the result of straining a military force beyond its designed capabilities for long periods of time. Troops “wind up with older equipment…receiving less training” (Youssef). Second, should a calculated attack occur against the US, 350,000 of the 1.5 million US military personnel (and much of the US war making capability) would be deployed abroad (Thompson). The extra time it would take to bring these resources to an urgent area of conflict provides a significant advantage to would be enemies.
5. The high cost of the military, made so primarily by commitments abroad may no longer be sustainable without significant impact on the financial health of the United States. United States debt has increased by nearly 50% since September 2008, from 10 trillion to 14.6 trillion (US Treasury Department, USdebtclock.org). The total spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last ten years is 1.2 trillion (Daggett 2). As the national debt has increased at record rates in recent years the Federal Reserve has printed significantly more money in measures called “quantitative easing” (Censky). This has caused a parallel rise in fuel prices (a significant issue for the military) and a rise in the cost of replacing equipment in American dollars. One expert likened the change in purchasing power of the military to that of replacing a Lamborghini with a Volkswagen (Youseff). High inflation will not only mean more expense for the military to acquire goods and services in the world market, but may also decrease the standard of living in the US. The instability that comes with enormous debt problems, and significant rises in fuel and food prices, may contribute to national instability, similar to the unrest recently seen in the UK, Greece, Spain, Egypt, and Syria. Perhaps it is for these reasons that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, called the national debt the biggest threat to U.S. national security (Youseff).
6. While U.S. presence abroad has largely accomplished the overt military objectives for which it was originally employed, the sum of these commitments has created a burden which acts opposite to US interests. Military spending abroad significantly limits money available for procurement and advancement of weaponry, renders our military more vulnerable to aging equipment, enemy attack, and human error, and contributes heavily to the current national debt --our biggest threat to US national security. Military presence abroad has served US interests in the past; however, the nation is no longer in a position to support such a burden. Continuing presence abroad may ultimately damage US interests in the future, until the nation can once again afford the cost.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahn, Christine and Sukjong Hong. “Bring War Dollars Home by Closing Down Bases” Foreign Policy in Focus, March 31, 2011. http://www.fpif.org/articles/bring_war_dollars_home_by_closing_down_bases (accessed 12 August 2010).
Censky, Annalyn. “QE2: Fed Pull the Trigger.” CNN Money. (3 November 2010). http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/news/economy/fed_decision/index.htm (accessed 12 August 2011).
Daggett, Stephen. “Costs of Major U.S. Wars.” Congressional Research Service, (29 June 2010). http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf (accessed 12 August 2011).
Department of Defense (DOD). “DOD Releases Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal.” U.S. Department of Defense, (14 February 2011). http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14263 (accessed 12 August 2011).
Quadrennial Defense Review Report. February 2010.
The Defense Science Board Permanent Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety. “Report on the Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear Weapons.” Washington, DC: Department of Defense, February 2008 (Revised April 2008): Section 1 (pages 1-3) and Section II (pages 5-6).
US Treasury Department. “Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 – 2010”. Treasury Direct.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm (accessed 16 August 2011)
US Debt Clock.org. “US Debt Clock”, http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (accessed 16 August 2011).
Youseff, Nancy A. “True Cost of Afghan, Iraq Wars is Anyone’s Guess.” Miami Herald (16 August 2011). http://214.14.134.30/ebird2/ebfiles/e20110816836482.html (accessed 16 August 2011).
