The President wants to add $54 billion to the DOD budget next year, and expand the Navy to 350 ships; and expand the Army, Air Force and Marines.
Several retired admirals and generals opined that it won’t really work, and that once Washington DC reality sets in, there’ll be universal recognition of that “fact” and this talk will end.
Concerning “sage” commentary from the retired 4-stars; there are 3 assumptions that form the foundation of their commentary:
1) There’ll be no real economic growth. Real growth – the economy producing more, hence, there’s more to tax and there’s more real revenue – is needed for increased spending. The US averaged just under 4% real growth for 230 years; the last 8 years more like 2%.
Is 2% all the US is capable of?
2) There’s no improving the efficiency or effectiveness of the federal government. Efforts to eliminate waste or redundancy will produce no meaningful savings.
But: a 10% cut in the non-uniformed federal workforce would mean 200,000 fewer government workers; that’s $22 billion per year.
3) There will be no substantive change in federal budget priorities. National security currently consumes 4.5% of the gross national product and 22% of federal spending.
The “Sages” believe Congress will not act, and the people will not tolerate, an increase in those numbers.
Frankly, my bet is on the American worker, and on President Trump providing the necessary stimulus and incentives to American enterprise; there’ll be real growth, we can find real efficiencies in the bureaucracies, and the citizenry recognize the need to changing our priorities.
Some critics chided the President, noting that the US already spends more on defense than the next half dozen countries combined.
But US defense spending reflects living in the US.
Our military personnel are paid well (and should be); substantially more than soldiers in China or Russia. DOD pay and benefits account for more than 40% of the budget (up to 50% in some years). That’s what you’d expect in an all-volunteer military in the world’s wealthiest country. Elsewhere? A colonel in the Chinese Army is paid about 15% of his US counterpart.
The US pays more for weapons because that’s the nature of our economy; an aircraft made in the US means paying US wages, not Russian wages. And the US still makes the best aircraft in the world.
The US defends its interests around the world. Broad generalizations comparing US spending with that of other nations are misleading. US interests include defending others, such as South Korea, necessitating having forces available to conduct combat operations in Korea. Some forces are stationed in Korea permanently, other forces need to get there, and be sustained while they are in Korea. And more forces are needed to continue protecting US interests elsewhere while forces are in Korea. A potential enemy, such as North Korea, doesn’t need to move its forces anywhere, or save forces for another potential crisis.
This “tyranny of geography” necessitates that the US have an Army – Air Force – Navy that is larger and more capable than one tasked simply to “defend the US.”
That said, expanding the military isn’t easy.
The Army has 32 Brigade Combat Team (BCTs, the basic combat element) in the regular force, 28 in the National Guard. (Marines have 11 Regimental Combat Teams – roughly equivalent, plus 3 reserve RCTs). A BCT, about 4,500 soldiers, can operate as a complete, integrated, unit; very capable, very flexible, but very complex.
At any moment half the Army is not in a BCT, but in a training command, a support command, on a staff, etc. Expanding the Army means adding a BCT plus the support personnel necessary to train, equip and sustain it. So, to add 1 BCT means adding perhaps 10,000 soldiers, plus gear, plus training, etc.
Adding ships and airplanes is similar: more personnel, more support, etc., “more tail with more tooth;” you can’t simply “buy another airplane.”
Which leads where?
To some wisdom: deterring a war is far cheaper than fighting one. The goal isn’t to defeat anyone in battle; the goal is to never need to fight that battle in the first place. Ronald Reagan once observed that no one was ever attacked for being too strong. President Trump is right to want an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines strong enough to fight and win any war.
And a nuclear arsenal to match.
In an increasingly dangerous world, such a force is the surest guarantee we won’t need to fight a major war. That would makes this endeavor very inexpensive…
Copyright 2017 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com