US Military Budget

The US is the most powerful nation in the world, and its military budget is clear evidence. We’re going to see here why.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about the US military budget. It’s well known the vast amount of resources the Department of Defense gathers. Indeed, we know its budget is as large as the whole economy of Turkey, with over 700 billion dollars. The US is the nation with the largest spending in defense. Its expenditures in defense are more than the rest countries together. That is nothing new because from time to time, someone on the news, or elsewhere, reminds us of this reality. However, a different matter is to discuss why this situation has been possible. Why does the Pentagon have that budget?

On this occasion, I want to analyze those circumstances that led to the US to invest most of its resources in military matters. It will provide the answer to another question, why the US has ratcheted up its budget year by year. I believe this is important to understand many things about the current world affairs, and why the US is today a superpower. That’s going to be the approach of this discussion.

The development of the US military

Historically, the American people have been unfamiliar with the existence of a standing army. However, things changed after the secession war when the Union formed the first standing army, strong enough to wage war thanks to its expanded capacities. Indian wars are evidence of this. That combined with changes in the US foreign policy at the end of the nineteenth century. At that time, the country involved in the colonialist race of great powers and seized several territories, such as the Philippines, as their colonies. Anyways, until the twentieth century, the US had great economic power, but its military capabilities weren’t impressive. So, the military spending was small, and it grew in critical moments, such as wars.

The Great War was a shift because it involved the formation of a larger army and the increase of economic production. Yet, the experience was short, and the US didn’t engage in world politics after this conflict. In any case, the economic development of the country went on. Despite the renewed reputation of the military, its size and budget still were small compared with other western countries. The Great Depression boosted changes in political and economic terms that created a favorable context for the following rise of the US as a great power on the world political stage. I refer to the Keynesian policies adopted with the New Deal that involved the strengthening of the federal government in organizational, political, and financial terms. These changes showed to be necessary during the war for the mobilization of the whole economy and society. In some way, we can say it was the implementation of a war capitalism program. After all, the international situation got worse during the 1930s, and many people knew a new conflict was more likely.

The tipping point for the expansion of the US military budget was WWII. This event was decisive because it caused the transformation of the whole nation at all levels. I refer not only to the economy but the political organization in the federal government. The impact of the changes war originated was critical, and they reflected on the expansion of military spending.

The uneasy international environment in the 1930s precipitated changes. In this regard, we see how international politics has a critical role in the shift of internal conditions and how these changes have an impact on the global stage. I spoke about this topic on another occasion, so I encourage taking a look at that video.

The role of WWII

The consequence of WWII was profound, and that’s something we have to address in more detail.

The war needs played a critical role in the formation of the military-industrial complex we all know. There was a strong reason insofar as the national security was at risk. To meet the challenges other powers posed in the international sphere, it was necessary to reorient and reorganize the whole economy to wage war. That included the expansion of the federal government with the massive draft of men. By 1945 the US military had around 14 million soldiers, and the spending in the defense had skyrocketed. Adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, the war cost over $4 trillion, and in 1945 defense spending comprised about 40% of GDP.

The emergence of a new national security structure around the Pentagon entailed a shift in the balance of power in the government. The military concentrated a vast amount of economic, financial, and human resources to wage that war. It also involved the formation of a vast bureaucracy to coordinate the supply of the armies overseas, and the working of this machinery. High-rank officials of the army enjoyed a privileged position since then on, thanks to the funds they received, and the workforce they controlled. And they didn’t want to surrender their influence when the war finished.

There were many vested interests built in the federal government. I also refer to corporate directors and those industries that thrived during the war. They gained ground in economic terms thanks to the Department of Defense contracts. In this way, they were providing goods and services that were fundamental to the war effort. Since then on, these companies have constituted the economic pillar of the American war economy. They concentrated power, and their chief executives formed a coalition with military commanders. These circles in the power elite displaced the political directorate that witnessed how its influence diminished. Indeed, this clique co-opted members of the political class to ensure the smooth working of the war machinery. In this way, politicians endorsed the military-industrial activities by passing bills and raising funds. That allowed the Department of Defense to increase its budget every year.

The justification of the military budget growth

Nevertheless, the inner conditions created by WWII in American politics are not enough to explain the US military budget growth. A justification was necessary, and the international stage had changed to transform the perception of this new situation completely. The power elite in the military estate and the chief executives, besides officials of the Department of State, took advantage of this context to depict it in new terms favorable for their interests.

We shouldn’t forget the expanded presence of the US all around the world. New military bases were opened overseas, and the national interest changed since then. Indeed, it achieved a new geographical scale. If the US national interest historically had been regional, the war made it a global issue. Therefore, it was fundamental to gather the necessary means to protect US interests everywhere.

Military funds needed justification, and it was fundamental to create a real or imaginary threat. Besides, the military estate was prone to wage war due to its experience in WWII, and the increased capacities of the army. In this regard, the H bomb was a powerful stimulus to over-expand the American influence, at least when the US had the monopoly of this weapon. Another critical factor was the need of the military to keep their position and to have a raison d’etre in the postwar period.

They weren’t alone in this task if we take into account the role of diplomats. It was clear that the US was a superpower in 1945. Its influence covered most of the world, despite the existence of crumbling European empires. However, these great powers weren’t as much important as they were in the past, and the US was ready to extend its sphere of influence to these empire’s former colonies. In any case, what matters here is the threat that represented the Soviet Union. Officials of the diplomatic corps, such as George Kennan with his famous telegraph, contributed decisively to fearmongering. That helped create a specific atmosphere with the exaggeration of external threats, such as Russia. That’s also the case of the report of the State Department’s policy planning staff sent to Truman in 1950. It has been considered the foundational blueprint for US grand strategy during the Cold War. Even Dean Acheson, Secretary of the State Department, acknowledged the exaggeration of the report by claiming that its purpose was to bludgeon the mind of top government officials.

It turned out to be successful in the sale of the red scare to the public opinion. The military found the reason it needed to keep large budgets and lead important national programs in different realms. Besides, the US consolidated its presence by renewing its international commitments and took on a leading role on the global stage. For the development of this foreign policy, it was essential to have a large military budget and adjust it progressively according to the external environment and security needs. In this way, the armed forces could reinforce and consolidate their role in the government and the nation. In the meanwhile, they became the central institution in the US amid the arms race of the Cold War.

War, and the preparation for war, is expensive. The technological progress in this realm makes the military even more costly. The expansion of the army in quantitative terms is also pricey. Nevertheless, periodical conflicts had a considerable impact on the US military budget. That’s the case of Vietnam, and more recently, the Iraq war. So, external conditions, stimulated by an active and even reckless military estate in the domestic realm, were decisive to the growth of the budget up to current days.

Question of the day

Question of the day! Do you think the US military budget should be limited or expanded? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History

Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze

Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992

Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power

Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State

Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618

Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors

Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media

Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.