Yes, that is how it is actually done and rightly so. It isn’t how your OP is proposing it should be done. It doesn’t take the blindest bit of account for military planning or budgeting. It isn’t saying “We should spend more because the military is asking for more”, it’s saying “We should spend more because these other countries are spending more”.
That may well be his opinion but it isn’t what this article said. Even as a challenge to the argument that military spending is high enough/too high, it only serves to create the false image that it’s any kind of relevant factor. The challenge to that argument should simply be “Too much for what?” and move in to that valid questions of what we want and expect the military to do.
We need to spend more on defense, not less.
Believe we’re spending too much on defense? Think again.
Any advantage the United States military may have enjoyed in size is shrinking.
Whenever I or someone else suggest that we need higher defense spending, there is an incredulous response from critics: U.S. military spending equals the outlays of the next eight countries combined . How can we possibly be spending too little when we spend so much more than any conceivable adversary? The answer is that, while technically accurate, this argument is so distorted that it becomes a fiction.
Global comparisons of military spending mislead for several reasons. One is secrecy. “What they report is not what they spend,” says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A second reason is that, since World War II, the United States has assumed strategic responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Neither China nor Russia has yet embraced similarly sweeping goals.
This boosts our spending and restrains theirs, says Harrison. Hence, we have 10 full-size aircraft carriers to project our power abroad; no other country comes close. Moving all those troops, tanks, ships and planes around the globe is expensive. In fiscal 2017, the U.S military consumed 98 million barrels of oil, costing $8.8 billion.
But there’s another reason Chinese and Russian spending is understated. Put simply, their soldiers and sailors cost less; ours cost more. We are a rich country with a volunteer military. Given the personal sacrifices that service members make, their wages and fringe benefits must be competitive to attract the needed recruits. China and Russia have lower costs and can buy more for less.
“Due to differences in purchasing power across economies . . . two countries could hypothetically field the same size and quality force at dramatically different spending levels,” said a 2017 report from the Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. . . .
Defense no longer dominates the federal budget, as it once did. That distinction has fallen to health and retirement benefits. During the Cold War — from 1950 to 1990 — military outlays averaged 40 percent of federal spending and 7.4 percent of the economy’s output (gross domestic product). Now those figures are 15 percent and 3.13 percent, respectively, according to a recent CSIS report co- written by Harrison and Seamus P. Daniels.
It’s also true, as we’ve learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, that military power has its limits. We can’t spend our way to victory; but we can probably skimp our way to defeat.
