Use Reasoned Judgment, Not Artificial Measures

Defense analysts are faced with a perennial question: what level of peacetime defense spending is needed to ensure the security of the nation? The 2013 budget proposed by President Obama includes $525 billion in funding for the peacetime costs of the Department of Defense — not including the costs of veterans’ benefits or other defense-related spending.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, the proposed budget remains at a high level by historical standards, near the previous peak in defense spending under the Reagan administration of $547 billion (adjusting for inflation). Measured as a percentage of G.D.P., however, defense spending is relatively low at 3.4 percent of G.D.P. compared to the post-World War II average of 6.4 percent. Romney has proposed setting a floor for defense spending at 4.0 percent of G.D.P.

The proper level of defense spending, however, should not be determined by an arbitrary percentage of G.D.P. or how much has been spent in the past.

Using a percentage of G.D.P. or past spending levels would set the budget with little regard for what is needed or what we can afford.

These approaches attempt to set the budget first with little regard for what is actually needed, how the money should be spent, or what the nation can afford. The proper level of defense spending should be determined by the threats we face as a nation, the strategy we pursue to meet those threats, and the fiscal constraints we must confront.

The military strategist Bernard Brodie, writing in 1959, recognized this dilemma and adroitly noted that: “We do not have and probably never will have enough money to buy all of the things we could effectively use for our defense. The choices we have to make would be difficult and painful even if our military budget were twice what it is today.”

The debate over how much defense spending is enough should be about threats, strategy and fiscal constraints. Focusing on the specific amount of defense spending, whether measured in inflation-adjusted dollars or as a percentage of G.D.P., only serves to distract from the real strategic choices we face.

This analysis was part of the discussion published  by the New York Times on September 9, 2012.