Military Budgets

Refine By:
Response, Nov/Dec 2009
Thomas Donnelly, Philip Dur, and Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr.

Andrew Krepinevich's vision for the U.S. military underestimates Washington's existing commitments and capabilities, Thomas Donnelly and Philip Dur argue. Not so, replies Krepinevich, and now is no time to stay the course.

Read
Essay, JUL/AUG 2009
Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr.

The military foundations of U.S. dominance are eroding. In response, Washington should pursue new sources of military advantage and a more modest grand strategy.

Read
Essay, Jan/Feb 2009
Robert M. Gates

The Pentagon has to do more than modernize its conventional forces; it must also focus on today's unconventional conflicts -- and tomorrow's.

Read
Essay, Nov/Dec 2007
Richard K. Betts

The United States now spends almost as much on defense in real dollars as it ever has before -- even though it has no plausible rationale for using most of its impressive military forces. Why? Because without political incentives for restraint, policymakers have lost the ability to think clearly about defense policy. Washington's new mantra should be "Half a trillion dollars is more than enough."

Read
Review Essay, Jul/Aug 2007
Aaron L. Friedberg

Two new books discuss how Washington should fight the wars of tomorrow -- and pay for them. But to balance the conflicting demands of strategy and finance, the next president ought to take a page from Eisenhower's playbook.

Read
Essay, Mar/Apr 2007
Martin Feldstein

The defense budget of the United States, the world's leading military power throughout the twentieth century, is not enough for the country to confront the threats of the twenty-first. It should be increased -- and can be without negatively affecting the economy. The money is available; it must be joined by political will.

Read
Essay, Jul/Aug 2006
Frederick W. Kagan

Despite obvious manpower shortages in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration remains wedded to spending defense resources on "transformational" new technologies rather than on new troops. Cutting-edge weapons are critical. But what the United States needs above all are more men and women in uniform.

Read
Response, Jul/Aug 2006
Lawrence J. Korb, Peter Ogden, and Frederick W. Kagan

The U.S. military needs more manpower, badly. And this means reordering budgets, putting troops over technology. Or does it?

Read
Essay, Mar/Apr 2005
Max Boot

The fighting in Iraq has exposed the limits of Donald Rumsfeld's transformation agenda. The U.S. military remains underprepared for dealing with guerrillas, and such unconventional threats will grow in coming years. The next stage of military transformation must focus on training large numbers of infantry for nation building and irregular warfare--and Washington must make that task a top priority.

Read
Essay, Nov/Dec 2003
Michael O'Hanlon

Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton presided over a disastrous downsizing of the U.S. military. But this claim is wrong. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon maintained high levels of readiness and enacted a bold military modernization program that bore fruit in Bosnia and Kosovo -- and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Read
Syndicate content