as detailed in this article penned by Bruce Bartlett of Townhall.com. He makes some excellent points, particularly noting that (according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2002) the percentage of GDP spent on US defense is significant:
The first thing one notices when looking at the big foreign aid contributors is that they all spend very little on national defense. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2002, The Netherlands spent just 1.6 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Norway spent 2.1 percent, Switzerland spent 1.1 percent, and Ireland spent a piddling 0.7 percent. By contrast, the U.S. spent 3.4 percent—and this was before the Iraq war. It’s easy to be generous with foreign aid when another country is essentially providing your defense for free. (emphasis added)
An excellent point. Given the fact that we have undertaken the arduous tasks of liberating Afghanistan and Iraq; arduous but, in my view, absolutely necessary - I'd say that the US is exceedingly generous in areas of international interest.
Our extensive, expensive peacekeeping roles in years past in regions such as the Balkans, Kosovo, Bosnia and elsewhere should certainly be considered "foreign aid" - even though the Bush administration has believed from the outset (as described in Bush's 2000 campaign platform) that our role as peacekeepers internationally should be scaled back. Instead, Bush suggested, the US should focus on fortifying our military strength to fight for our own country, if and when the need should arise (as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, although I don't believe anyone could have predicted how draining guerilla warfare against intangible enemies would be on our resources). Spending on our military has been, necessarily, on the increase, and such spending only benefits the smaller countries incapable of defending themselves against terrorists. Our military suffered from spending cuts in the 1990's, with outdated, outmoded equipment hindering the front in Iraq (which was, of course, recently blamed on Rumsfeld) - even in the 2000 CNN article linked above, this problem of depleted military strength was highlighted during the 2000 campaign:
"Current readiness is problematical, but future readiness is in serious trouble," said Joseph J. Collins, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"In the last decade, we have spent a lot to keep our force busy and ready, but we have not spent nearly enough on modernization, personnel, and facilities," Collins said. "The next administration will face tough choices as it tries to maintain current readiness, replace old equipment, and modernize all at the same time.
If what Collins suggests is true, the long-term goals of the military will have to be assessed. In the years leading up to the Gulf War, as the last dangers of the Cold War melted and then evaporated, the military was designed and intended to conduct full-scale operations on two separate fronts.
As readiness was challenged by funding cuts and peacekeeping deployments, experts, including higher-ups inside the military, determined that the two-front war strategy would be impossible to maintain. Many argued that a single-front conflict would be difficult to sustain.
And this was from a 2000 campaign article, at CNN.com, no less.
Bush's 2004 Agenda for America proposes numerous defense spending projects, believed to be necessary to maintain our role as a world leader/superpower. Such spending is crucial (though, my cynical mind reminds me, proper oversight of such spending tends to be much less than necessary- but that's another topic) to ensure that future battles are not fought on our shores. September 11th must remain fresh in our minds (stunning slide show, thanks to LGF). The current administration understands, as some of our European counterparts do not (the most recent elections in Spain come to mind), that the perception of strength is essential to our continued national safety interests - and defense spending by our country is indeed beneficial to those countries tucked within the cloak of US protection.
Our defense budget, therefore, should be factored substantially into international, humanitarian aid spending (along with all of the other bits provided so kindly by Bruce Bartlett in his 12/31/04 Townhall article). At least, that's what the facts tell me.
(and Happy New Year, by the way..it's going to be a very good year)
Hallo!
My name dr. James Morgan.
I do study the anti depressants. And wish to introduce to you the new drug called zoloft.
If you want to feel good, look at these links.
http://zoloft1.blogsome.com/2008/05/02/zoloft-side-effects/
http://zoloft1.blogsome.com/2008/05/01/buy-zoloft-online/
http://zoloft1.blogsome.com/
best wishes.
Posted by: jamesmorgans | May 02, 2008 at 03:45 AM