Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Post
March 31, 2008 By James Carafano
President Bush's proposed defense budget for next year, - an inflation-adjusted $515 billion - stands as the most dollars ponied up for the Pentagon since World War II. But comparing its cost to what America spent to deploy GIs against the Nazis is like comparing today's high-tech home-entertainment centers to Harry Truman's Philco radio.
And contending that the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq will wreck the economy, as some policymakers and candidates are doing, is just as off base.
"Smart" weapons and battlefield medical advances, to take two examples, cost more in real dollars. But they dramatically reduce the cost in lives - civilian and military. Our all-volunteer force also is better educated and better trained than yesteryear's conscript forces.
What's more, the US economy of previous decades can't begin to compare with today's. It cost almost 50 percent of gross domestic product to fight World War II. The Korean War consumed about 14 percent of GDP, Vietnam about 9 percent. Even with supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, the president's defense budget is about 4 percent of GDP.
Compared to the last long war - the Cold War - the relative economic burden is far more bearable. To hold off the Soviets, the United States averaged defense spending of about 7.5 percent of GDP for 40 years.
Still, our economy grew - indeed, it did some of its fastest growing under President Reagan's defense buildup. Today's $13 trillion economy is more than four times bigger than the economy of 1983.
Our military is a bargain, especially given its global responsibilities. Over the long term, looking at defense spending as a share of GDP is an appropriate way to measure the true cost of keeping America safe, free and prosperous.
James Jay Carafano is senior research fellow for national- and homeland-security at The Heritage Foundation.
March 31, 2008 By James Carafano
President Bush's proposed defense budget for next year, - an inflation-adjusted $515 billion - stands as the most dollars ponied up for the Pentagon since World War II. But comparing its cost to what America spent to deploy GIs against the Nazis is like comparing today's high-tech home-entertainment centers to Harry Truman's Philco radio.
And contending that the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq will wreck the economy, as some policymakers and candidates are doing, is just as off base.
"Smart" weapons and battlefield medical advances, to take two examples, cost more in real dollars. But they dramatically reduce the cost in lives - civilian and military. Our all-volunteer force also is better educated and better trained than yesteryear's conscript forces.
What's more, the US economy of previous decades can't begin to compare with today's. It cost almost 50 percent of gross domestic product to fight World War II. The Korean War consumed about 14 percent of GDP, Vietnam about 9 percent. Even with supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, the president's defense budget is about 4 percent of GDP.
Compared to the last long war - the Cold War - the relative economic burden is far more bearable. To hold off the Soviets, the United States averaged defense spending of about 7.5 percent of GDP for 40 years.
Still, our economy grew - indeed, it did some of its fastest growing under President Reagan's defense buildup. Today's $13 trillion economy is more than four times bigger than the economy of 1983.
Our military is a bargain, especially given its global responsibilities. Over the long term, looking at defense spending as a share of GDP is an appropriate way to measure the true cost of keeping America safe, free and prosperous.
James Jay Carafano is senior research fellow for national- and homeland-security at The Heritage Foundation.