Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Tying Defense Spending to GDP is Not the Answer

by Travis Sharp [contact information]

Letter to the Editor published in The Washington Times on February 26, 2008

See the Center's April 2008 fact sheet on tying defense spending to GDP.

I agreed with many parts of James Jay Carafano's thoughtful assessment of U.S. defense spending ("In defense of defense spending," Commentary, Thursday), but I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion that tying U.S. defense spending to gross domestic product (GDP) is an appropriate way to measure our national commitment to security.

First, GDP is an arbitrary metric. Mr. Carafano often mentions 4 percent as a reasonable level, but if the U.S. economy were to suffer a deep recession, chances are that he would come back and say that 5 percent or 6 percent or 7 percent is the more appropriate level. What if the United States were forced into a World War III situation and had to fight for its survival? Shouldn't we then spend 50 percent of GDP? One hundred percent? The point is that you pay what you must, when you must, and any artificial floor is just that -- artificial.

Second, tying defense spending to GDP is the purest manifestation of flawed strategic thinking I can imagine. Strategy is all about matching limited resources to achieve carefully scrutinized and prioritized objectives. When there are more threats, you spend more. When there are fewer, you spend less. Smart strategy is about making choices, and keeping defense budgets arbitrarily high avoids the hard choices that must be made in this age of dangerous threats.

Agreeing upon what represents a true threat to the United States is an exhaustive process that too often becomes ensnared in political posturing, but it's the best we've got. Throwing our hands in the air in resignation and tying defense spending to GDP seems eerily similar to setting up the type of entitlement program that conservatives abhor. Why not determine defense spending through budgetary survival of the fittest? If the Pentagon can make the case that the threats we face justify larger budgets, then so be it. But pegging defense spending to GDP gives the Pentagon and defense contractors a free pass and curtails a lively, transparent national debate. I believe this hinders our national defense.

Finally, Mr. Carafano's analysis focuses solely on defense spending, but I would suggest that spending more on different U.S. national security tools might increase our security just as effectively. As Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates outlined in his call last year for bolstering America's "soft power," investing in better intelligence, diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and nonproliferation programs would go a long way to achieving the goal of a stronger, more secure America.

TRAVIS SHARP
Military Policy Analyst
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Washington