The Department of Defense will spend about $721 billion in fiscal 2011, of which $159 billion will be for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even aside from these expensive wars, the department's budget has almost doubled since fiscal 2001. The problem is that the Defense budget includes much more than just “defense” activities. The bloated spending stems from the many extraneous missions we impose on our military services aside from the basic requirement to defend Americans. The United States would be better off taking a wait-and-see approach to distant threats, while letting friendly nations bear more of the costs of their own defense. There will always be disorder in various places around the globe, but that doesn't mean that all foreign problems are a threat to America.
By avoiding the occupation of failing states and limiting our commitments to defend healthy ones, we could plan for fewer wars. By shedding extraneous missions, we could cut our force structure, which would mean reducing the number of U.S. military personnel and the related costs of weapons, vehicles, and operations. The resulting U.S. military force would be more elite, less strained, and less expensive.
To further this strategy, we propose 19 reforms that would reduce U.S. military spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. These reforms are described in a related essay and listed in the table below. By 2020, the savings would be about $150 billion annually. These cuts would not preclude other reforms, such as reducing cost overruns in the Pentagon's procurement process. Further force reductions may also be possible. However, it would be prudent to first adopt these changes, and then see if our leaders could adhere to a more restrained military strategy.
Click for Full Text!
