[The U.S. already spends more than the next seven countries
combined on a military that is seemingly incapable of either winning
or ending any of the wars it’s been engaged in since September 2001.
] [[link removed]]

CREATING A NATIONAL INSECURITY STATE: SPENDING MORE, SEEING LESS  
[[link removed]]


 

Mandy Smithberger
March 1, 2020
TomDispatch [[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ The U.S. already spends more than the next seven countries combined
on a military that is seemingly incapable of either winning or ending
any of the wars it’s been engaged in since September 2001. _

Nora, 24, from Washington, D.C., stands outside of the White House on
January 8, 2020., Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

 

Hold on to your helmets! It’s true the White House is reporting that
its proposed new Pentagon budget is _only _$740.5 billion, a
relatively small increase from the previous year’s staggering
number. In reality, however, when you also include war and security
costs buried in the budgets of other agencies, the actual national
security figure comes in at more than $1.2 trillion, as the Trump
administration continues to give the Pentagon free reign over taxpayer
dollars.

You would think that the country’s congressional representatives
might want to take control of this process and roll back that budget
-- especially given the way the White House has repeatedly violated
[[link removed]]
its constitutional authority by essentially stealing billions of
dollars from the Defense Department for the president’s “Great
Wall” (that Congress refused to fund). Recently, even some of the
usual congressional Pentagon budget boosters
[[link removed]]
have begun to lament how difficult it is to take the Department’s
requests for more money seriously, given the way the military
continues to demand yet more (ever more expensive) weaponry and
advanced technologies on the (largely bogus
[[link removed]])
grounds that Uncle Sam is losing an innovation war with Russia and
China.

And if this wasn’t bad enough, keep in mind that the Defense
Department remains the only major federal agency that has proven
itself incapable of even passing an audit. An investigation
[[link removed]]
by my colleague Jason Paladino at the Project On Government Oversight
found that increased secrecy around the operations of the Pentagon is
making it ever more difficult to assess whether any of its money is
well spent, which is why it’s important to track where all the money
in this country’s national security budget actually goes.

THE PENTAGON’S “BASE” BUDGET

This year’s Pentagon request includes $636.4 billion for what’s
called its “base” budget -- for the routine expenses of the
Defense Department. However, claiming that those funds were
insufficient, Congress and the Pentagon created a separate slush fund
to cover both actual war expenses and other items on their wish lists
(on which more to come). Add in mandatory spending, which includes
payments to veterans’ retirement and illness compensation funds and
that base budget comes to $647.2 billion.

Ahead of the recent budget roll out, the Pentagon issued a review
[[link removed]]
of potential “reforms” to supposedly cut or control soaring costs.
While a few of them deserve serious consideration and debate, the
majority reveal just how focused the Pentagon is on protecting its own
interests. Ironically, one major area of investment it wants to slash
involves oversight of the billions of dollars to be spent. Perhaps
least surprising was a proposal to slash programs for operational
testing and evaluation -- otherwise known as the process of
determining whether the billions Americans spend on shiny new weaponry
will result in products that actually work. The Pentagon’s Office of
Operational Test and Evaluation has found itself repeatedly under
attack
[[link removed]]
from arms manufacturers and their boosters who would prefer to be in
charge of grading their own performances.

Reduced oversight becomes even more troubling when you look at where
Pentagon policymakers want to move that money -- to missile defense
based on staggeringly expensive futuristic hypersonic weaponry
[[link removed]].
As my Project On Government Oversight colleague Mark Thompson has
written
[[link removed]],
the idea that such weapons will offer a successful way of defending
against enemy missiles “is a recipe for military futility and fiscal
insanity.”

Another proposal -- to cut A-10
[[link removed]]
“Warthogs” in the Pentagon’s arsenal in pursuit of a new
generation of fighter planes -- suggests just how cavalier a
department eager for flashy new toys that mean large paydays for the
giant defense contractors can be with service members’ lives. After
all, no weapons platform more effectively protects ground troops at a
relatively low cost
[[link removed]]
than the A-10, yet that plane regularly ends up on the cut list,
thanks to those eager to make money on a predictably less effective
and vastly more expensive
[[link removed]]
replacement.

Many other proposed “cuts” are actually gambits to get Congress to
pump yet more money into the Pentagon. For instance, a memo of
supposed cuts to shipbuilding programs, leaked
[[link removed]]
at the end of last year, drew predictable ire from members of Congress
trying to protect jobs in their states. Similarly, don’t imagine for
a second that purchases of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program
[[link removed]],
the most expensive weapons system in history, could possibly be slowed
even though the latest testing report suggests that, among other
things, it has a gun that still can’t shoot straight
[[link removed]]. That program
is, however, a pork paradise for the military-industrial complex,
claiming jobs spread across 45 states
[[link removed]].

Many such proposals for cuts are nothing but deft deployments of the
“Washington Monument strategy
[[link removed]],”
a classic tactic in which bureaucrats suggest slashing popular
programs to avoid facing any cuts at all. The bureaucratic game is
fairly simple: Never offer up anything that would actually appeal to
Congress when it comes to reducing the bottom line. Recently, the
Pentagon did exactly that in proposing cuts
[[link removed]]
to popular weapons programs to pay for the president’s wall, knowing
that no such thing would happen.

Believe it or not, however, there are actually a few proposed cuts
that Congress might take seriously. Lockheed Martin’s and Austal’s
Littoral Combat Ship program, for instance, has long been troubled
[[link removed]],
and the number of ships planned for purchase has been cut as problems
operating such vessels or even ensuring that they might survive in
combat have mounted. The Navy estimates that retiring the first four
ships in the program, which would otherwise need significant and
expensive upgrades to be deployable, would save $1.2 billion
[[link removed]].

THE PENTAGON’S SLUSH FUND: THE OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
ACCOUNT

Both the Pentagon and Congress have used a war-spending slush fund
known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO, as a
mechanism to circumvent budget caps put into place in 2011
[[link removed]] by the Budget Control Act.
In 2021, that slush fund is expected to come in at $69 billion. As
Taxpayers for Common Sense has pointed out, if OCO were an agency in
itself, it would be the fourth largest
[[link removed]]
in the government. In a welcome move towards transparency, this
year’s request actually notes that $16 billion of its funds are for
things that should be paid for by the base budget, just as last
year’s OCO spending levels included $8 billion for the president’s
false fund-the-wall “national emergency.”

Overseas Contingency Operations total: $69 billion

Running tally: $716.2 billion.

THE NUCLEAR BUDGET

While most people may associate the Department of Energy with
fracking, oil drilling, solar panels, and wind farms, more than half
of its budget actually goes to the National Nuclear Security
Administration, which manages the country’s nuclear weapons program.
Unfortunately, it has an even worse record than the Pentagon when it
comes to mismanaging the tens of billions of dollars it receives every
year. Its programs are regularly significantly behind schedule and
over cost, more than $28 billion
[[link removed]]
in such expenses over the past 20 years. It’s a track record of
mismanagement woeful enough to leave even the White House’s budget
geeks
[[link removed]]
questioning nuclear weapons projects. In the end, though -- and given
military spending generally, this shouldn’t surprise you -- the
boosters of more nuclear weapons won and so the nuclear budget came in
at $27.6 billion.

Nuclear Weapons Budget total: $27.6 billion

Running tally: $743.8 billion

“DEFENSE-RELATED” ACTIVITIES

At $9.7 billion, this budget item includes a number of miscellaneous
national-security-related matters, including international FBI
activities and payments to the CIA retirement fund.

Defense-Related Activities total: $9.7 billion

Running tally: $753.5 billion

THE INTELLIGENCE BUDGET

Not surprisingly, since it’s often referred to as the “black
budget,” there is relatively little information publicly available
about intelligence community spending. According to recent press
reports, however, defense firms are finding this area increasingly
profitable
[[link removed]],
citing double-digit growth in just the last year. Unfortunately,
Congress has little capacity to oversee this spending. A recent report
[[link removed]]
by Demand Progress and the Project On Government Oversight found that,
as of 2019, only 37 of 100 senators even have staff capable of
accessing any kind of information about these programs, let alone the
ability to conduct proper oversight of them.

However, we do know the total amount of money being requested for the
17 major agencies in the U.S. intelligence community
[[link removed]]: $85
billion. That money is split between the Pentagon’s intelligence
programs and funding for the Central Intelligence Agency and other
“civilian” outfits. This year, the military’s intelligence
program requested $23.1 billion
[[link removed]],
and $61.9 billion
[[link removed]]
was requested for the other agencies. Most of this funding is believed
to be in the Pentagon’s budget, so it’s not included in the
running tally below. If you want to know anything else about that
spending you’re going to need to get a security clearance.

Intelligence budget total: $85 billion

Running tally: $753.5 billion

THE MILITARY AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT RETIREMENT AND HEALTH BUDGET

While you might assume that these costs would be included in the
defense budget, this budget line shows that funds were paid by the
Treasury Department for military retirement programs (minus interest
and contributions from those accounts). While such retirement costs
come to $700 million, the healthcare fund costs are actually a
negative $8.5 billion.

Military and Department of Defense Retirement and Health Costs total:
-$7.8 billion

Running tally: $745.7 billion

THE VETERANS AFFAIRS BUDGET

The financial costs of war are far greater than what’s seen in the
Pentagon budget. The most recent estimates
[[link removed]]
by Brown University’s the Costs of War Project show that the total
costs of the nation’s main post-9/11 wars through this fiscal year
come to $6.4 trillion, including a minimum of $1 trillion for the
costs of caring for veterans. This year the administration requested
$238.4 billion for Veterans Affairs.

Veterans Affairs Budget: $238.4 billion

Running tally: $984.1 billion

THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET

The International Affairs budget includes funds for both the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Numerous
defense secretaries and senior military leaders have urged public
support for spending on diplomacy to prevent conflict and enhance
security (and the State Department also engages in a number of
military-related activities). In the Obama years, for instance,
then-Marine General James Mattis typically quipped that without more
funding for diplomacy he was going to need more bullets
[[link removed]].
Ahead of the introduction of this year’s budget, former chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff Admiral Mike Mullen told congressional
leaders [[link removed]] that
concerns about great-power competition with China and Russia meant
that “cutting these critical investments would be out of touch with
the reality around the world.”

The budget request for $51.1 billion, however, cuts State Department
funding significantly and proposes keeping it at such a level for the
foreseeable future.

International Affairs Total: $51.1 billion

Running tally: $1,035.2 billion

THE HOMELAND SECURITY BUDGET

The Department of Homeland Security consists of a hodgepodge
[[link removed]]
of government agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Secret
Service, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast Guard. In this
year’s $49.7 billion budget, border security costs make up a third
of total costs
[[link removed]].

The department is also responsible for coordinating federal
cyber-security efforts through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency. Despite growing domestic cyber concerns, however, the
budget request for that agency has fallen since last year’s budget.

Homeland Security total: $52.1 billion

Running tally: $1,087.3 billion

INTEREST ON THE DEBT

And don’t forget the national security state’s part in paying
interest on the national debt. Its share, 21.5% of that debt, adds up
to $123.6 billion.

Interest on the debt total: $123.6 billion

Final tally: $1,210.9 billion

THE BUDGET’S TOO DAMN HIGH

In other words, at $1.21 trillion, the actual national security budget
is essentially twice the size of the announced Pentagon budget. It’s
also a compendium of military-industrial waste and misspending. Yet
those calling for higher budgets continue to argue that the only way
to keep America safe is to pour in yet more tax dollars at a moment
when remarkably little
[[link removed]]
is going into, for instance, domestic infrastructure
[[link removed]].

The U.S. already spends more than the next seven
[[link removed]] countries
combined on a military that is seemingly incapable of either winning
or ending
[[link removed]]
any of the wars it’s been engaged in since September 2001. So isn't
it reasonable to suggest that the more that’s spent on what’s
still called national security but should perhaps go by the term
“national insecurity,” the less there is to show for it? More
spending is never the solution to poor spending. Isn’t it about
time, then, that the disastrously bloated “defense” budget
experienced some meaningful cuts and shifts in priorities? Shouldn’t
the U.S. military be made into a far leaner and more agile force
geared to actual defense instead of disastrous wars (and preparations
for more of the same) across a significant swath of the planet?

_Mandy Smithberger, a TomDispatch regular
[[link removed]],
is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project
On Government Oversight
[[link removed]] (POGO)._

_Follow TomDispatch on Twitter [[link removed]] and
join us on Facebook [[link removed]]. Check out
the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the
second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands
[[link removed]],
Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story
[[link removed]],
and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War
[[link removed]],
as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The
Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power
[[link removed]]
and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since
World War II
[[link removed]]._

Copyright 2020 Mandy Smithberger  Reprinted with permission.

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]