I am writing to correct a number of serious misconceptions in the opinion piece printed on Thursday in regards to the U.S. Military/Industrial complex.
First, Eisenhower was not the only U.S. president to have served as a four-star general. In fact, to refer to him as a four-star is inaccurate, because he held the rank of General of the Army, which is represented by five stars.
He was also not the only U.S. president to hold this rank. George Washington held the rank of General of the Armies, the highest rank ever afforded an officer in this nation, and Ulysses S. Grant, also a U.S. president, held the rank of General of the Army (though at the time, it was represented by four stars, not five).
Second, the author makes a very fraudulent claim when he states that “the U.S. defense budget is now equal to military spending in all other countries of the world combined.” In 2010, the U.S.
defense budget was $698,105,000,000. This was indeed the highest defense budget in the world. In fact, it was roughly equal to the defense budgets of the 22 countries following us, arranged in terms of most to least spending. That number is $700,038,464,000.
The amount that the U.S. spends on defense is truly massive and staggering, but there are 193 U.N. member states, not 22, and the majority of them have military and defense budgets.
In addition to this, the author’s statements are a bit misleading.
While the U.S. does spend nearly $700 billion yearly on defense, this number was not examined in light of our GDP. In 2010, the U.S. spent about 4.7 percent of its GDP on defense. This does not place us into the top five countries (we are squarely at No. 10).
In light of the 2010 GDP for the U.S. (roughly $14.7 trillion, or around one-fourth of the global economy), the massive expenditures on defense are cast in a more realistic light. Put simply, we spend more because we can afford more.
In regards to how the laws of a host nation apply to forces stationed overseas, the claim that the military is exempt from any and all laws is incorrect. The “NATO Status of Forces Agreement,” as a specific example (but not an overall rule, though the majority of host countries maintain a similar agreement), lays out rules for jurisdiction and legal status of U.S. troops.
Any American laws that are broken by the individual will be tried and punished under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) if they are not governed by the laws of the host country. (Examples include violations of the U.S. Tax Code, desertion, etc.) I will now quote my source document directly:
“In all other crimes, the host country retains the primary jurisdiction. If a U.S. service member, not in the performance of official duty, commits a crime against the person or property of a foreign national, local authorities have the primary right to bring him or her to trial. Unless the host country waives its primary jurisdiction, the accused will be prosecuted under the laws and procedures of that country’s criminal justice system. If convicted, the service member will be punished in accordance with the host country’s laws.” Clearly, American service members are not in fact free of punishment for crimes committed on foreign soil.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The final issue I will address is in regards to our overseas bases: “The sole purpose is global hegemony and dominance over the rest of the world.”
While this may indeed be the political motivation behind a number of bases, one must remember two things:
One, that not every military installation is a base equipped for combat, and two, that a large number of these bases exist because of various treaty agreements (such as NATO).
Finally (though I know this last bit will be absolutely ignored by commenters and replies), I meant no particular political offense, nor have I drawn conclusions that the U.S. has a right to maintain a military presence anywhere. My purpose was simply to correct a number of serious factual errors in the original opinion piece.
