Military spending accounts for almost 2.7% of global GDP and has consistently experienced growth over the years. It only experienced a decline after the Cold War era ended before starting to increase again. In recent times defense spending has also displayed a positive trend in developing countries. Although armed conflicts between countries have reduced, nations continue investing in the defense sector to protect themselves from the risk of external threats such as chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons accumulated by their rivals. Also, internal threats such as conflicts between the ruling government and opposition groups necessitate defense spending. This paper will evaluate why spending should be cut and why it should not and make a solid conclusion based on the value presented by different sources.
Presentation of the Argument that Defense spending should be reduced
Jim Arkedis, the progressive Policy Institute’s National Security Project director, wrote a policy memo that explores how to cut defense spending in the next decade. In the United States, the threats that exist include Russia, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Premise 1: America’s national debt had already exceeded 14 trillion dollars in October 2011 and was increasing on course to surpass the GDP in the next decade. Fiscal experts argue that military spending should be cut as their fair contribution to the deficit reduction (Arkedis, 2011).
Premise 2: The defense spending will be cut in a manner that does not disrupt America’s military missions or prevent the United States’ capacity to maintain technological superiority in the future years. Policymakers need to make strategic decisions to ensure they strike a balance between the fiscal aspect and the superiority aspect.
Premise 3: Regardless of the magnitude of the defense contribution to national debt scaling down, the cuts should be done over time.
Premise 4: The author suggests additional reforms in the personnel account for the most significant military budget. This would include more considerable reductions in the Army and Marine Corps end strength, specifically the exaggerated number of support troops, amalgamating bases abroad (Arkedis, 2011).
Premise 5: By 2011, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had already begun winding down; thus, the spending in Procurement and Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation is likely to reduce with future investment being made on technology expected to be cheaper.
Conclusion: Defense is a critical aspect for any nation, especially the United States of America. Defense spending cuts are essential in solving the country’s fiscal problems. However, the defense cuts should be carried out in a manner that does not risk the government’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe.
Evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in this source
The author's reasoning and premises seem to be valid as he understands the harm that cuts would bring to the safety of America’s citizens and its effect on America’s place in world leadership, which rests on its ability and capacity to defend liberal democratic values. The article attempts to explain the fiscal state of the United States and how defense spending affects it. However, defense spending cuts are a susceptible area as it is likely to impair US military missions and jeopardize American citizens' safety (Arkedis, 2011). The United States' position in world leadership is based on its qualitative technological and military superiority; thus, extreme cuts jeopardize some strategic alliances. The author explains how to achieve the fiscal balance while maintaining the USA’s military prowess.
He suggests five rules for the policymakers to consider while making the necessary cuts to achieve a balance. He suggests that cuts be made over time to give the Pentagon sufficient time and flexibility to manage America’s scaling down on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also explores focusing the cuts on the inflated number of Army and Marine Corps support troops (Arkedis, 2011). He also notes that the conclusion of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan would most likely enable the nation to make the defense cuts comfortably.
Presentation of an Opposing Argument
The article by the Center for American Progress Action fund argues that increased military funding is more likely to improve the country’s economy than cutting it. It proposes that increased defense spending is a way of creating approximately 1 million jobs.
Premise 1: The defense budget is enormous, and it accounts for the most significant part of the country’s budgetary allocations. The defense budget for the year 2009 was about $700billion and was projected to reach approximately $587 billion in 2010 (Korb et al., 2009). For every $1 billion allocated to defense over 1 million jobs are created.
Premise 2: Only about two-thirds of the defense budget is spent for the time in which it is sanctioned, which means that some expenditure can be accelerated without necessarily increasing the nation’s fiscal debt.
Premise 3: An addition of about 48000 men and women to the Army and Marine Corps can be accelerated without increasing the long-term debt that must eventually be accrued to pay for these necessary items (Korb et al., 2009).
Conclusion: The author's recommendations are based on the argument that implementing these recommendations will only require a quarter of the funds that had already been authorized. However, he admits that defense spending may not create as many jobs as other forms of government spending.
Evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in this source
The article argues that the economy would recover by increasing military spending. It is specific that an increase in military spending would increase jobs. Their recommendations include increasing personnel by recruiting people to the armed forces. They also suggest an acceleration of previously authorized funding for military construction and increase future funding in the short term (Korb et al., 2009). Military construction would increase base facilities and headquarters while creating opportunities for construction workers. This article concludes that spending on defense would benefit the country in two ways; increasing employment, thus helping the economy recover and ensuring that its security has been enhanced.
However, the reasoning in the article is not strong enough to warrant the retention of military spending. They base their argument on the fact that most of the authorized military spending is not used. They also fail to address other economic factors affected by the current fiscal state in the United States except for employment using the savings made by the military (Korb et al., 2009). The article also fails to address that the Pentagon’s budget has been on the rise from 2001 to 2009 when the USA did not have any severe adversaries except Iraq and Afghanistan.
Evaluation of Arguments in Non-Scholarly and Scholarly Sources
The non-scholarly sources offer a more current view of the defense spending and the economy than the scholarly sources that focused on the Obama administration. The non-scholarly sources are mainly op-ed articles by various experts in the political and fiscal field. The non-scholarly articles in this field are backed by supportive evidence making them credible sources. Both sources offer almost the same conclusions on either side of the argument.
An article by Zakaria (2011) argues that defense spending should be cut as most of the funds are used to duplicate services, leading to so much waste. Also, defense cuts would force a healthy balance of the American foreign policy. Another article by Hanlon (2020) warns against the implementation of any defense cuts as the current budget helps retain the strength of the American armed forces and modernize them to a point where the budgets would stay flat in the future years, reducing the defense spending relative to the GDP.
Conclusion
The arguments on both sides have been enlightening. Most scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources are against a one-time defense budget reduction. Although the defense budget accounts for most of the American budget, it is clear that it is a critical aspect in retaining the USA’s position in world leadership. The concerns about the US's fiscal state are also valid, and several sources have provided recommendations on how to reduce the budget over time. In the future, I am more likely to consider both scholarly and non-scholarly sources as they both provide critical perspectives in this debate.
References
Hanlon, M. (2020). How to cut (and not cut) the defense budget . Brookings. Retrieved 4 April 2021, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/07/09/how-to-cut-and-not-cut-the-defense-budget/ .
Arkedis, J. (2011). Defense & Deficits: How to Trim the Pentagon's Budget -Carefully . Progressive Policy Institute.
Korb, L., Conley, L., Duggan, S., & Merighi, M. (2009). Military Spending Can Grow the Nation's Economy . Center for American Progress Action Fund .
Zakaria, F. (2011). Why defense spending should be cut. The Washington Post . Retrieved 4 April 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-defense-spending-should-be-cut/2011/08/03/gIQAsRuqsI_story.html .
