DEVELOPMENTS

BACKGROUND

The United States has several hundred thousand U.S. troops or personal stationed in countless countries abroad, 84,488 in Europe, 154 in Russia and the former Soviet republics, 70,719 in East Asian and the Pacific states, including Japan with 33,122, South Korea with 26,339 and 10,439 stationed on naval ships. 10,577 are stationed in Africa including North and Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East including 277 based in Saudi Arabia and 41 in Yemen. Additionally, 2,043 are stationed in the Western Hemisphere including 107 in Colombia, 946 at Guantanamo and 406 in Honduras.

The numbers included in the Western Hemisphere have recently changed due to situations on the ground in Haiti. The earthquake in Haiti was a devastating development in a country that has already witnessed extreme hardships. The United States has committed several thousands troops and support personal both on the ground and in the waters off of the coast.

Other missions that have committed far more troops than the humanitarian mission in Haiti are the two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan the United States has a total of 70,000 troops on the ground and once President Obama’s troop surge is fully realized the total will be around 100,000. As of December 1st of last year, the United States has around 35,000 troops that operate under the auspices of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and the rest operate independently of the ISAF.

112,000 troops still remain in Iraq. There is a planned drawdown to 50,000 troops following the March 7 national elections. Following this drawdown, the United States will remove all remaining combat troops from the country by the end of 2011. As part of SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) agreed to in late 2008 with the Iraqi national government, the United States has removed all combat troops from Iraqi urban areas and stationed them primarily on bases away from population centers. The U.S. Marines recently ended their mission in Iraq and handed their command of Anbar province over to the U.S. Army in a ceremony attended by Vice President Joe Biden.

U.S. military planners will renew a component of this forward presence around the globe with continued efforts to strengthen its presence in regions that have seen a lack of focus. One region that has been seriously undervalued is Africa. North Africa including Egypt, Algeria and Lybia have garnered serious attention over the decades due to their strategic locations, but counterfactually Sub-Saharan Africa and other areas have been largely ignored. Part of this new emphasis by U.S. military planners was the establishment of AFRICOM in 2007.

According to the Department of Defense, the establishment of AFRICOM will better enable the “Department of Defense and other elements of the U.S. government to work in concert and with partners to achieve a more stable environment in which political and economic growth can take place. U.S. Africa Command is consolidating the efforts of three existing headquarters commands into one that is focused solely on Africa and helping to coordinate U.S. government contributions on the continent.”

With the establishment of AFRICOM, the U.S. has a number of Unified Combatant Commands to assist it militarily around the globe, each ostensibly with a specific mission and region. The other five are, Central Command (CENTCOM), European Command (EUCOM), Northern Command (NORTHCOM), Pacific Command (PACOM) and the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).

Besides the resource of men and women, the United States military has a material edge that few if any countries can afford to match or they choose not to. Examining the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request for the Department of Defense is useful in comprehending the capabilities of the U.S. military. President Obama’s FY 2010 Budget Request, which subsequently passed Congress, consists of a base budget amount of $533.8 billion but when including requests for overseas contingency operations of $130 billion the total budget rises to $663.8 billion.

Within the budget request the amount allotted to hardware like helicopters, planes, drone airplanes and tanks is illuminating. The DoD requested $1,451.1 billion for 5 RQ-4 Global Hawk’s, $1,285.9 billion for 60 MQ-1 Predator’s and MQ-9 Reaper’s, $224.8 million for 1,232 RQ-7 Shadow’s and RQ-11 Raven’s. Other programs of strategic value include $2,860.4 billion for 35 V-22 Osprey’s, $370 million for 8 AH-64 Apache’s, $1,062.8 billion for 39 CH-47 Chinook’s, $1,464.9 billion for 83 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, $1,188.7 billion for 9 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet’s and $1,456 billion for 8,444 Humvees.

When juxtaposing American military assets against potential adversaries military capabilities it is clear that the United States is at a strategic advantage. The United States spends 4.06% of its $14.25 trillion GDP on the military, China spends 4.3% of its $8.767 trillion GDP on the military and Russia spends 3.9% of its $2.103 trillion GDP on the military.

ANALYSIS

Despite budgetary issues facing the United States that have derailed President Obama’s legislative agenda and will lead to funding decreases for many domestic programs, homeland security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not see any significant decline in funding.

President Obama plans to freeze funding at current levels beginning in FY 2011 and ending in FY 2013 for domestic programs like education and other social programs typically supported by the Democratic Party.

This budget freeze is both political and pragmatic. The administration is facing a tough election year in 2010 with the Democratic Party in danger of loosing their majorities in the House and Senate. The administration realizes that freezing spending at current levels for homeland security initiatives, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would be political suicide that would lead to electoral victories for the Republican Party in 2010. Conversely, the lack of a freeze for the military budget is based on the realization that as the U.S. heavily engages abroad, it can ill-afford to decrease any funding for the military.

John Lyman is a columnist for Foreign Policy Digest

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites