As the Berlin Wall was torn down and the world celebrated the end of the Cold War in 1989, several military experts and U.S. generals suggested that the United States could slash its defense budget significantly and without jeopardizing the country security in any way. "I've been maintaining for some time now that our defense budget could safely and modestly be cut to one-half what it was in the later days of the Cold War," argued former CIA director William Colby in 1993. At the time, the military budget stood at $300 billion.1
Fourteen years later the Cold War is long over, but the U.S. military budget has doubled not halved. Colby's observation remains more timely than ever. Researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies and the National Priorities Project have examined the Pentagon's 2008 budget requests of over $650 billion and have identified cuts of over $213 billion that can be made with no sacrifice to our security. Indeed, this reduction of about one-third of our military spending would make the United States and the world safer and more secure.
Many of these cuts could begin immediately with the elimination of weapons systems that are redundant and economically inefficient. The United States could also save money by ending military and militarized assistance to other countries. We could significantly reduce other areas of the budget by ending the occupation of Iraq, closing many of the military bases abroad, and reducing the number of personnel afloat in non-U.S. waters.
In the transition from an overly militarized foreign policy to a Just Security foreign policy, a portion of the funds cut from the defense budget would be needed to help former military personnel move into the civilian labor force. Some of the demobilized personnel can help the United States shift from fossil fuel dependency to a new Green economy. Other savings can be applied to turning a different, less militarized face to the world by increasing foreign aid, expanding U.S. diplomatic efforts, and better securing the country from terrorism. Yet, all of these suggested new expenditures together are far less than the savings from the proposed cuts. Hence, a true Just Security budget could save valuable financial resources for the vital health, education, and infrastructure needs of the United States.
In this section, we outline the $213 billion in cuts from the current defense budget request of the Bush administration for 2008 fiscal year. More savings can be achieved in future years as further military bases abroad are closed, and the overall national security strategy shifts to more cooperative engagement. Then, we outline $50 billion in additional non-military spending, in such areas as development assistance, clean energy, and non-proliferation, as well as key underfunded homeland security protections.
Most of the savings in a "Just Security Budget" would come from three sources: the Iraq War, unnecessary overseas bases, and obsolete weapons systems. We offer a brief explanation of each of the proposed cuts below, a time line for that set of cuts, and why each would leave the United States more safe and secure.
Proposed Cuts
We recommend reducing the proposed military budget by one-third. With the following cuts of $213 billion, the United States would still retain the largest military in the world. The United States would still spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries, including the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and China. The remaining $442.3 billion military budget would primarily cover the pay and benefits of the one million-plus strong U.S. military, operating and maintenance costs of those troops and their U.S. home bases, and for tanks, planes, ships and other equipment that are critical to a strong military.
Iraq War ($99.1 billion)
This report argues that the war in Iraq is illegal, immoral, and counterproductive, making the United States and the world less secure. A fraction of this proposed $99.1 billion could be used to bring the U.S. troops and military contractors home. A larger amount would be needed as part of a "National Security Adjustment Act" to help those troops transition into civilian life. The model of this kind of transition is the post-World War II U.S. effort (through the GI Bill and other measures). As with U.S. troops currently stationed on U.S. bases overseas, the troops brought home from Iraq would need substantial resources to readjust and to retrain for the sorts of jobs we outline in the just climate portion of this report. That section highlights the proposals of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, environmental, civil rights and other groups that has outlined investments of tens of billions of dollars into creating a clean energy and energy-efficient infrastructure in the United States. Such investment would create millions of new jobs retrofitting U.S. buildings and building up the solar, wind and other clean energy infrastructure of the country. Many of those jobs could go to U.S. soldiers making the transition to the civilian work force.
According to a forthcoming study by the University of Massachusetts' Political Economy Research Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies, the net employment effects of shifting the entire Iraq War budget into investments in education, health care, poverty reduction, and a clean environment would be positive and large -- that is, after accounting for both the employment losses in military-related activities as well as the employment gains resulting from the new investments. According to preliminary results, this shift would produce a net increase of about 1.1 million jobs within the United States.
Overseas Bases and Personnel Stationed Afloat ($45.9 billion or a third of the estimated $137.7 billion the United States spends on these items):
University of California professor emeritus Chalmers Johnson has done a brilliant job of mapping the more than 1,000 overseas bases and facilities that the U.S. military has built up in Japan, Germany, and dozens of other countries since World War II.2 If you add to these bases the costs of maintaining tens of thousands of U.S. personnel on carrier fleets and other naval vessels, the United States spends annually to maintain its global military presence an amount roughly equivalent to what it is spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This network of bases was vastly expanded during the Cold War on the grounds that they were needed to protect other countries and the United States from our adversaries. Many challenged this justification then. But in the post-Cold War period, it has become increasingly difficult to justify this complex web of facilities, which many around the world associate with U.S. empire.
The majority of these bases are located in three countries: Germany (302), Japan (111) and South Korea (106). We would start here to begin the rollback of our overseas military presence. Others mentioned elsewhere in this report include the new Africa Command and bases in the Caspian Sea region whose rationale is tied to our fossil-fuel-dominated energy past rather than our clean energy future. In a forthcoming report we will examine more closely the question of how much overseas military presence is required for our security over the long-term.
For now we would propose beginning the process of reducing that global military presence by a third and working to slowly re-integrate demobilized military personnel into U.S. civilian life in the manner outlined above for troops serving in Iraq. Like our allies, who remain safe and secure without networks of bases around the world, the United States would continue to engage the world diplomatically, economically, and culturally. Troops currently stationed in the United States would continue to defend the country from attack. However, like other nations, the drawing down of overseas bases would simply mean that the United States would join overseas military operations through multilateral arrangements such as UN peacekeeping forces and NATO forces. Shutting down bases would remove a key target of anti-American sentiment overseas.
Unnecesary Weaponry ($43.9 billion)
After surveying all current and proposed U.S. weapons systems, the 2007 Task Force on "A Unified Security Budget" turned up 11 areas of unnecessary spending on weaponry that could be cut from the budget without decreasing U.S. security. These areas are detailed in the FY 2008 "Unified Security Budget" report, and we simply list them here (the 11 total $43.9 billion in savings):
- F/A-22 Raptor: Originally designed to counter a Soviet aircraft that was never built, this aircraft is obsolete. Savings: $3.8 billion.
- Ballistic Missile Defense: "A system that doesn't work for a threat that doesn't exist." Savings: $6.8 billion.
- Virginia-Class Submarine: Any conceivable mission for this new submarine can be handled by the existing fleet. Savings: $2.5 billion.
- DD(G-1000) Destroyer: Another cost-escalating program whose missions are well-covered by existing ships. Savings: $2.8 billion.
- V-22 Osprey: This hybrid plane-helicopter is being rushed into service in Iraq despite safety, technical and cost problems that have never been solved. Savings: $2.4 billion.
- C-130J transport plane: Has 168 documented deficiencies that could cause death, severe injury or illness. Savings: $1 billion.
- F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: This program can afford to be slowed down, since the U.S. already has overwhelming superiority in tactical aircraft. Savings: $3.1 billion
- Offensive Space Weapons: Risks fueling an arms race in space. Savings: $721 million.
- Future Combat System: 52 of its 53 critical technologies are unproven. Slow it down and get it right. Savings: $2.2 billion.
- R&D: In real terms the budget for developing futuristic weapons systems is $20 billion higher than at the height of the Reagan buildup. Savings: $5 billion.
- Nuclear Forces: The U.S. spends more on its nuclear arsenal in real terms than at the height of the Cold War. Savings: $14.7 billion.
U.S. Military Aid ($10.8 billion)
Military assistance to other countries all too frequently enables human rights abusers, fuels conflicts, and strengthens the military of countries at the expense of civil society. There is also a significant risk of U.S.-provided arms and training being used against U.S. interests, as in the cases of Iraq and Iran. Roughly $1.2 billion of this amount goes toward the so-called "drug war" in Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Roughly 70% of this amount goes toward a military approach that has only made matters worse. U.S. military aid to these nations has increased killings and violence and has not decreased the drug trade. We are proposing that the United States eliminate the military portion on this aid and work closely with non-governmental organizations to increase the usefulness and effectiveness of the non-military portion.
Waste in Procurement and Business Operations ($7 billion)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld estimated that more than $20 billion a year could be saved by fixing procurement and business operations. The Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office estimate that consolidating various activities could save $1 billion a year. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) estimates that there are several billion dollars worth of earmarks (pork) in the annual defense budget. In the FY 2007 budget alone, there were 2,822 earmarks totaling $15 billion, up from $11.2 billion the year before.
Force Structure ($5 billion)
At present, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have more than 5,000 tactical combat planes and 1,800 armed helicopters. It is hard to imagine a scenario that would require such large numbers of aircraft. Therefore, two active Air Force wings and one carrier battle group and its associated air wing can be eliminated without overloading our forces.
Shift to Non-Military Spending
Currently, the United States spends roughly nine times more on military approaches to security as on non-military approaches. Not only does this go against the wishes of the American people—65% of Americans think the country has been "too quick to get American military forces involved" in conflicts—it has made the world and this country less safe and secure.3
The task force on the "Unified Security Budget" examined a wide range of non-military approaches to security, and identified $49.7 billion in additional expenditures that could make the country and world more secure. Most of these expenditures ($34.7 billion) are "preventive" measures, such as investments in clean energy, aid, and non-proliferation expenses. Another $15.0 billion is applied to new homeland security expenses, such as improving port security.
Again, each of these items is detailed in the "Unified Security Budget." Here we offer a brief rationale for each category of proposed expenditures.
Preventive Measures
Development Assistance: $15 billion: As is explained in the "Just Livelihoods" section of this report, the United States would be well served by increased overseas aid to poor countries, particularly in helping to build a public health infrastructure across the developing world.
Clean Energy: $8.8 billion: Above, we made the argument for an "Apollo Alliance" type major investment in clean energy in the United States. If the federal government were to pay a third of the $30 billion a year infrastructure investment proposed by the Apollo Alliance, it would need an additional $8.8 billion beyond Bush's proposed $1.2 billion for such efforts.
Nonproliferation: The current administration has short-changed the array of proven non-military nonproliferation programs that secure and dismantle stockpiles of nuclear material around the world. A $5 billion investment would address the shortfalls from previous years, expand these programs and accelerate their pace.
Diplomacy: Our diplomatic mission requires an immediate increase of $2 billion over current spending to address critical shortfalls in staffing and to upgrade antiquated information and communications systems.
U.S. Contributions to International Organizations: Turning a different face to the world requires doubling the anemic $1.2 billion currently devoted in total to supporting such international organizations as the UN, the International Atomic Energy Commission, and the World Health Organization.
U.S. Contributions to International Peacekeeping Operations: This budget needs an increase of $1.3 billion to make up past shortfalls and prepare for new missions that have been identified as necessary in the year ahead.
Other: Urgently needed international capacities for post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization include a UN Peacebuilding organization and a UN Civilian Police Corps. The State Department's Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization must also be given dedicated funding.
Homeland Security Measures
Public Health: Since September 11, no real progress has been made toward eliminating the $10 billion gap estimated as necessary to bring the U.S. public health system up to an acceptable level of preparedness.4
Department of Homeland Security First Responder Grants: Like the expenditures on public health, funding for improving first responders' capacity to deal with terrorist attacks enhances readiness for other hazards and emergencies too.
Rail and Transit Security: Upgrading security procedures and capacities in this domain has been shortchanged in favor of spending on airline security.
Baggage and Cargo Screening: The successor organization to the 9-11 Commission has given a "D" grade to U.S. efforts to date on improving baggage and cargo screening; inadequate funding remains the main
impediment.
Overall, the transition from the current overly militarized U.S. security budget to a Just Security budget will take several years. In addition to the $50 billion in proposed non-military measures outlined above, the U.S. government would need to spend part of the hundreds of billions of dollars saved in the proposed cuts on facilitating a just and orderly transition of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel into civilian life. If done in accordance with the real security needs of the United States, including the climate, poverty, nuclear, terrorism, and other measures outlined in the rest of this report, this transition can be just both for the individuals and families involved and for the nation as a whole.
Endnotes
- William Colby, Interview by America's Defense Monitor, "President Clinton's Military Establishment," Recording, November 7, 1993. Available at: http://www.cdi.org/adm/708.
- Johnson cites the official figure of 737 U.S. bases and facilities as of 2005, but notes that this number excludes 109 garrisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as facilities in Kosovo, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, which brings the number over 1,000. "But no one—possibly not even the Pentagon—knows the exact number for sure," Johnson cautions. Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis (New York: Metropolitan, 2007), pp. 138, 140.
- Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, "What Kind of Public Policy Does the American Public Want?" October 20, 2006. Available at: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct06/SecurityFP_Oct06_rpt.pdf.
- "Public Health: Costs of Complacency," Governing, February 2004; Available at: http://www.governing.com/gpp/2004/public.htm. We recommend adding $5 billion for public health infrastructure in the next year alone.
