The Pentagon has been issuing dire warnings this year that the military is fast approaching a severe money crunch — a problem compounded now by the war in Iraq and Syria.
How has the growth of the Precision-Guided Munitions (PGM) complex changed the balance of international power? More specifically, how has the U.S. military’s embrace of this system of weapons affected its ability to accomplish U.S. national goals? The president’s decision to pursue the war against ISIS strictly through the means of airpower and seapower makes the question particularly relevant. The United States will fight ISIS with precision-guided munitions, and apparently little else. It’s worth asking how effective they are in accomplishing national ends. The answer, it turns out, is surprisingly mixed.
Today’s military might need its own Billy Beane.
Decades ago, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara asked the simple question: how much is enough? The answer, of course, is not a number but rather another more difficult question: enough for what? As the U.S. military embarks on a new operation in the Middle East and as members of Congress return to their home districts to campaign, these questions remain unresolved. Should the military be resourced to fight terrorist groups like ISIL, counter Russian moves in Eastern Europe, balance China’s rising power and influence in the Asia Pacific region, fight Ebola in Africa, or some combination of these?
The U.S. military operations targeting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria have already cost taxpayers between $780 and $930 million, according to an analysis by an independent think tank.
U.S. military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) have cost up to $930 million as of Sept. 24, according to a report released earlier this week, as the Pentagon broadens its air campaign against extremist Sunni militants in Syria and Iraq.
1667 K Street NW Suite 900
Washington DC, 20006
202-331-7990
info@csbaonline.org
