On the 25th February 2014, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel unveiled plans to shrink the US Army to its smallest size since prior to WW2.[1] The Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to 440,000-450,000 personnel, down from the current 500,000.[2] Part of the budget will eliminate an entire class of Cold War-era Air Force fleets – the U-2 Spy plane and the A-10 attack jet will be retired. The plan is part of the 2011 Budget Control Act which required the military to cut $487 billion in spending over a decade.[3]

It is important to understand the role the US military plays in US global ambitions and within the US itself. Since WW2 America’s military has played a central role in projecting US power around the world. US aircraft carriers control the world’s seas. America’s military bases across the world give the US a readiness level to react to global issues instantly. Along with the US economy, culture and technology America’s military is probably is most powerful tool in projecting its prowess around the world. From a domestic perspective almost all weapons systems when broken down, are supply chains that turns the 50 states in the US into an assembly line for the military-industrial complex. Almost every member of Congress therefore supports the defence budget as it will bring jobs, contracts and money into their home district.

With the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military is under ordered budget cuts otherwise known as Sequestration. One senior Pentagon official told the NY Times “You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war defence department when there is no large land war.”[4] There is no doubt that war is a costly project. The decade long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost approximately a joint $6 trillion making it the most expensive war in US history.[5] The cost of these wars have left a profound impact onus finances.[6] Only a few months ago we witnessed the shutdown of the federal government which was the third longest government shutdown in US history that was eventually resolved after the US Senate signed an interim appropriation bill that waived the $17.2 trillion debt limit until 15th March 2015 enabling the US government to borrow money to fund its budget and debts.[7]

America’s military budget accounts nearly half of all the world’s military expenditure and more than the next 15 countries combined.[8] Most of the US defence budget goes towards defence infrastructure, social security and major health programs. The government spent about $718 billion on defence and international security assistance in 2011.[9] This includes arms transfers to foreign governments. Other chunks of the budget are spent on personnel pay, weapons procurement and operations whilst smaller amounts are spent on R&D and nuclear programs.[10]

With the central role the military plays any cuts will have an impact on US global prowess. Just the threat of continued budget reductions has had an immediate effect on the military’s readiness. The Navy decided not to deploy a second carrier to the Persian Gulf, backing down from its standard of two carriers in the region. The other branches have extended the deployments of units already in theaters and delayed others from rotating in as replacements since it is relatively less expensive to have units stay in place than move them and their equipment across continents.

Any given military platform, from an armoured vehicle to an aircraft carrier, requires a lot of money in order to be ready for use at any time at its intended level of performance. These platforms require consistent use to maintain a certain readiness level because machines cannot sit idle for months to years and then operate effectively, especially if called on for immediate action. The people that operate this equipment need to maintain their working knowledge and operational skill through continued use. This use causes wear and tear on the platform and requires consistent maintenance. All of this is necessary just to maintain the status quo. In the end, there must be a balance between a platform’s readiness level and the amount of funding required for operations and maintenance, but if the money is no longer available there is no choice but to reduce readiness.

Upgrades are needed so platforms can stay up to date and useable within the system the military is using to move, shoot and communicate. This is a constant cycle that, when interrupted, has very long-lasting consequences. In the longer term, if new equipment is delayed this will put more pressure on existing platforms, requiring them to operate past their intended life spans, and will preclude or delay the introduction of better abilities into the military. Procurement cycles are very slow and take decades to implement; for instance, the Navy that the US wants to have in 20 years is being planned now.

The effect of defence cuts will not lead to the collapse of the US because any military’s effectiveness is measured against its potential opponents, and the US has enjoyed a large gap for decades. But if America’s military is not growing in capabilities and other militaries are, as is the case with China and Russia then its relative power is decreasing.

The Iraq and Afghan wars coupled with the financial crisis has taken its toll on America and it can no longer maintain its military expenditure. Its competitors, such as China and Russia are increasing their defence spending due to continuing antagonism over territorial disputes and securing influence in their regional domains. The Muslims all across the globe are reasserting themselves, campaigning for the return of the Khilafah as currently can be observed in Syria. Cutting the defence budget will have serious ramifications for America’s global position.

The upcoming Khilafah.com publication – Defending the Homeland: Building the Khilafah’s defences, will assess the current global military balance and the military capabilities of the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, India and Israel, as well as the Muslim militaries of Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran.

Notes

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26326969

[2] http://www.defense.gov/news/2014budget.pdf

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/army-to-cut-its-forces-by-80000-in-5-years.html?_r=0

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html

[5] http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

[6] http://digitaljournal.com/news/politics/usa-to-downsize-army-as-cost-cutting-measure/article/372765

[7] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26164560

[8] http://www.businessinsider.com/military-spending-budget-defense-cuts-2011-10#america-spends-more-on-its-military-than-the-next-15-countries-combined-1

[9] http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

[10] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/