Congress and the White House allocate 522 billion dollars a year for the Defense Budget (defense link). This is almost half of the world’s military budget. The United States outspends China by eight times as much. If you ran the Department of Defense, what sort of things would you like to see changed? Our group decided that the scarcity of our troops and the war in Iraq, combined with how each military branch spends their budgets are two main problems that this nation is facing.
The United States military is one of the most influential forces in the world. Not only is the us military responsible for the protection of its homeland, but American forces are often called upon to provide peacekeeping and stability in crumbling nations or to provide humanitarian relief to countries that are in need. As a result, we have soldiers stationed all across the world, leaving our own country vulnerable. The United States spent almost 200 billion dollars on the Iraq war in the last year. The Untied States military budget in 2008 was close to 650 billion dollars and still more money was needed.
The United States has been dubbed the “World Police” by other nations. We are the one nation that others come to when they are in need of help. We try to help in any way possible but when we do; our homeland is left open to terrorist attacks. The United States was rocked to the core on September 11, 2001, when two hijacked airplanes crashed the World Trade Center towers in New York City, and a third airplane crashed into the Pentagon. These terrorist attacks set the stage for the Iraq war. After the events of September 11th, President Bush stated that the “U.S. will hunt down and punish terrorists” (Gilmore).
In 2003, President Bush sent 300,000 soldiers to Iraq to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. In seven years since, we have only reduced the number of soldiers to 142,000. We have many soldiers stationed in 80 different countries across the world. The risk for another attack on American soil is heightened due to so many soldiers deployed overseas. If America was attacked again, would we have enough soldiers here at home to defend ourselves?
One solution to this problem is to bring the soldiers home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraqi government would like the US out of Iraq by the summer of 2010, but there are a few things that must happen in order to do so.
The first step is to control the insurgent fighting. Sending troops home too fast could give the wrong impression to the insurgents. They might see our departure as a reason to rebel against what we had just established. It would be impossible to enter a country, disrupt the government, and then just leave the pieces on the floor. If the insurgent fighting continues and the Iraqi military cannot handle the opposition, they would ask for our help. We would now have to send more troops back to re-establish order. We also need to make sure that the government is strong enough to lead the country. The Iraqi Government needs to lead the country and keep peace within the nation. The United States will probably have to keep a presence in Iraq for a while, so they can be used as a crutch for the government to lean on if help is needed. President Obama has suggested that we leave 50,000 soldiers in Iraq. Will this be enough soldiers or will the government have to send more troops back? It would be up to the next administration to decide the answer to that question.
Another problem that the Department of Defense is facing is an overly stretched budget. The Department of Defense military budget pays the salaries, training, and healthcare of all uniformed and civilian personnel. The military budget maintains arms, maintains equipment and facilities, and develops and buys equipment. It also funds all branches of the military. If you add in all of the extra-budgetary supplements; the United States government spends about 1 trillion annually on defense related purposes (defense link).
One of the challenges facing the new administration is how to fund each branch of the military. Asking the government for more money is not an option, especially in today’s economy. Congress must look at how each branch spends their funds and what it is spent on. There is no doubt that the military should do what they can to stay current with their equipment, but at what cost? Many of the trucks, tanks, aircraft, and ships are outdated. Much of the spending today is on experimental projects that are costing much more than expected. While they are extremely high tech, the cost of these projects out ways the need. The military has to start looking at less expensive equipment. They need to be able to keep cost down, while increasing the size of their fleets.
Recently, Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed that the military cut out “big ticket items” that are costing too much. “Gates emphasized that the proposed $534 billion defense budget for 2010 was a fundamental overhaul intended to reshape the nation’s military priorities rather than simple tinkering to fit existing programs into a budget[s] top line”(Wood). For example, Gates proposes the stop in production of the F-22 Raptor used by the air force. The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation stealth fighter that can reach supersonic and subsonic speeds and has a highly advanced radar system. It was originally built to be superior to Soviet fighter jets. Those jets however, were never built. Each of these fighters costs about 140 million. By not producing them, it would save 12 billion dollars in the next five years. Instead he plans on developing the F-35 fighter which is less expensive but equally as advanced.
Similar cuts should be proposed to the U.S. Marines. If they would stop producing the V-22 Osprey, which has had safety and mechanical problems, they could add 27,000 marines and develop the CH-53X helicopter for the same cost. The U.S. Navy needs to realize that the wars being fought today are on the ground and in the air. We no longer have a need to design more combat ships or submarine vessels. When Secretary Gates encountered criticism for his proposal of cutting what some people would deem necessary equipment, he said “ every defense dollar spent to over insure against a remote or diminishing risk...is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, [and] win the wars we are in”(Wood). All of these are great ideas and should be taken into consideration. Each branch needs to scale back their spending to fit the parameters of their budgets.
Another solution that we have decided upon is to re-organize the United States military spending. We should be getting rid of unnecessary spending such as: trying to find weapons of mass destruction, missile defense systems that aren’t validated, and ending the war in Iraq. Just last year, the military spent $180 billion dollars on the Iraq war alone. We sent our troops to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction; which Iraq did not have. After this information was found out, it should have been clear to remove our troops. There are other places like Afghanistan that need our help and attention at this time. By reducing the number of troops in Iraq, the amount of money spent to keep them there can be used toward expanding our home defenses. Instead of being on the offense, we should focus on the defense of our country. The money could be reallocated to be used for health benefits, education, etc.
Congressman Barney Frank says, “… we can make very substantial cuts in the military budget without in any way diminishing the security we need… [ the American] well-being is far more endangered by a proposal for substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security, or other important domestic areas, than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have no justification from any threat we are likely to face”(Truth and Politics). President Obama has some great ideas for reducing our military spending. He proposes to scale back the amount of troops in Iraq, which will save us at least $10 billion a month. At first there were some people who believed we should be in Iraq. Recent surveys of American citizens concluded that they do not support the reasons for being in Iraq. President Obama’s big idea is to have a world without nuclear weapons. The idea is perfect but, putting it in action will require a lot of debating and action. There will be those who try to hide the fact that they have nuclear weapons and are skeptical that everyone else got rid of them. President Obama has agreed to not develop any new nuclear weapons; so maybe this will give other countries the satisfaction that the United States isn’t trying to trick other countries.
There is no question that United States citizens are frustrated of having the soldiers gone for so long. Many of the soldiers that come home are home for less than a year, before they are redeployed to Iraq. They provide relief to the soldiers that are there now. It is taxing on many of the soldiers to be gone for so long. The soldiers are reluctant to reenlist or stay in the military, thus keeping the enlistment numbers low. Situations like these would keep new recruits from enlisting in the military. The United States has one of the most dominate militaries in the world. If the United States wants to continue to be a dominate nation, then changes need to be made to keep enlistments levels up. Budget cuts and new proposals will also have to be made because the economy will not allow for an increase in the defense budget. President Obama has some hard choices to make in the future. The next four years are crucial to regaining the American support for the military and controlling budget spending.

References:
Gilmore, Gerry. American Forces Press Services.
Wood, David. “Gates aims for military overhaul.” Baltimore Sun 7 Apr. 2009. 7 Apr. 2009www.baltimoresun.com.
United States. Foreign Policy Association. Great Decisions. 2008 ed. Hanover: Dartmouth Printing Company, 2008.

www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44914 www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44910 www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44884
www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44859