Defense spending beacons

OPINION:

Pundits and media blowhards are trying to divine meaning in the loss of 4,000 American lives in Iraq. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq War, the lesson is clear: Dramatically increase defense spending and spend more money on advanced high-tech weapon systems that promise to save American lives.

The United States spends less than four percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. By contrast, defense spending averaged some 14 percent of the GDP in the Korean War, nearly 10 percent of the GDP during the Vietnam War, and more than 33 percent of the GDP during World War II.

Critics of increased defense spending counter that, in absolute dollar terms, the United States is spending more on defense than at any time in American history. In addition, they note, the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.

But a dollar today is worth a lot less than in it was worth in previous eras. Moreover, defense spending relative to that of other nations is an unhelpful comparison because the United States isnt like other countries. America is the worlds sole remaining superpower, with far-reaching obligations to protect U.S. national security interests worldwide.

America also considers its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to be its greatest military asset. Thus, we are unwilling to sacrifice their lives when technology can prevent the loss of life. Thats one important reason why, throughout its history, America has invested literally hundreds of billions of dollars in advanced weapon systems: We know that dollars spent today can save lives tomorrow.

In fact, when you consider the relative loss of American life since 1945 (when the Cold War began), it is clear that U.S. defense spending has been money well spent. Indeed, by any historical comparison, American casualties have been remarkably low, thanks in large part to our nations investment in weapon systems that have minimized our troops vulnerability to danger.

There was a well known procurement holiday in the 1990s; however, since September 11, 2001, money for new procurement has risen rather substantially. But as critics of increased defense spending point out, it is not necessarily the case that this new money is being well appropriated. Spending, after all, must be tied to a procurement plan, which, in turn, must correspond with an overarching military strategy.

As it turns out, there is a National Defense Strategy that governs defense procurement planning. The March 2005 document wisely calls for a military that can project power from the global commons i.e., space, cyberspace, international waters, and airspace to distant and austere environments that have little or no existing infrastructure.

The Cold War, after all, is over. The fight today is not in established Europe, but in places like Kandahar, Fallujah, Mindanao, and Mogadishu underdeveloped urban frontiers for which a Cold War military is ill-suited.

Thats why the U.S. military has embarked upon its greatest transformation since the Second World War, some 65 years ago. The information revolution of the past quarter-century has transformed the commercial world, but much less so the bureaucratically insular U.S. military. Consequently, 19-year-old teenagers today typically have more technology at their disposal than 19-year-old soldiers and marines..

This must change, and it is changing, albeit too slowly. Theres no reason, save for bureaucratic inertia, policy myopia, and budgetary stinginess, that our troops in harms way cant be the beneficiaries of the best technologies available.

Indeed, soldiers and marines shouldnt have to walk into insurgent-infested buildings dumb, deaf and blind, without the benefit of advanced reconnaissance, surveillance and communication technologies to tell them what lurks behind hidden doors. Yet, to an extent that I believe would shock the American people if they knew about it, thats often the case today.

Of course, new communication systems, technologies, and weapon systems dont come cheap; they cost a lot of money and they take time to develop.

Moreover, because the U.S. military is pushing the technological envelope, it doesnt always know what these new capabilities will fully cost. Any technology development program, after all, necessarily involves an element of (calculated) development risk; otherwise, there can be no military-technological progress.

Can America defend itself without making this investment in high-tech weapon systems? Maybe, but the tradeoff will be many more American dead and wounded, many more civilian deaths, and far greater collateral damage in any future conflict.

Thats why America needs to spend more on defense, in both absolute and relative terms, than it has throughout its history: because we have markedly less tolerance for casualties today.

For example, America suffered many more dead in World War II training exercises than we have suffered in the entire Iraq War. Yet, policymakers fret over Iraq War casualties as if they are a harbinger of strategic disaster.

They are not. American casualties are, however, a reflection of our nations understandable and healthy aversion to the loss of human life. For that reason, America needs to spend much more on defense. We can pay either in dollars today or in lives lost tomorrow.

I>John R. Guardiano is a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war and a Navy Reserve officer. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Navy or Marine Corps.