Introduction
Military spending has become an issue of debate in recent years as a section of the United States population believes it may be affecting other sectors. The Department of Defense is awarded yearly federal funding to spend on the military from the congressional budget office (Dizaji & Farzanegan, 2021). Before approval of the budget request by the federal government, the latter must gather money from various sources, including personal income tax, social security tax, and corporate income tax (Dizaji & Farzanegan, 2021). In 2022, the request was projected to rise to seven hundred and twenty-two billion dollars, an increase of seventeen billion dollars from the last year (Dizaji & Farzanegan, 2021). The Biden administration requested seven hundred and thirty-seven billion dollars for the Defense Department in the financial year 2023 (Marginson, 2022). Nevertheless, for the financial year 2022, the budget request will be divided among the Army, Navy, and Air Force, $173 billion, $212 billion, and $213 billion, respectively (Marginson, 2022). Most citizens have sought to understand how the money spent is used.
The money issued to the United States Defense mainly helps in military research and development. Recently, there has been a discussion concerning the role of the United States in the world or the grand strategy. The latter directs choices about ways to manage relations with adversaries and allies, where to deploy forces, and what amount to spend on the department. Some analysts claim that the nation remains powerful and geographically far from its enemies, which allows it to be safe (Marginson, 2022). This comes in the wake of social media poll targeting American citizens to check on how they feel about the spending on the United States military forces (Marginson, 2022). Since some of the money used is spent on activities outside the country, most people believe that it is unfair for them to pay for the problems of other countries (Marginson, 2022). This might be true since deploying the military in many other nations while using the money collected from the Americans is not right.
The United States has been accused many times by its citizens and other countries as well of wrongful or unnecessary engagement with other nations’ problems. Individuals have publicly rebuked the government and asked to stop their military activities overseas, especially in some Arab nations (Dizaji & Farzanegan, 2021). Despite this, there is a group of political analysts who believe that the government should continue spending more on the military and sending the forces to external assignments (Dizaji & Farzanegan, 2021). They claim that the threats to the nation are plenty and must be handled with policies that need current or much higher spending (Dizaji & Farzanegan, 2021). Those responsible for deciding the grand strategy and spending level must consider numerous security and economic trade-offs. The paper aims to discuss the issue of military spending, its relation to the United States’ foreign policy, and its impact on the economy.
Analysis
A foreign policy can be described as the goals that a nation or government’s officials seek to obtain internationally, the values that enable those aims, and the instruments utilized to pursue them. Whereas the objectives of a state’s foreign policy are usually open to discussion and revision, there are four key ones in the United States (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). The first objective is the protection of the country and the lives of Americans while in the U.S. and abroad. Associated with this security aim is the goal of ensuring the safety of the nation’s allies or those countries that are friendly with the United States or mutually support each other. In the global sphere, dangers and threats can appear in various forms. For instance, military intimidation from other places or terrorist enterprises and economic fears from high tariffs on trade.
In an economic boycott, the U.S. ceases to trade with another nation unless or until it alters a policy that the United States does not appreciate. This means that goods from the country cannot be sold in the other nation, and goods from the latter cannot be exported to the U.S. For instance, the U.S. was among the group of countries that declared an economic boycott of Iran as it stepped up its nuclear energy program development (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). The recent deal by Iran dictates it has agreed to stop the process, whereas the United States and six other nations lifted the economic sanctions to permit commerce with the country (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). Another hindrance to business consists of fees charged for exporting items. Protectionist trade policies raise tariffs such that it is harder for imported items to compete with domestic goods in terms of price. The main aim of the free trade treaties is to protect countries from such experiences.
The second objective of the United States’ foreign policy is to guarantee that the country maintains access to important resources and markets worldwide. These comprise natural resources, for example, oil, and economic resources, such as infusion of foreign capital investment for United States domestic infrastructure projects. Accessing international marketplaces means the ability to reach items that American citizens might desire, for instance, Australian wine (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). The policy seeks to improve the interests of the country’s trade, sell local products in the global markets and support general economic development throughout the world.
The third objective is preserving a balance of power in the world. This means that no particular country or area is more prominent in terms of the military than the others. The attainment of a perfect balance is almost impossible, but predictability in the governments’ operations or other institutions and lack of violence within and amongst nations is possible (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). For much of the United States history, leaders perceived the world stability phenomenon through the eyes of Europe. In the event the European continent was stable, so was the rest of the world (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). During the Cold War period after World War II, stability was accomplished by the existence of dual superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States (Desli & Gkoulgkoutsika, 2021). In addition to that, there was a real threat of nuclear annihilation, of which both states had the capability. Until the 1990s, the advanced industrial nations placed themselves behind either one.
The fourth objective of the United States’ foreign policy is the protection of human rights as well as democracy. The payoff of stability that arises from other policy goals is tranquility and peace. Whereas checking for its strategic interests in considering policy strategy, the U.S. tries to support global peace via multiple aspects, including foreign aid and participation in the United Nations. With the above information, it becomes easier to understand the need for more spending on the military. However, there are valid claims concerning how overspending on the military has impacted other areas of the country’s economy.
Military spending is among the primary concerns of nations irrespective of development status. Based on common logic, military formulation is an economic burden (Ortiz et al., 2019). Whereas comparatively more resources are committed to military formulations, a lesser proportion to investment in the technology and education sectors. The latter two play an important role in economic growth and offer a broader foundation for socio-economic development (Ortiz et al., 2019). It is generally believed that in the unsafe region, every nation deliberately assigns an uneven share of its meager economic resources to ineffective military expenses.
In the absence of international cooperation to reduce the political threat, military expenses can be driven more across a region as all countries go beyond their neighbors to ensure security. Additionally, the expenditure can raise the level of regional military costs and cause a small rise or drop in the safety of everyone. Nevertheless, two direct and linked methods exist by which higher military expenditure may unfavorably impact long-term economic growth. The spending upsurge may diminish the total accumulation of available resources for other domestic uses. For example, investment in education, prolific capital, or market-centric technological advancement. Moreover, immense spending can intensify falsifications that condense the effectiveness of resource distribution, thus weakening the total yield factor.
Military expenses tend to reduce productivity due to more financial diversion to military costs, resulting in the government increasing the taxes or acquiring loans from the foreign capital market to balance the budget. The second option is disadvantageous to economic prosperity as it escalates the interest rate, minimizes investment and consumer demand, and slowly drives economic growth. A study revealed that military expenses have the potential to impact the economy of any country (Ortiz et al., 2019). The researcher insisted that the military spending encumbrance has no particular benefit on economic growth (Ortiz et al., 2019). The implication is that disarmament provides the probability for augmented economic performance.
Relate to Course
Focusing on local politics and its impact on military spending shows pathways for countering limitless increases in the budget allocated to the Department of Defense. This can be achieved by either questioning the importance of the current level of expenditure to address outside security dangers or by highlighting its adverse effects. Through evaluating data from the 112th United States House of Representatives, one discovers that a legislator’s party affiliation and the demographics of their districts dictate their vote on the matter (Ortiz et al., 2019). The former correlated more with differences in legislators’ votes on the issue. For instance, Democrats opposed spending more than their Republican counterparts (Ortiz et al., 2019). Furthermore, the demographics of legislators’ districts greatly affected the voting record.
Districts with more veterans and less unemployment were more likely to support military spending. However, those with higher rates of education had a better chance of supporting cuts in costs (Ortiz et al., 2019). Interest group contributions as well increased the probability that a legislator would support military spending but did not seem as influential as party affiliation or district demographics (Ortiz et al., 2019). The presence of arms manufacturers or military installations in a district did not have any influence.
Specific Conundrum Related to National Security and Intelligence
The United States’ foreign policy is a huge as well as complex endeavor established mainly for the purpose of national security. In the world, no actual world-level authority dictates how countries should associate with each other. In the event one of them lies or negotiates in bad faith, there does not exist a central government to sanction it (Scholvin & Wigell, 2018). This makes diplomacy and global coordination a continuous bargain as problems change and governmental leaders and countries evolve. Foreign relations are particularly made better by the availability of cross-national voluntary associations such as the Organization of American States, the United Nations, the European Union, and the African Union (Scholvin & Wigell, 2018). Nevertheless, these groups do not possess strict enforcement power over certain nations unless various nations together decide to act in a specific manner.
The European Union is one supranational group with actual and significant power over its member states. Adoption of its common currency results in concessions from nations on various matters, and the EU’s environmental and economic regulations are the harshest worldwide. In spite of all this, the EU still has enforcement problems, as proven by the dispute within its ranks, to force Greece to decrease its national debt (Ortiz et al., 2019). International relations occur in a relatively open venue where it is hardly apparent how to accomplish collective action between the U.S. and others. Even analysts struggle to understand when agreeing to a multinational pact should make sense (Scholvin & Wigell, 2018). With all the above information, it becomes more sensible for the United States to spend more on the military to ensure its protection and that of its allies, as stated in the United States’ foreign policy.
Conclusion
The paper has discussed the matter of military spending, its association with U.S. foreign policy, and its effect on the economy. It has shown that foreign policy refers to the goals that a state seeks to attain internationally and the instruments it utilizes to pursue the aims. The main objectives of the U.S. foreign policy include protecting the country, its citizens, and allies and assuring access to resources and markets. Additionally, it aims to preserve the balance of power on the global scene and safeguard human rights and democracy. In the wake of this, the government has dedicated much of its financial resources to the military. This has resulted in spending becoming an issue of discussion in recent years.
Some analysts believe that the country remains powerful and geographically suited, far from enemies, which allows it to be secure. Thus, they advise that the nation should not be spending as much as it has done in recent years. They seem to have the support from the citizens who have expressed on social media their desire to understand how the money allocated is spent. The paper shows that spending on the military should be a primary concern despite development status. Common logic dictates that military formulation is an economic burden. In comparison, more resources are assigned to military formulations and less for investment in key sectors such as education and technology. These two are integral to economic growth and capable of providing a broader base for socio-economic development. Whereas it is undeniable that military spending is targeted mainly at ensuring the safety of the nation and its citizens, it is important to consider other areas that can influence the economy.
References
Dizaji, S. F., & Farzanegan, M. R. (2021). Do sanctions constrain the military spending of Iran? Defense and Peace Economics, 32(2), 125-150.
Desli, E., & Gkoulgkoutsika, A. (2021). Military spending and economic growth: a panel data investigation. Economic Change and Restructuring, 54(3), 781-806.
Marginson, S. (2022). Research on international and global higher education: Six different perspectives. Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 421-438.
Ortiz, C., Alvarado, R., & Salinas, A. (2019). The effect of military spending on output: new evidence at the global and country group levels using panel data cointegration techniques. Economic analysis and policy, 62, 402-414.
Scholvin, S., & Wigell, M. (2018). Power politics by economic means: Geoeconomics as an analytical approach and foreign policy practice. Comparative Strategy, 37(1), 73-84.