Strategic Security Spending

Mr. Hoffman begins his discussion on strategic security spending by referring to a November 2007 speech by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at Kansas State University in which Secretary Gates urged his audience not to expect or demand a peace dividend at the conclusion of the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Hoffman agrees with this remark and goes on to mention that both Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, believe the U.S. government should set a floor for defense spending of 4% of America's GDP. Mr. Hoffman is not questioning the feasibility of establishing a floor for defense spending, or even this specific amount, but he does question how the Defense Department plans to spend this money and whether or not it is a good idea to give this fairly sizable amount to the Pentagon alone, since we have other institutions and programs, such as Homeland Security, the Department of State, education, infrastructure, and basic research, which all are, or can be, tools for American security.

As Mr. Hoffman states, “We cannot have an intelligent debate on defense spending without looking at all our national security requirements” (para. 10), and to do so requires coming to grips with defense spending myths. For example, the U.S. military has not been shortchanged for years; America is not spending less than during the Cold War, and we are not spending less than we have spent historically. In fact, defense spending today is approximately 33% higher than it was during the Cold War. From another perspective, U.S. military spending today is equal to that of the next 24 countries combined in the world, and few of these countries represent potential adversaries. Mr. Hoffman points out that the nature of war has changed from the Cold War era to today's Global War on Terrorism, which he refers to as the Long War. This Long War requires a different type of military, not necessarily a larger one, and it requires a different “strategic calculus and operational capabilities” (para. 14). Additionally, considering the future costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, defense spending requires sustained national strategic planning.

The lack of such serious strategic planning is at the heart of Mr. Hoffman's concern. He finds most, if not all, government agencies fixated on short-term objectives, without the capability to think strategically. Since the spending “pie” in question is for defense, what other agencies contribute to our nation's defense that fall outside the Pentagon? Obviously, Homeland Security and the State Department, yet the money each receives pales in comparison to that of the Defense Department, with the State Department receiving only $1 for every $16 the Pentagon receives. Our government needs to think strategically, make the necessary choices and tradeoffs, and rigorously evaluate the risks.