In his Aug. 5 op-ed, “Cut defense — but don’t gut it,” written in response to Fareed Zakaria’s Aug. 4 op-ed column supporting defense cuts, Michael O’Hanlon contended that reducing military spending by close to a trillion dollars over the next decade is not doable.
However, the military-industrial complex is, in fact, out of control — and such cuts are possible. In real terms, total defense spending is higher than at any time since World War II, including the peak years of the Korean and Vietnam wars and the Reagan defense buildup. Even if the defense budget were reduced by the entire $1 trillion, or about $100 billion a year over the next decade, it would amount to a reduction of about 15 percent. This would, in real terms, allow the Pentagon to spend at its 2007 level for the next decade. Our equipment is aging not because of a lack of funds but because of poor management of this gusher of defense spending. Over the past decade, the Pentagon has spent about $50 billion on weapons it had to cancel, and cost overruns on major weapons programs have neared $300 billion.
While Mr. O’Hanlon is not concerned that the United States spends a lot more on defense than other nations, I am. Over the past decade, as the U.S. share of the world’s military expenditures has increased from one-third to almost 50 percent, the U.S. share of the global economy has dropped to about 23 percent, and a projected budget surplus has morphed into a massive deficit.
The writer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985.
●
No comments:
Post a Comment