Looking at publicly reported numbers for military spending across the world does not paint an accurate picture for political pundits…
Donald Trump’s speech, budget, and proposals remain in the news. Despite a small reprieve that lasted about 24 hours, Democrats have largely returned to their normal partisan talking points. Donald Trump addressed congress on Tuesday, and sought $53 billion per year in additional military funding while decreasing non-defense discretionary spending by the same amount. To pay for it, he says that “lower priority programs and most federal agencies” will see drastic cuts, and duplicate programs will be consolidated.
Most conservatives like these new priorities. They see a strong military as vital to deterring possible threats and securing American interests abroad. The sequester had a dangerous effects on readiness. One carrier group deployed to the Middle East fought ISIS with spare parts they cannibalized from other ships and planes. The Air Force reported a shortage of pilots and needing to scrounge for spare parts in junkyards. The added money to the budget should help repair the damage done by past cuts. However, many liberals don’t like that idea and think it’s unnecessary. Fareed Zakaria, for example believes the budget of the military is not the problem. In addition to calling for more Foreign Service officers he said that “the U.S. military remains in a league of its own. The U.S. defense budget in 2015 was nine times the size of Russia’s and three times that of China’s.” Even Libertarians like John Stossel are attacking the budget by citing America’s exorbitant military spending.
This is an interesting argument to make, but it’s also completely misleading. Both the reported level of spending, and the threats those countries represent are misreported. The Rand Corporation, for example, suggests that China’s numbers are typically much higher than they report; similarly, sinologist June Teufel Dryer estimates that Chinese spending is much higher based on several factors. She points to complaints of province leaders feeding and housing soldiers to argue that the Chinese don’t report many of their personnel costs, such as housing and food. In addition to that, the Chinese do not include the cost of their nuclear weapons program, which is rather large, nor the cost of their weapons acquisition programs. The low range of the reconfigured Chinese budget is 30-40% higher than what is reported. The high range would place their budget as much as ten times higher. The median derived by most analysts suggests a military budget three to four times their disclosed amount. This revised amount would put Chinese military spending at roughly the same amount as America, not one third as Zakaria suggests.
Moreover, the threats that America faces is not a simple math problem. Russian backed rebels have seized coal mines and continue to threaten Ukrainian sovereignty. Sweden is so concerned over Russian aggression and seizure of the Crimea that they reinstituted the draft. And China continues to illegally seize and build islands in the South China Sea. It is duplicitous to waive away aggressive behavior because their military budgets are relatively smaller. America has a legitimate need for a stronger military that is not accurately described by simple comparisons between budgets.
Morgan Deane is an OpsLens Contributor and a former U.S. Marine Corps infantry rifleman. Deane also served in the National Guard as an Intelligence Analyst.
