US military spending soars, security
suffers By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - More than one-fifth of the proposed
2005 United States military budget could be cut and the
money spent on projects that would better protect the
nation's security, according to a task force report
released Monday. Overall, the steep increases in US
defense budgets under President George W Bush have
largely failed to strengthen US security since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, adds the study,
written by nine national-security experts.
The
report charges that some of the most expensive items in
the budget have little or nothing to do with the threats
the US confronts in the world today, and calls for a
much more integrated approach to determining defense
priorities that would include non-military - such as
economic assistance and peacekeeping - as well as
strictly military programs.
The report, "A
Unified Security Budget for the United States",
concludes that some US$51 billion of the proposed $230
billion 2005 budget could be saved by reallocating
funding within military accounts, while the savings
could be used on non-military initiatives that could
substantially boost overall security.
"Cutting
the Comanche [helicopter] program was a good start,"
said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for
Defense Information (CDI), citing one weapon the
administration has already said it will cut.
"But our report identifies 10 other programs,
including the F-22 fighter and DDX destroyer, that could
be safely cut or reconfigured to free up resources for
other neglected security priorities, such as diplomatic
operations, weapons of mass destruction [WMD]
non-proliferation and port container inspection," he
said.
The 23-page report, co-sponsored by CDI,
Project for Defense Alternatives (PDA), the Center for
Arms Control and Proliferation (CACP), and Foreign
Policy in Focus (FPIF), among others, comes amid growing
public concern over build up of unprecedented fiscal
deficits and the impact on them of the rapidly rising
defense budget. From 2000 to 2004, the Pentagon's
budget ballooned by more than 50 percent, bringing it to
a level comparable to that of the world's next 25
biggest military spenders combined, according to the
CACP. Moreover, its current proposal for 2005 does not
include expenditures for military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, where the Pentagon is spending nearly $70
billion this year alone.
With Federal Reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan warning recently that future
social security benefits might have to be cut, many
lawmakers, including Republicans, are insisting that no
program should be immune from reductions.
In
mid-February, House of Representatives speaker Dennis
Hastert declared all parts of the budget "on the table"
for cuts, including the military, a statement that
apparently contributed to the Pentagon's decision to
abruptly cancel the army's long-running Comanche
helicopter program.
In that light, the task
force, which also included defense experts at Citizens
for Global Solutions, the Center for American Progress,
the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called for a
major reassessment of other expensive weapons systems,
whose usefulness in the "war on terrorism" and other
likely security challenges is highly questionable.
The nature of today's threats, says the report,
should, among other things, permit the Pentagon to
reduce the pace of investment in the next generation of
conventional weapons, such as fighters, helicopters,
ships, submarines and tanks, where Washington already
enjoys a substantial technological edge over any
conceivable adversary. Most of these weapons were
designed for war against the Soviet Union.
In
addition, the report calls for stopping deployment of
the national missile defense (NMD) system until the
technology is proven. "So far, despite spending $75
billion, we have not found any that works, and we cannot
plan our security around doing so," it says, noting that
NMD is the single biggest item in the 2005 defense
budget.
The report also calls for reducing the
US strategic nuclear arsenal, closing unnecessary
military bases, and overhauling the Pentagon's financial
management operations. If these steps are taken, as much
as $56 billion could be saved in 2005 alone, according
to the report.
Some of those savings should be
used for other military priorities, like buying improved
flak jackets and body armor for US troops in hostile or
combat environments, or realigning US forces to better
prepare them for likely missions, like
counter-terrorism, peacekeeping and stability and
reconstruction operations, which are particularly
relevant to US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
report suggests that such efforts could cost around $5
billion annually.
But the administration and
Congress also need urgently to adopt a more
comprehensive approach to security and fighting
terrorism, the report adds. "Despite the
administration's promises of a comprehensive approach to
fighting terrorism, its budget concentrates seven times
as many resources on the military as on all non-military
security tools combined, including homeland security,"
according to Miriam Pemberton, FPIF's peace and security
editor.
In particular, the report calls for
reallocating some $6 billion to strengthen key
non-military programs, including diplomacy,
international communication and non-proliferation
projects, such as the Nunn-Lugar initiative to help fund
disarmament in Russia and to find alternative employment
for its weapons and nuclear scientists.
In
addition, the administration and Congress should
consider sharply increasing development assistance for
poor nations by as much as $10 billion a year in order
to address much of the hopelessness and despair that can
breed terrorism over time, particularly in so-called
"failed states".
The report notes that Bush
spoke eloquently on the link between development
assistance and security at an international conference
in Mexico in 2002, but has subsequently failed to push
Congress into appropriating the funds.
Finally,
the report calls for increases in homeland security
funding similar to those recommended by a 2003 Council
on Foreign Relations Task Force. More money for
emergency first-responders, including local police and
fire departments and port security, should both be
treated urgently, it suggests.
"Currently we are
wasting large sums on the wrong forces for the wrong
occasions," the report concluded. "It is a mistake to
believe that increasing the Pentagon budget alone will
guarantee our safety."
