America's Defense Spending

1 America’s Defense Spending Andy Feldman Senior Research 2 Introduction The United States of America stands out from other countries in the world by its continuous high national defense spending. No other country in the world allocates as many resources or tax dollars towards their military. This raises the question of why the United States government funds our defense as if to show how critical it is to our national existence and prosperity. Looking at a graph of United States defense budget history, it is observable that the US continued to spend at a high level after the Korean War ended. This appears to be a turning point in defense spending history, as the US decided to continue allocating money for the military when the war ended, unlike after the conclusion of World War II. The United States clearly felt it was necessary to bulk up the military after this time period, but the question remains as to why. There are several different theories in academic literature as to the cause of this phenomenon. The US government has orated that it is our responsibility to look after other nations of the world and act as an authority for democracy and peace. However, some academic writers suggest we have a hidden economic incentive to go to war overseas. Literature Review/Theory Spending more on defense can mean less funding for other programs. An academic article by Sonmez Atesoglu examines defense spending and its relationship to investment at home in the United States. The article expresses concern that the more we pour into defense spending, the less will be allocated for investment in United States domestic issues. He writes “many observers have expressed concerns that the rise in 3 defense spending would reduce investment spending and thereby capital accumulation and economic growth.”1 This concern is legitimate and meaningful to the American public. Most Americans are not thinking about overseas terrorism or conflict on a day to day basis. People are concerned with bridges, roads, employment outlook, clean air and water, and a variety of other issues within our own country. Atesoglu discusses the idea of a tradeoff between defense spending and investment in domestic concerns. This means that a bigger military means less investment at home. This resembles a zero-sum concept where one must lose in order for another to prosper. If we are unable to provide universal healthcare to all of our citizens, could that be related to money lost that is allocated to an oversized military? We are the only advanced country that does not provide healthcare to our citizens. An issue for many Americans is that this money does not come back to us in any way, because war is not an investment. When the American government spends citizen’s tax dollars towards education or infrastructure, it helps Americans in further ways and contributes towards well being. It is potentially concerning that the United States allocates such a high amount for defense, as expressed in the above article. Americans have a notion that a tradeoff does exist, and that something should be done about it. After the war in Iraq, opinions in America on overseas intervention turned negative. The war was supported in its early days, as Americans were in shock and disbelief by the events of September 11th, 2001. The Bush administration felt that Sadham Hussein 1 H. Sonmez Atesoglou. Defense spending and investment in the United States. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. 4 had weapons of mass destruction and needed to be ousted from power. However, Iraq and Sadham were not the cause of 9/11. Many Americans felt we made a mistake and that there was an intelligence failure in the wake of 9/11. Collin Powell of the Bush administration has expressed his regret and concern for our intervention between 2003 and 2009. In Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation was still complex and unstable, however, once President Obama was inaugurated, because removing our troops and forces from Iraq and Afghanistan meant that a new set of issues regarding terrorism might arise. Gender Another factor potentially influencing this debate is gender. An academic article titled “Gender Difference or Parallel Publics? The Dynamics of Defense Spending Opinions in the United States, 1965—2007” by Eichenberg and Stoll discusses opinions on defense spending. They mention that gender is an important factor in shaping opinion towards government policy, especially when it comes to the military. They found that women are on average less supportive of defense spending than men. They also found that variation for support of defense spending was similar among men and women. This means that a man’s support from one year to the next changed no more than a woman’s support did. Is it possible, then, that men in government are the reason the United States has gone to war and spent so much on the military over the past fifty years? Gender differences in politics have been significant in American history. We all know that all of our presidents have been men, including our first African American president coming before our first woman president, whenever that may be. Are Americans predisposed to vote for 5 men for elected office? Women did not gain the right to vote until the 1920s. This meant that women could not vote for 144 years in America’s earliest history. Women have been denied political participation in our country’s past, therefore influencing politics and government up to today’s times. Women make up a small percentage of Congress and state government positions, especially compared to other advanced nations. It is therefore plausible that America’s gung-ho attitude towards the military and defense spending is influenced by men and male politician’s attitudes towards overseas intervention. The article goes on to state “Women are more supportive of social spending and less sensitive to deficits and debt.”2 The term social spending would refer to social programs by the United States government that could benefit families. These social issues would include women’s health issues, education, healthcare, etc. Spreading Democracy Spreading democracy is a phenomenon the US government claims to advocate for. An academic article titled “Democracy, Al Qaeda, and the Causes of Terrorism: A Strategic Analysis of U.S. Policy” by Michael Freeman analyzes the ways that spreading democracy is supposed to eliminate terrorism and create stability in regions of unrest. The popular notion expressed by the United States government is that we go to war to spread democracy and implement a system of government and fair elections that would be suitable for advanced nations. We intend to change an unstable country for the better and eliminate radical uprisings 2 Gender Difference or Parallel Publics? The Dynamics of Defense Spending Opinions in the United States, 1965—2007. Richard C. Eichenberg and Richard J. Stoll The Journal of Conflict Resolution 6 and violence through our western values. This view has been strongly challenged by academics in America as it reveals wishful thinking and high expectations for regions of the globe that are underdeveloped or lacking proper political organization. The author writes that the issue of spreading democracy to undermine terrorism is complex and that the US government has advocated that democracy is a cure for terrorism. He mentions that President Bush stated that free and democratic nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. The author states that the widespread belief in the power of democracy is overestimated. He discusses the salafi jihad movement and what it means to global security. Essentially, the salafi jihad movement is one that aims to destroy the west and implement a radical version of Islam promoting authoritarian government. The article looks at Al-Qaeda and the influence they have had on the United States and our military endeavors. The author states “The benefits of democracy are unlikely to be realized because democracy will be unlikely to change perceptions of occupation and will itself threaten Islamic identity and culture.” 3 Freeman makes an interesting point that radical Islam is ignited by threats to its identity and culture. When outside forces like the United States invade countries and try to promote western values, it is interpreted as a loss of Islamic identity and culture. The United States did not seem to consider that implementing our values in the Middle East would impose our own values onto radicals who are doing everything they can do protect their alleged culture and identity. Democracy, 3 Democracy, Al Qaeda, and the Causes of Terrorism: A Strategic Analysis of U.S. Policy. Michael Freeman. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. 7 according to the United States government, is supposed to transition unstable regions to being peaceful. It is allegedly going to transition US occupation over to peaceful secession, threats to Islamic culture into an ideology of tolerance, failure of modernization into economic growth, and lastly authoritarianism into legitimate government. However, what the US government believes to be plausible in theory is not always what plays out in reality. The Middle East is now under severe turmoil and groups like the Islamic State are gaining control and power. Freeman argues that the ways the US sees democracy abroad is unrealistic and would not be able to last beyond our time of occupation overseas. Our implementation of democracy may only further radical ideas and recruitment of new terrorists. The US uses the reasoning of spreading democracy for justification of military spending. However, Freeman argues that turmoil in the middle east by the hands of Al-Qaeda is a result of radical groups like these being on a mission for global jihad. They are interested in spreading their message internationally and instituting sharia law. Their first goal was to conquer their near enemies, referring to their own governments in the middle east. However, when they were unable to do so, or implement a stable leadership, they changed their goal by aiming towards the US, the west, and Israel. The radicals like those in Al-Qaeda felt that the US and the west were responsible for their struggles and inability to conquer regions in the Middle East. Freeman argues that the US trying to spread democracy has no benefit to the middle east and only inflames radicals and allows them to recruit more followers. Freeman conveys his belief that the issue is not that we need to implement democracy, but rather the radical ideology of groups like Al-Qaeda that would 8 embark on a global jihad no matter what form of government existed in their home countries. This explanation of United States defense spending seems to have some holes. Freeman writes “the extent that perceived occupation of the Arabian peninsula is making religious extremism more resonant among Islamic populations, perhaps rethinking U.S. policies and military engagements in the region, rather than spreading democracy, is in order.” 4 This means that the engagements that America has conducted in the Middle East could be further igniting salafi radicalism and our best decision could be to withdraw to stop the inflammation of extremism. The author does not see spreading democracy as a viable means to ease conflict. It seems that in this analysis, defense spending by the United States is not improving relations between the west and the middle east. Government officials in the United States are able to see that our attempt at spreading democracy, in both the Vietnam and Iraq wars, has been unsuccessful and far from our alleged goal of liberating the people of the middle east. Why, then, does the United States claim that our military spending is in order to spread democracy and create peace? Perhaps there are other explanations that would be more realistic and answer more questions regarding why the United States pours so many resources into the military and conducts so many global military endeavors. It is often questioned why the US spends greatly on the military even after a war. In the academic article “The Political Economy of US Military Spending” authors Nincic and Cusack analyze this topic and discuss the economic incentive theory. They mention that post-war military spending in the United States has been subject 4 Democracy, Al Qaeda, and the Causes of Terrorism: A Strategic Analysis of U.S. Policy. Michael Freeman. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. 9 to much debate and controversy, as the public is not clear as to why this occurs. The authors describe the system of defense spending in the United States as being related to economic demands and not related to spreading democracy or helping stabilize other countries. They conclude that military spending is easier to explain to the public because we need to stay safe and secure. The authors argue that a candidate who promises military expenditure may get votes just for having that platform, and uses that ideology to appeal to voters. Combating terrorism has been the subject of many campaigns in the country in recent years, as we see more stories of radicalism and violence in the news. This notion of military spending can be politicized and used to distinguish candidates and divide voters. The authors note that military spending can supplement the private sector, as well as the fact that military equipment needs to be replaced often. This touches on the economic incentive for military endeavors. President Eisenhower once warned against the combining of a military and economy and the continuous growth of the military for economic gain. In the 1940s, the US government shifted away from producing their own equipment. They started defense contracts with companies that would then produce their equipment for war. Military equipment and technology became more advanced and more complex as the years went on, therefore growing the annual profits of private companies producing military equipment and gear. In the cold war, although no fighting occurred, the US outspent Russia in defense spending to be ready for a potential attack or the necessity to defend our country. Even in a situation where we were not partaking in any physical combat or real battles, we were focused on growing the 10 military and investing in weaponry and national security. It appears that when the US has no foreign threat, there is no reason for investment in military development and millions of Americans could be out of a job. Private military companies in the US earn $100 billion per year. The US government claims that private military companies overseas are defensive and not offensive, and serve only to defend America’s interests against radicalism. Private military companies in Iraq, for example, working on behalf of the United Sates, have not been subject to Iraqi law. This creates a complicated situation, where it is hard to distinguish who has the right to military endeavors and under what law are they operating. Should the United States government be encouraging military development and spending so much on defense? Do we really need the goods that military equipment companies produce? The people who build military equipment have very specific skills that the average person does not. If certain assembly lines of military equipment were to be shut down, many people would lose their jobs. After world war II as well as the Korean war, this notion of military and economy got going. How do we know that the US defense department knows what military equipment we need or do not need? This is a concern because money that the government pours into military and weaponry development, it could be less money towards education, healthcare, or clean energy research and technology. In the United States, what are known as “super factories” are places of employment where mass amounts of weaponry is produced and at least a thousand people are employed. The system of military product creation is complex, because several different companies cooperate together to produce weaponry. For example, 11 one company makes the bolts, then another buys them to make a track for a tank, then another company buys the track to make the tank, then the US government purchases the completed tank. The US government is also utilizing foreign companies for military equipment as well in recent years. What would happen if the United States cut military spending and shrunk the national defense? What would millions of Americans then do for work and to earn a living? It has become a problem that so many people are invested into the development of military equipment since their salary can be determined by the country committing to wars and overseas endeavors where we may or may not be making a positive impact. What is less well known than the American military budget is the number of military bases the US has around the world. We have at least 800 military bases around the globe, in various continents of interest. We have the military base in Guantanamo Bay, drone bases in the horn of Africa, as well as posts in the middle of the Indian ocean. It costs the US tax payer 70-100 billion dollars a year to keep all of America’s bases open. It costs the American taxpayer more to pay for overseas soldiers than for soldiers here at home. The notion that American presence around the world creates stability and order is an integral part of our foreign policy message and overall international platform. It appears that whenever there is a conflict in the world, American troops move in to make an impact. Once the conflict is over or subdued, instead of retreating, American forces stay in the region and continue to maintain the military base. 12 It is notable when looking at a graph of defense spending over the past seventy years that spending goes up and down pretty consistently depending on who is president. President Nixon poured a lot of money and resources into the Vietnam War, which was certainly not a clear American victory. During Jimmy Carter’s era, defense spending declined and we were less entangled in overseas endeavors. However, after this period, Ronald Reagan was elected and the military was again built up. President George H. W. Bush embarked upon the Gulf War in response to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, utilizing military power and spending. President Bill Clinton reduced defense spending over time and did not engage in any major war during his tenure in the oval office. This trend was reversed by the next president Bush with Iraq and Afghanistan, only to be frozen by President Obama. Economic Incentive In this debate on American military spending, we see several competing theories. Firstly, the economic incentive theory. Americans are not necessarily used to thinking of our military as a means for economic growth, therefore this theory can be controversial and ignite a fierce debate. When the United States is involved in overseas endeavors and wars, our production of military equipment at home surges and we see great financial gains by companies involved in war preparation and weapon production. It is difficult for a country to detach it’s military pursuits from it’s economy since the two are so intertwined. Many academics argue that American military growth is simply an economic tool, used to make some at the top wealthy as well as providing thousands of jobs for working Americans. 13 The types of planes, tanks, guns and ammo produced by American manufacturers range in cost and durability. Some weapons and vehicles are particularly expensive and military commanders only recommend their use in rare and dangerous situations. The military may not be interested in firing all of their ammo and using all of their available resources as soon as they can, but they do require new materials frequently if they are in a war or highly violent region. At home in the United States, production lines for these types of materials and weapons is always moving and continuously in motion. People of all ages, gender, and race work in this industry and their families depend on them. It is a difficult situation when the country is involved in potentially superfluous overseas military activities while Americans at home are reliant on these pursuits for their jobs to exist and so they can make a living. Oil There is also an angle to the economic theory of military spending focusing on oil. However, this is not the main argument of this paper. The top three oil producing countries in the world are the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world, out of those top three. Most of Asia is reliant on oil from Saudi Arabia, making Asian countries dependent on good foreign relations with the Saudis. Apart from Saudi Arabia, there are other countries which hold a significant level of oil, and combined hold more oil than even Saudi Arabia. They include Algeria, Libya, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. These countries combined hold about 80% of the world’s oil. These countries belong to OPEC, or the Organization of 14 Petroleum Exporting Countries. The head of OPEC is Saudi Arabia, who holds a large influence within the group. Political scientists have long argued that many wars are fought with the influence of oil control being a major factor. Former secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in 2007 that he believed we were fighting for oil control in Iraq and Afghanistan. His time as Secretary of Defense allowed him to understand our activities overseas and what really ignited them. Oil rich countries have been proven to be over twice as likely to enter into military conflicts than countries without oil. The Pentagon has estimated that each $10 increase in a barrel of oil costs the American military and the taxpayer $1.3 billion. The biggest oil user in the military is the air force. The air force uses over half of the military’s oil. Rising oil prices will make American military efforts more expensive, resulting in more American tax payer money going toward the military. Another popular theory for why America has a continuous tendency to spend more on the military than every other country is for the spreading of democracy. America is long thought of as a country who will intervene in foreign affairs and attempt to sort out conflict and create stability. However, this is much easier said than done. Academics and political commentators argue that the United States initiates foreign wars and political uprisings so that we can help pro-American regimes come to power. These opinions suggest that spreading democracy is a pretense for ulterior motives. Both Egypt and Libya have been subject to recent regime change and American intervention. Both of these countries are not necessarily closer to democracy now than when America started to intervene. The US government has arguably made things worse in Libya, as the state of the country 15 now is instability and protests. When the US and the west intervenes in the name of spreading democracy, sometimes, or arguably most of the time, plans backfire and the military experiences a blowback. The Iraq war resulted in the deaths of 100,000 or more people. The state of Iraq is now is turmoil despite America trying to spread democracy. Iraq was ruled by heinous dictator Sadham Hussein, who was charged with killing many thousands of his people. He had been in power since the 1970s and was finally caught by American forces in 2004. He had conflict with the first President Bush over his invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Many believe Hussein had planned an assassination of President George H.W. Bush but was unsuccessful in carrying it out. The presidency of George W. Bush saw a focus of going after Hussein and bringing down his tyrannical government. The invasion of Iraq by US forces was seemingly inspired by the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001. However, in the time since these attacks, many in the Bush administration have come forward and stated that invading Iraq was a mistake and that Hussein had nothing to do with bringing down the world trade centers in New York City. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks on September 11th, and had no known ties to Sadham Hussein. Despite this, the Bush administration alleged that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, therefore justifying an invasion of Iraq with the ultimate goal of implementing democracy. Spreading democracy has never been an easy task, even for American forces. It appears today that America’s attempt to spread democracy in Iraq was unsuccessful. Today, Iraq is greatly under the influence of groups like ISIS, 16 who terrorize and murder those who do not follow their ideology. Brutal dictators like Hussein committed many crimes as well, but one influence he did have was suppressing terrorists. The question is now raised as to whether or not America has ever successfully spread democracy, which might be seen as a justification for continued high military spending. In Vietnam, our apparent incentive was to stop the spreading of Communism in North and South Vietnam and to implement democracy instead. Our departure from Vietnam and our overall result in the war has never been seen as a great victory. Both Presidents Nixon and Ford presided over with the volatile war and instability of Vietnam. Academics and political scientists have wondered since the Vietnam war ended why we really invaded and what the true purpose of the war was. Spreading democracy, or at least the alleged spreading of democracy, has cost over a million lives if you count deaths from the Vietnam war. The Vietnamese suffered more casualties than America during the war. The US government has never claimed a great victory in spreading democracy in Vietnam. The Korean war serves as an interesting example of America promoting democracy. After world war II, Korea was split into two halves. The north was a communist regime supported by China and the Soviet Union, while the south was a republic supported by the United States and western powers. The United Nations responded to the instability by aiding Korea. The North Koreans launched attacks against the opposition, and they eventually had to retreat from Seoul. The Chinese warned of their possible intervention during this turmoil. The UN had forces in North Korea and were a strong presence. 17 The Chinese got involved and attempted to retake Seoul. A stalemate developed between UN forces and communist forces after several years. When the war ended, almost a million Chinese were killed and over half a million Koreans died as well. In 1950, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff advising political officials suggested that the US may need to use atomic bombs to accomplish their goals. While this never occurred in the Korean war, it is somewhat surprising that the US would have to use weaponry as destructive and devastating as atomic bombs with the goal of spreading democracy. If we wanted to enhance the lives of those in Korea, spreading democratic values and freedom, it would be unfortunate to destroy and kill so many Koreans with the might of an atomic bomb. The outcome of this war is widely seen as a stalemate, where neither side was a clear victor. This is similar to what happened in Vietnam, and interestingly enough, recently with Iraq. America does not have the ability to spread democracy and successfully transform foreign nations. This is simply to large of a task to realistically implement. Terrorism Another theory for why America has continued high military spending is solely to stop terrorism. The United States has seen its share of terror attacks in recent years, and our politicians react to these events by promising we will dismantle foreign terror networks. The Boston Marathon bombing was a very unexpected event carried out by Chechen born young men who had been living in America. This was one of the most significant cases of terrorism done by citizens already living in America for an extended period of time. This makes it harder for the military to thwart terror because anyone in the country could have potential ties 18 to overseas ideology or terror networks. This gives rise to the debate about the NSA and when it is acceptable to view information or records about American citizens in the name of fighting terror. The more recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, California involved a man and a woman who had also lived in the country for an extended period of time. After killing their own co-workers, they were eventually caught by authorities. Attacks like these makes it easier for the military to display their need for funding so they can keep us safe. When most Americans think of the military, they think of a system of defense used to protect the country from threats. The military would certainly defend it’s right to proper funding from the government in order to combat terror. The United States has been battling foreign enemies with its military since our founding. In an academic article titled “The Military Response to Terrorism” by Mark Kosnik, he explains the effects of using our military for defense. He writes “Military force can demonstrate U.S. resolve to punish those who engage in terrorism; it can keep the terrorist isolated and on the defensive; it can support antiterrorism action in other areas; and it can pressure states from sponsoring terrorism.” 5 Discouraging states from sponsoring terrorism is a major goal for the United States and our military. When you have strong state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, it gives radical groups the encouragement and resources to grow and plan attack against foreign enemies like the United States. America’s relationship with Iran has been tumultuous in recent years, as has been shown by the Iran Nuclear 5 The Military Response to Terrorism. Mark Kosnik. 2000. Volume 53. 19 deal that is currently pending. If The United States can stop the funding of terror groups, it will be easier to dismantle them and their ideologies. It can be difficult to determine whether the primary focus of the military is to combat terrorism. We have only had a handful of terror attacks in the United States in recent memory. Does the military really need more money than any other department of government in order to prevent attacks on American soil? Perhaps there is more to the military than just defeating radical groups wishing to do harm on the country. It is a staggering figure that the military in America has more money and resources than any other country in the world. It would seem as though we could wipe out any terror organization pretty swiftly, but yet they still persist. Groups like ISIS have taken over large portions of Iraq and Syria, and are gaining momentum. They are recruiting more people as time moves forward, and have control of millions of dollars. The Obama administration has been fairly tough on terror, utilizing drone technology to carry out airstrikes against terror targets. The use of drones by the military has reshaped how we handle overseas threats. Drones can fly anywhere and bomb targets without a pilot inside the actual drone. The Obama administration has been known to conduct surprise attacks on terror suspects and terror leaders with drones, successfully eliminating a variety of Al-Qaeda affiliates. The Obama administration has withdrawn troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan since President Obama was sworn in back in 2009. This withdrawal of troops has been seen by Republicans as weak and dangerous for the future of those countries as well as the safety of the United States. 20 Despite this criticism, we were not making any ground or inspiring any great change in those regions when our troops were present. The Iraq war started by the Bush administration lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans, without producing any real result. Many of the current candidates for president, including Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump all feel that invading Iraq was a great mistake and a failure in foreign policy. The Obama administration seems to be doing what many other politicians would advise in withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is possible, however, that troops could be sent back in if we see the election of an establishment Republican to the White House in 2016. If it were true that the military needs such maximum funding in order to combat terror and halt terrorist activities overseas, then there hasn’t been very much progress in the past fifteen years. We saw a tragedy on September 11th way back in 2001, and still haven’t managed to stop radical groups in the middle east. We have seen attacks as recently as December of 2015, with the attack in San Bernardino that was shortly after the Paris shootings carried out by ISIS. The cultural impact of the Paris attack was significant, as social media and internet reporting of the story was widespread. There hadn’t been that many people killed in one attack of that nature in years. Why has the United States military not defeated these groups after fifteen years? When world war II broke out, the United States went directly after the Axis powers and put a stop to their global spread of violence. If America hasn’t successfully dismantled radical terror groups, then this theory may not be believable. Fighting terror may just be a cover for another use of the military. It doesn’t appear that we are going to stop groups like ISIS anytime soon, as 21 it could take many years before we put a stop to their growth both ideologically and financially. When there are countries backing violent groups like these, it makes it even more difficult to combat. Inventions The last theory of why the United States has continuously funded it’s military more than any other country is for the development of technology. In an article titled “11 Products Invented by the United States Military” by N. Caldwell, it is apparent that our military has had an influence on technology in the past fifty years. The author describes the US military as being responsible for the invention of walkie talkies, super glue and duct tape. These are common items that everyone is familiar with today, but little people would know were first developed by the US military. The troops of the military need ways to communicate, hence the development of walkie talkies to stay connected even if physically separated. Duct tape is not commonly associated with the military, which highlights the fact that military inventions can become products for American consumers without the knowledge of being first developed by our department of defense. The military is also credited with the development of early GPS (Global Positioning System) technology. This is also a little known fact, although many Americans use GPS technology in their cars or on electronic devices. It makes sense that the US military would need GPS to be able to locate themselves and navigate through foreign lands. The Navy’s transit satellite back in 1964 was able to 22 transmit location data to submarines and boats.6 This paved the way for the GPS system we use today to determine location information and directions. Digital photography is also credited to the United States military. The KH-11 Kennan satellite from 1976 was the first official use of digital photography.7 Utilizing digital photography from a satellite was a major development in technology and allowed for better cold war strategy. The cold war was a time of tension and uncertainty, although no actual battles took place. The military’s use of digital photography inspired our current use of digital photography today, which has advanced since the 1970s and reached every country around the world. The US military is also credited with having developed the early internet. This is the most significant technological contribution of the military. There has long been debate about whether the internet came out of the military or was first developed by Microsoft. Computer scientist JCR Licklider developed the idea of multiple computers sharing information back in 1963. The invention of the internet is still a debated topic and it is hard to say who or what agency first created it. We do know that universities played a major role, including the Univeristy of California at Los Angeles. Technology has always been a profound aspect of the military, so this theory may hold more legitimacy than those of eliminating terrorism or spreading democracy. An academic article titled “Combative Patenting: Military Entrepreneurship in First World War Telecommunications” by Graeme Gooday 6 11 Products Invented by the United States Military” by N. Caldwell. 7 11 Products Invented by the United States Military” by N. Caldwell. 23 explains how communication was a pivotal aspect of the military. He writes “Scholars such as Daniel Headrick have rightly emphasized the symbiosis of telegraphy and empire in the second half of the nineteenth century and the key role of radio in extending telecommunications beyond the constraints of land-based wire technologies in the early twentieth century.”8 The military developed early telegraphy and utilized the radio for better communication, especially in the sense that they were moving away from land wire technology. Telegraphy is the long distance transmission of symbolic or textual information for the use of communication. This includes a variety of different forms of communication technology that the US military has used. The author of the above mentioned article goes on to highlight the importance of civilian inventions for the military as well. He explains that the military’s reliance on civilian researchers was crucial to the military’s ability to defeat foreign enemies. This highlights the role that individual American inventors have played in the country’s history. The military’s ability to coordinate civilized relations with common people and utilize technology invented by these individual collaborators has been important in history. The author states “The alignment of a civilian inventor’s activities with the domains of military invention was potentially of great cultural importance.”9 This cultural importance that the author explains is that of the public having the ability to influence the whole country’s military. 8 Combative Patenting: Military Entrepreneurship in First World War Telecommunications” by Graeme Gooday. 9 Combative Patenting: Military Entrepreneurship in First World War Telecommunications” by Graeme Gooday. 24 Research Design/ Analysis When looking at a graph of military spending over time (Figure 1), it is apparent that America’s military spending went from somewhere under 400 billion dollars to about 620 billion dollars during the Bush administration after the terror attacks of September 11th. When the World Trade Centers were attacked, it increased American’s trust in government and rallied everyone together in an effort to find out how the attack had happened, who was responsible and what we were going to do about it. This feeling of trust in government prompted the Bush administration to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The military budget even increased a bit when Obama took office, and it wasn’t until his second term that the decrease in military spending took effect. In 2015, the defense budget was about 550 billion dollars. This is still a dramatic increase since the 1990s and the Clinton administration. Inflation is calculated in to the graph because it shows US currency in billions of dollars from the year 2005. It is unclear whether the next president after Obama will increase or decrease military spending. For the military budget to go from 340 billion dollars in the late nineties to 640 billion dollars a few years ago is a dramatic statistic. Spending has nearly doubled in just about fifteen years. This highlights the significance of the Bush administration on military spending and their inherent belief that America’s military had been under funded and ignored. It seems that George W. Bush continued on the interest in Iraq from George H. W. Bush’s time in office. 25 Figure 1 The theory of military spending that is most legitimate is the economic incentive theory. Mt argument is that military spending is so high in America because it is intertwined with the economy and the livelihood of many Americans. This includes the United State’s interest in oil security abroad. The article titled “Mutual Economic Interdependence and Military Occupation: Evidences of United States Passive and Active Strategies in Iraq for Oil Security” by Chatterjee explains this phenomenon quite well. He writes “US imports of crude oil from Iraq peaked during 2004, soon after United States occupied Iraq. The United States uses various active and passive strategies to secure its oil supplies.”10 It is interesting to look at 10 Mutual Economic Interdependence and Military Occupation: Evidences of United States Passive and Active Strategies in Iraq for Oil Security” by Chatterjee 26 when America’s imports of oil increase and decrease, especially in relation to our invasions and occupations in foreign territory. Looking at a graph of US crude oil imports versus US crude oil production over the past twenty years, it is clear that there is a trend. We are producing less oil ourselves and importing more oil from overseas. The highest peak of imported crude oil took place in 2005. This was also the height of the Iraq war, just a couple years after we first invaded. The Bush administration even declared that we had won in Iraq during these years, which later was seen as a rush to judgment and a misinterpretation of the ground situation in Iraq. Iraq was in turmoil and we see today the true effects of military intervention in Iraq and the rise of groups like ISIS and other rebels who are causing terror and destruction. From 2000 to 2015, American consumption of oil has increased from 20 million barrels a day to 25 million barrels a day, shown in a chart from the nrdc.org. This is a notable figure because it has grown by 25% in just 15 years. This raises the question of whether this is a result of having more oil or of whether we are obtaining more oil because we need more in the first place. What is clear from this figure is that we are increasing our dependence on foreign oil and it is not getting better as time goes on. We get oil from many countries, not just those in the middle east. Venezuela is known for being a heavy oil exporter, and is located relatively close to North America. Our relationship with Venezuela has been somewhat tumultuous, as the leadership of Hugo Chavez occasionally clashed with the American government. 27 The article by Chatterjee has a variety of interesting points about oil security and our role in Iraq. He writes “US foreign policy towards Iraq has been aggressive since 1991, however it continued to source oil from Iraq for its energy security, excepting for the period from 1991 to 1995. The importance of oil security and the perceived threat to US national security from WMD manufactured by Iraq led to a highly complex scenario.”11 I would agree that this was and continues to be a highly complex scenario. It is clear that our foreign policy towards Iraq has been aggressive since 1991, ever since George H.W. Bush took office. Our oil usage from imports during the Iraq war of the younger George Bush surged strongly. This notion of weapons of mass destruction was perhaps disingenuous, or at least it is arguable that we did not have all the facts at the time. No weapons of mass destruction were found, and the United States appeared to have made a serious foreign policy blunder to be remembered in history for many years. The author also states “US military occupation of Iraq was a strategic success, as it helped US oil companies to gain access to vast oil resources of Iraq and win major contracts for exploration and production.”12 This excerpt sums up the economic incentive theory quite well. We know that American oil companies gained access to oil and therefore furthered their production as a result of military activities during the Bush years. Describing US military occupation of Iraq as a success is essentially describing our ability to defeat any Iraqi army, therefore being described as a success. But our involvement does not appear to be a success for the country itself. Iraq is split into 11 Mutual Economic Interdependence and Military Occupation: Evidences of United States Passive and Active Strategies in Iraq for Oil Security” by Chatterjee 12 Mutual Economic Interdependence and Military Occupation: Evidences of United States Passive and Active Strategies in Iraq for Oil Security” by Chatterjee 28 different ethnicities and cultural groups, with competing ideologies of religion and governance. The United States further complicated the intricate situation by invading and utilizing oil resources. The author includes a description of Iraq and its economic dependence on outside countries. Iraq has no real economic value other than oil. With the US invading and utilizing Iraq’s oil for its own benefit, Iraq is now placed in a precarious position. The author also mentions Iraq’s political isolation. Iraq did not allow United Nations security checks, therefore isolating itself and becoming more vulnerable. The author also mentions America’s general aggressive foreign policy. America has had aggressive foreign policy for many years, going back to the Korean war. However, the Korean war was a result of World War II, which American had no choice but to enter into. Perhaps the first example of American aggressive foreign policy would be the Vietnam War. Cheney Vice President Dick Cheney had a massive influence on America’s invasion of Iraq during the Bush years. His actions and potential incentives are a good example of why America has been funding the military so strongly. Many pundits and political commentators suggest the real president during those years, in terms of foreign policy was Dick Cheney. In the article “Rand Paul accuses Dick Cheney of pushing Iraq war for Halliburton” by Aileen Graeff, the author describes Paul’s concern for Cheney’s true motives. She writes “Paul claimed Cheney exploited the 9/11 terrorist attacks to go to war in Iraq in order to benefit the giant military 29 contractor Halliburton, of which Cheney was formerly CEO.”13 Rand Paul believed the real reason Cheney was interested in war was to benefit the military contractor he was so closely associated with. Cheney argued earlier in his career for the privatization of military contractors, which was eventually successful. Halliburton, a company that Dick Cheney ran for about five years, claimed to provide materials and services for American soldiers. They made massive profits during the Iraq war years of the Bush administration. An article titled “Cheney’s Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion From Iraq War” by Angelo Young gets into the details of the company’s finances. He writes “The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms.” 14 It is a truly staggering number, and most Americans would not be aware of the extent of Halliburton’s profits if asked. It seems like a potential conflict of interest to elect a former CEO of a military contractor to be vice president in charge of military decisions. Dick Cheney was involved in high-level decision making during the first Bush presidency in the 1980s, and was told by Bush senior that invading Iraq was not appropriate at the time. HE returned years later as vice president and carried out that goal. Cheney and Halliburton both made huge profits as a result of the Iraq war. This shows the military industrial complex and the economic incentive for war. It seems that the huge funding of America’s military is interwoven into economic incentives and profit earning. 13 “Rand Paul accuses Dick Cheney of pushing Iraq war for Halliburton” by Aileen Graeff. 14 “Cheney’s Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion From Iraq War” by Angelo Young 30 Conclusion The American military’s budget is certainly a significant aspect of our government and the culture of our country. We as Americans are known for having a strong national defense, and even at times have been termed the “policemen of the world.” Many different theories have risen to explain why the county has a bigger military than every other country in the world. Some claim it is out of American exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is the perception that our country is exceptional in some way and does not need to conform to normal rules or principles. Therefore, we spread democracy and change other nations. Another theory suggests we are simply fighting terrorism and defending ourselves. Also, it has been theorized that the military produces technology and inventions, therefore needing such funding. However, the theory with by far the most compelling proof is that of economic incentive through the money generated from going to war. This is an intriguing and compelling argument that not all Americans are educated on or aware of. A policy recommendation I would suggest is that we need to allocate more government spending towards programs in education, healthcare and social services and less spending towards defense. 31 REFERENCES Defense spending and investment in the United States. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics H. Sonmez Atesoglou.. 2004. Pages 1-2. Gender Difference or Parallel Publics? The Dynamics of Defense Spending Opinions in the United States. Richard C. Eichenberg and Richard J. Stoll The Journal of Conflict Resolution 1965—2007 Pages 1-2. Democracy, Al Qaeda, and the Causes of Terrorism: A Strategic Analysis of U.S. Policy. Michael Freeman. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. 2008. Pages 1-5. The Political Economy of US Military Spending. Nincic and Cusack. Journal of Peace Research. 1979. Pages 1-5. The US Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities. Iternational Journal of Health Services. R Jolan. 2009. Pages 1-2. The Military Response to Terrorism. Mark Kosnik. Volume 53. 2000. Page 1. 11 Products Invented by the United States Military. N. Caldwell. 2014. Pages 1-3. Combative Patenting: Military Entrepreneurship in First World War Telecommunications. Graeme Gooday. 2013. Pages 1-2. 32 Mutual Economic Interdependence and Military Occupation: Evidences of United States Passive and Active Strategies in Iraq for Oil Security. Chatterjee. 2014. Pages 1-5. Rand Paul accuses Dick Cheney of pushing Iraq war for Halliburton by Aileen Graeff. 2014. Page 1. Cheney’s Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion From Iraq War. 2013. Readers Supported News. Angelo Young. Pages 1-2. A budget hawk looks at the costs of war. National Journal. Wilson, George C. 2002, Vol. 34 Issue 40, p2870. Notes from the underground; an outsider's guide to the defense budget debate. World Policy Journal. Hartung, William D. 1995, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p15, 14 p. DE-BASED: US MILITARY BASES ABROAD FALL INTO DISFAVOR. New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs. Cohn, William A. Winter2010, Vol. 12 Issue 4, p32-37. 6p. Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World. Library Journal. Burgess, Edwin. 2015. Vol. 140 Issue 11, p100. US professional military education and democratization abroad. European Journal of International Relations. Ruby, TZ Gibler, D. 2010, p339-p364, 26p. US military atrocities abroad. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Calley, William Laws. 2012. Pages 1-2. 33 Figure 1: A Topline View of US Defense Budget History. Heritage Foundation. US Government Printing Office. 2010.