Christopher A. Griffith 291000EST NOV 2011 English 101 Freeman Is U.S. Military Spending Crippling the Economy?

Such a question deserves more than a yes or no answer. In fact, the question requires much more than two or three letters to form a sufficient response. It requires careful deliberation, in-depth research, and a basic understanding of the way the United States wages war. It is important to recognize that war is naturally expensive by measure of money, natural resources, and especially life. The United States is not unacquainted with the flavor of blood and iron or the stench of burnt powder, but things have changed. Throughout the nations past, the military has been utilized only out of necessity to protect the nation and her interests, but in recent years, Americas forces have become known as world police, a term that describes the deployment of forces to nations where the U.S. may have no direct interests to merit military occupation. These excessive deployments paired with other costly actions result in a drastic increase in deficit spending. Despite the harmful effects that massive military spending has on the economy, it does provide several benefits. In addition to providing for the common defense, military spending funds projects that develop new technologies, and provides millions of Americans with work. A key to positive military spending is balance; when deployments are kept to a minimum, and limits are established for research and development budgets while constructive efforts are made in the states, the military can serve a positive end and utilize financial resources responsibly.

Griffith 2 The negative aspects of military spending seem to be the most obvious: numbers that get highlighted in budget reports but seem out of proportion. A few examples can help explain why the public responds negatively to released details: They [the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute] estimated that in 2006 world military expenditure totaled $1204 billion, of which 46 per cent was by the U.S., which is a relatively secure society, and less than 1 per cent was by sub-Saharan Africa, which is very insecure (Smith 89). Smith brings an important point to bear: the U.S. is a nation that condemns imperial nations by use of imperial practices, and these practices require a large, strong military force. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Defense base budget has only increased in the past ten years. President Obama has proposed a federal budget of over $7 trillion for 2012, and nineteen percent of 2012s proposed budget has been assigned to national defense (over $1 trillion) (Executive Office of Management and Budget, The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012). Most nations entire government budgets are far from $1 trillion. These distinctions in the growth of the American military machine and the nations actual needs tend to fuel negative feedback. Many citizens will respond to these figures with criticism despite lacking an understanding of the details provided. While the division of monetary resources itself is not the source of Americas economic problems, it is a window by which a citizen may observe the virtually limitless national deficit. It is important to understand that, outrageous though the budget may seem, military spending as an idea is not bad!

Griffith 3

Positive aspects of military spending are less obvious than their nefarious counterparts. On a larger scale, positive expenses tend to be theoretical figures like economic militarism, and on a smaller scale like purchasing equipment, the product of spending is actually tangible to the end user. When a government spends enough money employing personnel and procuring equipment that it actually supports the economy, a theory known as economic militarism manifests itself. Economic militarism, while not the perfect economic model is relatively beneficial to the nations economy, and its greatest benefits are felt by the soldiers on the ground. A simple progression of money through the economic militarism figure: taxpayers pay federal taxes; the federal government grants a budget for the Department of Defense and other departments that contribute to the national defense; the Department of Defense budgets a portion of their funds for necessary equipment; the companies that manufacture the equipment pay their employees (doubtlessly with returns from federal contracts); the goes on ad nauseam. It is impossible to quantify how many Americans are impacted by Department of Defense contracts , but the system continues to breed new technologies and jobs. While the U.S. may spend more money on equipment than any other country, American soldiers are also the best equipped on

Griffith 4 Earth. It costs $1 million to support one American soldier for one year in Afghanistan; this includes movement, food, equipment, etcetera (Kelly, Calculating the Cost of the War in Afghanistan). A larger piece of equipment used throughout the U.S. Army is the UH-60 Black Hawk, an all-purpose helicopter capable of hauling troops or supplies or being outfitted as a medical evacuation vehicle or gunship (perhaps the reader is familiar with the film Black Hawk Down). The U.S. Army is planning on the purchase of seventy-five of these helicopters for the year 2012 at the sum of $1.6 billion (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System). The equipment carried and used by U.S. soldiers is pioneered and developed with Department of Defense funds, and critical systems, like weapons and armor, are constantly being improved. So, while soldiers receive the best production equipment available, many thousands of jobs continue to support the economy, and new technologies continue to be developed. In conclusion, while military expenditures are steeper than most individuals can imagine, these expenditures grant U.S. war fighters capabilities that most countries cannot fathom. Yes, the national debt should be restricting further deficit spending. Yes, military expenditures are ridiculously high. However, through the concept of economic militarism, the national defense budget helps support the American economy. In addition to the economic support, military spending also drives the market for development of new technologies. So military spending is not always a bad thing; it is a delicate balance.

Works Cited Executive Office of Management and Budget. The Presidents Budget for Fiscal Year 2012, 2011. Web. 1 December 2011.

Griffith 5 Kelly, Mary L. Calculating the Cost of the War in Afghanistan. National Public Radio. 29 October. 2009. Web. 1 December 2011. United States. Department of Defense. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System. February 2011. 1 December 2011. Smith, Ron. Military Economics: The Interaction of Power and Money. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.