Related News
Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
America still pursues military engagement over a peace strategy
By Jeffrey D. Sachs |
May 22, 2009, Friday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
AMERICAN foreign policy has failed in recent years mainly because the United States relied on military force to address problems that demand development assistance and diplomacy.
US President Barack Obama has raised hopes for a new strategy, but so far the forces of continuity in US policy are dominating the forces of change.
The first rule in assessing a government's real strategy is to follow the money. America vastly overspends on the military compared with other areas of government.
Obama's projected budgets do not change that. For the coming 2010 fiscal year, Obama's budget calls for US$755 billion in military spending, an amount that exceeds US budget spending in all other areas except so-called "mandatory" spending on Social Security, health care, interest payments on the national debt, and a few other items.
Indeed, US military spending exceeds the sum of federal budgetary outlays for education, agriculture, climate change, environmental protection, ocean protection, energy systems, homeland security, low-income housing, national parks and national land management, the judicial system, international development, diplomatic operations, highways, public transport, veterans affairs, space exploration and science, civilian research and development, civil engineering for waterways, dams, bridges, sewerage and waste treatment, community development, and many other areas.
Costs of war
This preponderance of military spending applies to all 10 years of Obama's medium-term scenario. By 2019, total military spending is projected to be US$8.2 trillion, exceeding by US$2 trillion the budgeted outlays for non-mandatory budget spending.
US military spending is equally remarkable when viewed from an international perspective. According to the Swedish International Peace Research Institute, total military spending in constant 2005 dollars reached roughly US$1.4 trillion in 2007.
In other words, the US spends roughly the same amount spent by the rest of the world combined - a pattern that the Obama administration shows no signs of ending.
While the US has signed an agreement with Iraq to leave by the end of 2011, there is talk in the Pentagon that US "non-combat" troops will remain in the country for years or decades to come.
Some opponents of the Iraq War, including me, believe that a fundamental - and deeply misguided - objective of the war from the outset has been to create a long-term military base (or bases) in Iraq, ostensibly to protect oil routes and oil concessions.
The worries are even worse in Afghanistan. Among other problems, the US relies heavily on drones and bombers, leading to a high civilian death toll, which is inflaming public attitudes against the US. After one recent disaster, in which more than 100 civilians died, the Pentagon immediately insisted that such bombing operations would continue.
A shift in focus
Obama is doubling down in Afghanistan, by raising the number of US troops from 38,000 to 68,000, and perhaps more later. What is disconcerting, however, is not only the relentless financing and spread of war, but also the lack of an alternative US strategy.
Obama and his top advisers have spoken regularly about the need to address the underlying sources of conflict, including poverty and unemployment.
A few billion dollars have been recommended to fund economic aid for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But this remains a small amount compared to military outlays.
Before investing hundreds of billions of dollars more in failing military operations, the Obama administration should re-think its policy and lay out a viable strategy to US citizens and the world.
It's high time for a strategy of peace through sustainable development - including investments in health, education, livelihoods, water and sanitation, and irrigation - in today's hotspots.
A shift in focus to economic development will save a vast number of lives and convert the unthinkably large economic costs of war into economic benefits through development.
(The author is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Shanghai Daily condensed his article. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
US President Barack Obama has raised hopes for a new strategy, but so far the forces of continuity in US policy are dominating the forces of change.
The first rule in assessing a government's real strategy is to follow the money. America vastly overspends on the military compared with other areas of government.
Obama's projected budgets do not change that. For the coming 2010 fiscal year, Obama's budget calls for US$755 billion in military spending, an amount that exceeds US budget spending in all other areas except so-called "mandatory" spending on Social Security, health care, interest payments on the national debt, and a few other items.
Indeed, US military spending exceeds the sum of federal budgetary outlays for education, agriculture, climate change, environmental protection, ocean protection, energy systems, homeland security, low-income housing, national parks and national land management, the judicial system, international development, diplomatic operations, highways, public transport, veterans affairs, space exploration and science, civilian research and development, civil engineering for waterways, dams, bridges, sewerage and waste treatment, community development, and many other areas.
Costs of war
This preponderance of military spending applies to all 10 years of Obama's medium-term scenario. By 2019, total military spending is projected to be US$8.2 trillion, exceeding by US$2 trillion the budgeted outlays for non-mandatory budget spending.
US military spending is equally remarkable when viewed from an international perspective. According to the Swedish International Peace Research Institute, total military spending in constant 2005 dollars reached roughly US$1.4 trillion in 2007.
In other words, the US spends roughly the same amount spent by the rest of the world combined - a pattern that the Obama administration shows no signs of ending.
While the US has signed an agreement with Iraq to leave by the end of 2011, there is talk in the Pentagon that US "non-combat" troops will remain in the country for years or decades to come.
Some opponents of the Iraq War, including me, believe that a fundamental - and deeply misguided - objective of the war from the outset has been to create a long-term military base (or bases) in Iraq, ostensibly to protect oil routes and oil concessions.
The worries are even worse in Afghanistan. Among other problems, the US relies heavily on drones and bombers, leading to a high civilian death toll, which is inflaming public attitudes against the US. After one recent disaster, in which more than 100 civilians died, the Pentagon immediately insisted that such bombing operations would continue.
A shift in focus
Obama is doubling down in Afghanistan, by raising the number of US troops from 38,000 to 68,000, and perhaps more later. What is disconcerting, however, is not only the relentless financing and spread of war, but also the lack of an alternative US strategy.
Obama and his top advisers have spoken regularly about the need to address the underlying sources of conflict, including poverty and unemployment.
A few billion dollars have been recommended to fund economic aid for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But this remains a small amount compared to military outlays.
Before investing hundreds of billions of dollars more in failing military operations, the Obama administration should re-think its policy and lay out a viable strategy to US citizens and the world.
It's high time for a strategy of peace through sustainable development - including investments in health, education, livelihoods, water and sanitation, and irrigation - in today's hotspots.
A shift in focus to economic development will save a vast number of lives and convert the unthinkably large economic costs of war into economic benefits through development.
(The author is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Shanghai Daily condensed his article. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
