THE SIZE OF THE U.S. MILITARY BUDGET

Some call it the Iron Triangle - the combination of Military Contractors, Pentagon Officials and Congress - that collectively set the defense budget. President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have, like others before them, discovered these three forces to be intractable, despite the Administration's concerted efforts to "transform" the military into a more mobile, agile organization.

As the 2004 budget gets ready for submission, the New York Times (December 22, 2003) reports that six of the seven major weapons systems that the Administration has questioned will find their way into the $378 billion dollar request to be submitted to congress.

The triangle, another word for the Military - Industrial Complex works this way. Large defense companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northup Grumand and others hire lots of lobbyists, many of them former members of Congress. Over the last year and one half defense contractors are said to have spent 90 million for lobbying purposes. These same companies also provide senior executives to fill civilian policy positions in the Pentagon.

The Military Services define and vigorously advocate the new weapons that they want, and they work not just with their civilian bosses in the Pentagon but directly with the defense companies, and especially with members of congress. Congressional representatives in turn fight for their share of the military pie in order to protect and promote jobs. Never mind that the money could be spent on far more productive jobs, Congress fights for current defense companies and their employees. It should be no surprise that many of the large weapon systems have sub-contractors in states across the country.

The 2003 Military Budget was also huge. The War Resisters League estimates that $437 billion dollars go to current military activity including the Defense Department ($379 billion), nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy ($16.8 billion) and others. Current military programs constitute 26 per cent of the national 1.696 Billion budget. An additional 20 percent ($339 Billion) goes to past military expenditures, especially veterans benefits ($57 Billion) and interest on national debt, as much of 80 percent of which ($282 Billion) can be attributed to previous military spending.

If one considers so called discretionary money in the budget, as opposed to mandatory expenses supported by the trust funds for Social Security, Medicare and related entitlement programs, then defense funds constitute around half of the budget.

Another way to look at the size is in comparison with other countries. The Center for Defence Information has compiled estimates for Russia ($60 Billion), China ($42 Billion), Japan ($40.4 Billion), United Kingdom ($34 Billion), Saudia Arabia ($27.2 Billion) and many more. Do we really need to spend more than all these other countries combined?

Do we really need:

• F/A 22 raptor fighters. Originally designed to counter a soviet plane that was never built, these planes will cost 200 million each, or up to 64 billion dollars for 203 over the next decade, and 100 more in the following decade.
• Another Aircraft carrier. Guess what an aircraft carrier costs.
• Stryker combat vehicles. The army want 2100, enough for 6 brigades. Reportedly Secretary of Defense wanted funding for only 3 brigades.
• V-22 Ospreys. This combination helicopter/plane has repeatedly crashed, and involved falsified maintenance records. The total bill is $46 billion.
• Comanche helicopters. This program is said to cost $48 billion. The army wants 1200 at 40 million dollars each.

Congratulations to Secretary Rumsfeld. The Iron Triangle does not win them all. Arguing that the Crusader artillery system was too heavy at 40 tons, this 10 year old, 11 billion dollar initiative was cancelled during 2002.