Human weapons are constantly becoming more expensive. But the more expensive the weapon, the less likely it is to recoup its cost by defeating the enemy. The loser may not have enough money to compensate the winner for expenses and make a profit. Therefore, modern wars are often started not for victory, but for the development of the military budget. Nothing personal just business!
At first glance, the results of the wars that the United States makes do not matter at all! Victory or defeat cannot change the military budget or the approach to solving international problems. It may seem that the US government does not draw any conclusions from the results of its military actions. However, it is not. The US government's secret is what counts as a result of war.
US military spending is rising as the federal budget increases. In 2001, military spending was $316 billion (1) and the federal budget was $1.991 trillion. (2) In 2023, these data were $852 billion (1) and $4.641 trillion*(2) That is, over 22 years, military spending and the federal budget have more than doubled.
During this period, the US Army was involved in the most expensive and lengthy war in its history. We are talking about the war in Afghanistan. This military campaign lasted 20 years and cost the US budget $2 trillion. (3) Despite titanic efforts, the US Army left Afghanistan. And the US enemy, the Taliban, regained power.
Just six months after the Afghan war, the Pentagon again became a participant in a major military operation. We are talking about the war between Russia and Ukraine. Just as in the case of Afghanistan, the emphasis was placed on a military solution to the problem. This happened despite the defeat in Afghanistan. $2 trillion spent on this lost war did not make American politicians doubt the advisability of military methods of solving international problems. It didn't change either relationship to the military budget.
This seems strange. But the devil is in the details. The lost war cost the American people $300 million a day! However, most of this money remained in the USA. That is, it made a profit for American taxpayers. For example, Estimated Interest on War Borrowing amounted to $532 billion! (4) This is a huge amount that is hundreds of times greater than the GDP of Afghanistan. In 2020, this figure was only $3.83 billion. (5) Afghanistan does not have such wealth to compensate for US expenses on the war.
In such a situation, victory or defeat in a war loses economic significance. War is turning into a self-paying process. The meaning of war becomes expenses federal budget for the war. This money, reaching the participants in the war, turns into profit for business structures, which makes it possible to pay taxpayers salaries, benefits and other payments.
This is all. War for war. Fighting has lost its former meaning, which was victory over the enemy in order to take his wealth. Now war is the production and use of ammunition and various services, regardless of the result. This makes it possible to doubt the popular assertion that the United States lost the war in Afghanistan. The US did not flee Afghanistan. The USA hastened to a new business project! The main result of modern war is the profit of the business that participates in the war. Therefore, wars must not stop. Business must work!
This will continue even after Ukraine predictably loses to Russia. Despite yet another defeat, the US government will continue to spend huge amounts of money on the arms race. This was reported by political consultants interviewed. (6)
All of them were asked only one question:
If Russia wins in Ukraine, can the US government recognize the arms race as ineffective?
We are talking about the hypothetical possibility of reducing US military spending in order to reduce confrontation in the world.
"The outcome of the conflict in Ukraine wouldn't necessarily determine the effectiveness of the arms race, because there are numerous factors at play in global military and geopolitical strategies. While a Russian victory in Ukraine could potentially lead to reassessments of military spending and strategy, it's unlikely that it would directly result in the U.S. government officially recognizing the arms race as ineffective," said Policy and Law Strategist, Sabrina Newby.
"Reducing military spending as a response to a single conflict might not align with broader national security strategies," said President Kaplan Strategies, Doug Kaplan.
"If Russia wins in the Ukraine, it will embolden Putin and other nations to use military aggression. It will require massive defense expenditures and likely millions of dead to re-stabilize peace," said Founder and Creative Director- Targeted Creative Communications, Inc., Dan Hazelwood. He says there is zero chance of military spending cuts.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
