{"id":53392,"date":"2021-09-10T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-10T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2021\/09\/10\/the-peace-dividend-should-go-to-country-not-contractors\/"},"modified":"2026-08-20T12:33:16","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T12:33:16","slug":"the-peace-dividend-should-go-to-country-not-contractors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/commentary\/2021\/09\/10\/the-peace-dividend-should-go-to-country-not-contractors\/","title":{"rendered":"The peace dividend should go to country, not contractors"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With the troops finally out of Afghanistan and military operations winding down in the Middle East, American taxpayers should be seeing some relief now that our overseas commitments have decreased. Instead, just recently, the House Armed Services Committee voted to increase<\/a> the Pentagon\u2019s budget top line by $24 billion for fiscal 2022 to $740 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the House vote, grassroots advocacy groups lamented the increase. Erica Fein from Win Without War said<\/a>: \u201cThe House Armed Services Committee voted to put arms dealer profits before the needs of everyday people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This follows the Senate Armed Services Committee advancing the same $740 billion version of the National Defense Authorization Act back in July. In the Senate vote, only Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., voted against it. SASC Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., defended the outcome, saying<\/a>: \u201cRepublicans have made it clear that they\u2019re not satisfied with the defense number. \u2026 What we\u2019re presenting is what the Pentagon sent over and what they feel is necessary to do their mission.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What has been deemed \u201cnecessary\u201d is actually one of the largest defense budgets in our history. Now that it has left the committee stage, it will be up to the principled members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to put a stop to this shortsighted budget increase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq diminishing, it is no coincidence that eyes have turned to China as the latest existential threat. Hyperbolic headlines<\/a> of an imminent military threat posed by China bombard Americans on nearly a daily basis. The truth is that China, a country more than 6,000 miles away from the West Coast, lacks the capacity to storm our shores.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our last significant military incident with Chinese forces was more than 20 years ago<\/a>. While China has the ability to strike U.S. territories through other means, it is highly unlikely to do so without provocation and to avoid an assured escalation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defense industry and its allies in Congress and the Pentagon are inflating this threat to keep the money flowing from the Treasury in a seemingly ever-increasing fashion. Until Congress and the president demand spending discipline \u2014 including serious reductions \u2014 on the Pentagon, we can be sure military spending in the United States is being used for something other than programs and resources that actually keep us safe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of the $24 billion defense budget increase wouldn\u2019t even be relevant for a conflict in the Pacific. Rather, it is intended to make up for deferred<\/a> maintenance and training the service leaders so often put off so they can spend money the way they prefer: on new and unproven weapons programs like the littoral combat ship, the F-35 fighter jet and Future Combat Systems, to name a few recent examples.<\/p>\n\n\n\t