Why does America spend so much on defense?

An article published by the American "Atlantic" website reported that the United States spends 962 billion dollars annually on defense, more than the seven countries that follow it directly in the list of the world's most spending on defense combined. However, the article argues that this spending is necessary and sustainable, and is considered normal in relation to GNP, compared to other countries.

The article written by former US Defense Intelligence officer Patrick Collins pointed out that Washington's spending on defense in 2018 amounted to 649 billion dollars (without spending it on emergency cases), explaining that this amount is greater than that spent by China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, Britain and Germany combined on defense ($ 609 billion) in the same year.

They demand without knowing
Collins stated that in every presidential election cycle, at least one of the candidates in his campaign promotes that the United States is spending too much on defense, but all of them fail to explain the amount and reasons for this spending, and what a major cut in it could entail.

He explained that America has treaties that obligate it to defend 51 countries in the world, 28 of which belong to NATO, 18 to the Treaty of Rio, and two to Anus, namely Australia and New Zealand, in addition to bilateral treaties with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well as their close relations and clear security interests with other countries. Sometimes, Washington is forced to deploy its forces in countries that do not have formal treaties with it, such as: Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the Emirates and Qatar.

Many and varied missions
The author adds that the American forces sometimes find themselves participating in military operations in unexpected places when they are called to stop the mass killing and genocide, such as Kosovo and Libya. Other times, she finds herself engaged in humanitarian aid work such as mitigating the tsunami damage, the Fukushima nuclear reactor accident in Japan, the Haiti earthquake, or containing the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

And there is always an expectation that American forces will guarantee freedom of commercial navigation in strategic straits, such as Melaka, Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, and others.

All of these obligations mean that America will always keep part of its forces on standby, indicating that, in contrast, America's opponents have the opportunity to focus much of their efforts (training, procurement, military doctrine, and infrastructure ...) to prepare to fight America alone.

Guiding philosophy
The author refers to the guiding philosophy of America's military policy that it is best for the United States to engage its forces in the outside world and stop aggression early, instead of waiting for its growth and accumulation and then hitting America on its soil. This is one of the great lessons - he says - that America's leaders have learned from the past two World Wars.

After the first war, America resorted to a policy of isolation, but the war in Europe and Asia forced it out of its isolation. On the other hand, Washington has been dealing with the problems of the world with forces deployed in potential areas of ignition, and therefore, or coincidentally, there has been no war between the major powers since the Second World War.

The writer drew attention to the high financial cost of the military deployment around the world, in addition to the information and intelligence required.

According to Collins, America prefers achieving its goals without incurring a lot of injuries, and it does so by emphasizing information, firepower, and advanced technology, which are very expensive, but this means that America chooses to spend money instead of blood.

How did America implement its policy?
To illustrate this preference, there are two technological developments that America followed before and the third under development: the first is the nuclear supremacy that deterred the Soviet Union, and the second took place in the 1970s and 1980s from the combination of long-range precision guided munitions and satellite and communications technology in a new common military doctrine.

The writer says that the second development proved a great success against the Iraqi forces in 1991, and again in 2003, and less success against the "insurgents" in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The third development will create a new feature using developments in information technology such as artificial intelligence and big data, as well as guided energy weapons.

Collins continues to defend big American financial spending, saying that “given the impossibility of experimenting with two Americans in two worlds where one has a large defense budget and the other has a much smaller budget, we cannot know for sure what will happen if the United States makes major changes In its approach to international relations, defense strategy and budget, it is an important point that these things are interconnected.

If America cuts military spending without changing its goals, its forces will likely end up dispersed and subject to surprise and defeat. This means that the United States will increase the risk of a conflict, and perhaps the losses it will have to incur in order to remain present, if it can remain so.

The strongest arguments are not convincing
One of the strongest arguments in favor of reducing defense spending is to reduce America’s obligations and aspirations, and this argument is rational, as America withdrew from Vietnam before, and many are now demanding it to withdraw from Afghanistan and others.

However, whenever Washington withdraws from a place, other powers will blow to fill the emerging vacuum. If the United States does this widely to achieve significant budget savings, it will open up a lot of space for others to breathe.

The writer expressed his hope that countries such as Russia, China and Iran will not fill this void, but rather allied countries.

He also reported figures for the proportion of US spending in gross national product, compared to similar figures for other countries. He said that the average percentage of American spending in defense equals (3.1%), while in Colombia (3.2%), Saudi Arabia (8.8%), Russia (3.9%) and China (1.9%).