Why is the U.S. military successful?

[Strangelove]

If statist institutions by their very fact that they are statist, tend to be inefficient and difficult to adapt to change, what then, are the reasons why the US Army (which does get some income for selling equipment but the majority of its funds come from taxes) has remained the force with the greatest reach in the world, the greatest strength, and the greatest flexibility?

Edited May 20, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Eric Mathis]

If statist institutions by their very fact that they are statist, tend to be inefficient and difficult to adapt to change, what then, are the reasons why the US Army (which does get some income for selling equipment but the majority of its funds come from taxes) has remained the force with the greatest reach in the world, the greatest strength, and the greatest flexibility?

Because it gets more tax loot than any other military force in the world. With enough money, there is no inefficiency you can't pave over.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Successful compared to what? There are some people who say that the US military could be far more efficient than it already is, in terms of both cost and lives lost in the course of carrying out its mission. (Yaron Brook, executive director of ARI, for one.) Also, look at the enemies they fight: if anything they're even more "statist" than our military.

Not that Eric's explanation has nothing to do with it either. The US military gets a lot of money. That counts for quite a bit.

[Hal]

If statist institutions by their very fact that they are statist, tend to be inefficient and difficult to adapt to change, what then, are the reasons why the US Army (which does get some income for selling equipment but the majority of its funds come from taxes) has remained the force with the greatest reach in the world, the greatest strength, and the greatest flexibility?

I dont think the "funded by taxation == inefficient" argument is valid in the context of the military, since the military is outside the realm of competition as long as we dont have anarchy. Even if it were funded entirely be voluntary donations, its not like you could choose to donate to a 'different military' if you disliked the inefficient one.

Having said that, I agree with the above 2 posts.

[Charles]

Succesful it what aspects? As far as special forces go, Britian is still out there, and the US army is by no means the best peacekeeping force. Technologically sure.

[Eric Mathis]

I dont think the "funded by taxation == inefficient" argument is valid in the context of the military, since the military is outside the realm of competition as long as we dont have anarchy. Even if it were funded entirely be voluntary donations, its not like you could choose to donate to a 'different military' if you disliked the inefficient one.

Here is a question that illustrates why there may be certain inefficiencies, specifically misallocation of resources, in government-allocated military expenditures: how much defense is enough? In fiscal year 2004, the U.S. spent $466.0 billion on defense. That's about $1.58 per man, woman or child. Now how do we know that $1.58 is sufficient? Or not enough? Or too much? Since the decisions about levels of expenditures are made independently of those who contribute those dollars, it is impossible to know whether or not the buyer is getting the correct amount of defense. For ranch owners along the U.S./Mexico border who regularly suffer property damage from illegal immigrants, $1.58 may not be enough. For U.S. retirees living year-round in Cozumel, $1.58 may be too much.

[Hal]

Here is a question that illustrates why there may be certain inefficiencies, specifically misallocation of resources, in government-allocated military expenditures: how much defense is enough?  In fiscal year 2004, the U.S. spent $466.0 billion on defense.  That's about $1.58 per man, woman or child.  Now how do we know that $1.58 is sufficient?  Or not enough?  Or too much?  Since the decisions about levels of expenditures are made independently of those who contribute those dollars, it is impossible to know whether or not the buyer is getting the correct amount of defense.  For ranch owners along the U.S./Mexico border who regularly suffer property damage from illegal immigrants, $1.58 may not be enough.  For U.S. retirees living year-round in Cozumel, $1.58 may be too much.

Good point, but there would be a similar problem if funding was voluntary. Suppose I think that 'enough' funding amounts to $400 billion, or $1.39 per person. I therefore donate $20, reasoning that since a lot of people wont bother donating anything hence I should try to compensate for the expected deficit. But then when the budget is published, I find that a lot of people thought along the same lines as I did, and many donated $100 or more, bringing the total funding to $900 billion. So next year I am more conservative and only donate $5. But again, everyone else thinks along the same lines and also donates less, so the total funding only comes up to $150 billion.

It would be like a 'sealed bid' auction, and I fail to believe it could result in significantly more efficiency than the current system.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Hal

[Eric Mathis]

Good point, but there would be a similar problem if funding was voluntary. Suppose I think that 'enough' funding amounts to $400 billion, or $1.39 per person. I therefore donate $20, reasoning that since a lot of people wont bother donating anything hence I should try to compensate for the expected deficit. But then when the budget is published, I find that a lot of people thought along the same lines as I did, and many donated $100 or more, bringing the total funding to $900 billion. So next year I am more conservative and only donate $5. But again, everyone else thinks along the same lines and also donates less, so the total funding only comes up to $150 billion.

It would be like a 'sealed bid' auction, and I fail to believe it could result in significantly more efficiency than the current system.

The important point is that some people, for example the border ranchers I mentioned, may need more defense than they are currently getting. Why shouldn't they be able to increase their contributions not just to raise the overall defense budget but rather their own particular level of defense?

[JMeganSnow]

The U.S. Military is successful because we worship Minerva and would-be aggressors worship Ares.

[Fenriz]

I think that one of the major reasons why the United States has the best armed forces is that it is a volunteer army.

People choose to become soldiers in the U.S. armed forces for a variety of selfish reasons: the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the opportunities to travel, a yearning for adventure, etc.

[Praxus]

Good point, but there would be a similar problem if funding was voluntary. Suppose I think that 'enough' funding amounts to $400 billion, or $1.39 per person. I therefore donate $20, reasoning that since a lot of people wont bother donating anything hence I should try to compensate for the expected deficit. But then when the budget is published, I find that a lot of people thought along the same lines as I did, and many donated $100 or more, bringing the total funding to $900 billion. So next year I am more conservative and only donate $5. But again, everyone else thinks along the same lines and also donates less, so the total funding only comes up to $150 billion.

They would simply bring over the surplus from the last year, as it is unlikely they would spend more then 400 billion in a year.

[Inspector]

On the money issue, I did hear that our military budget is larger than that of the military budgets of the entire rest of the world combined. It was on television and in passing, so I'm not sure of the accuracy, but we sure do spend more than everyone else.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am surprised no one has called the error on this one yet:

With enough money, there is no inefficiency you can't pave over.

Without REASON, you can have all the money in the world and still get nowhere. If you are don't know how to use your money to "pave over" your inefficiencies (whatever that means), you will remain inefficient.

JMegan said it best:

The U.S. Military is successful because we worship Minerva and would-be aggressors worship Ares.

[softwareNerd]

Without REASON, you can have all the money in the world and still get nowhere. If you are don't know how to use your money to "pave over" your inefficiencies (whatever that means), you will remain inefficient.

A related example is the Soviet sport teams. A lot of people use a similar "preponderance of resources" to explain why the Soviet teams did so well at the Olympics.

JMegan said it best:

Yes. When I read Jennifer's post I did a search for "Miverva" and for "Ares", and realized that she's said it all

[Eric Mathis]

I am surprised no one has called the error on this one yet:

Without REASON, you can have all the money in the world and still get nowhere. If you are don't know how to use your money to "pave over" your inefficiencies (whatever that means), you will remain inefficient.

Since you are not clear on what my phrase "pave over inefficiencies" means, I'll give you another example. Our city-owned water department for decades has been a textbook case of inertia, mismanagement, political cronyism and kickbacks. No company could operate like this in the market for a month, much less a half century. Nonetheless, despite having to shut down water services in some neighborhoods almost regularly and fighting off lawsuits from other municipalities downstream, the department actually continues to grow, add new employees and grant its managers pay raises. How? Because any financial shortfall is covered by a tax increase.

No, reason has not been banned entirely from the water department, but then even the USSR somehow got satellites into orbit.

[Capitalism Forever]

the department actually continues to grow

But is it successful ? Are its services superior to other water services?

This thread, after all, is not about the size of the U.S. military but its superiority.

[Eric Mathis]

But is it successful ? Are its services superior to other water services?

The only objective measure of the success of an enterprise is its ability to make profits. Since my water department has been a net consumer of tax loot since its inception, it is not successful in any sense. As for comparing it to other water services, its legal monopoly status insures zero competitors and thus direct comparisons are impossible.

This thread, after all, is not about the size of the U.S. military but its superiority.

In military planning, size and superiority go hand in hand. In any case, since the U.S. defense budget is more than seven times larger than the world’s second biggest defense spender, it is hardly surprising that the U.S. military is superior to all others. At one time the Soviet Union outspent the U.S. in rocket development and as a result had a superior space program.

[Capitalism Forever]

In any case, since the U.S. defense budget is more than seven times larger than the world’s second biggest defense spender, it is hardly surprising that the U.S. military is superior to all others.

My contention, though, is that even if Al-Qaeda had double the U.S. defense budget, the U.S. could still beat them. Rational people can make more out of a little money than death-worshipping savages out of a lot of money.

[Eric Mathis]

My contention, though, is that even if Al-Qaeda had double the U.S. defense budget, the U.S. could still beat them. Rational people can make more out of a little money than death-worshipping savages out of a lot of money.

This is exciting news. The CIA has estimated Al-Qaeda's finances at $30 million per annum. That means the U.S. can reduce what it is spending to fight Al-Qaeda to less than $30 million.

[Capitalism Forever]

Another point: I do not know the exact proportions, but I venture to say that the per capita ratio of military spending to GDP is actually lower for the U.S. than, say, it was for Afghanistan uder the Taleban. Americans spent a smaller proportion of their earnings on defense and yet could easily defeat Afghanistan. Why? Again, for the reason Jennifer stated.

(Don't you love the word "reason" ?)

[gags]

In fiscal year 2004, the U.S. spent $466.0 billion on defense.  That's about $1.58 per man, woman or child.  Now how do we know that $1.58 is sufficient?  Or not enough?  Or too much?

Not important, but assuming roughly 300 million people in the US, wouldn't that be about $1,558 per man woman and child?

I think that one of the major reasons why the United States has the best armed forces is that it is a volunteer army. 

A volunteer military helps in that people who join are generally motivated and enthusiastic. However, we had quite a bit of military success even when there was a draft.

Without REASON, you can have all the money in the world and still get nowhere. If you are don't know how to use your money to "pave over" your inefficiencies (whatever that means), you will remain inefficient.

I think you and Jmegan (who is almost always brilliant) are closest to the answer to a complex question. However, there are many other considerations. Technology, strategy, morale, luck..... all enter the equation.

Early on, the Nazis were quite successful militarily, despite being led by a madman who despised reason. It isn't a widely known fact, but the combined Allied forces arrayed against the Germans at the time of the Battle of France (in 1940) were generally numerically and technologically superior to Hitler's forces. It was Hitler's bold plan of attack combined with Allied strategic paralysis that caused France to fall in less than a month. Having a technologically and numerically superior force doesn't necessarily guarantee succes.

Ernest May wrote an interesting book about this entitled "Strange Victory - Hitler's Conquest of France".

[Capitalism Forever]

This is exciting news.  The CIA has estimated Al-Qaeda's finances at $30 million per annum.  That means the U.S. can reduce what it is spending to fight Al-Qaeda to less than $30 million.

By

if Al-Qaeda had double the U.S. defense budget

I meant double the current U.S. defense budget. I didn't say "If the U.S. had half of Al-Qaeda's budget..."

BTW, if the U.S. military were voluntarily financed, its budget might even be larger than it is now. Let's say there are only 50 million Americans concerned about national security, each donating $10,000 of their income on average (which is much less than what they currently pay in various kinds of taxes) and voila, you already have a $500 billion defense budget.

[Capitalism Forever]

there are many other considerations.  Technology, strategy, morale, luck..... all enter the equation.

Except for luck, the factors you mentioned are all the fruits of reason. It is reason that enables you to create good technology. It is reason that allows you to devise a good strategy. It is good philosophy--a product of reason--that maintains a good morale in the long term.

And as for Lady Fortune--well, she is an equal opportunity prankster. Sometimes you're the luckier one, sometimes your enemy is, but it levels out in the long term.

Early on, the Nazis were quite successful militarily, despite being led by a madman who despised reason.  It isn't a widely known fact, but the combined Allied forces arrayed against the Germans at the time of the Battle of France (in 1940) were generally numerically and technologically superior to Hitler's forces. [...] Ernest May wrote an interesting book about this entitled "Strange Victory - Hitler's Conquest of France".

This is indeed an interesting fact. I had known that the French surrendered all too soon, but I had not been aware they did this despite their superiority.

This is a clear case of victory by stupidity of the enemy. Which happens to bring us back to...

[Eric Mathis]

Another point: I do not know the exact proportions, but I venture to say that the per capita ratio of military spending to GDP is actually lower for the U.S. than, say, it was for Afghanistan uder the Taleban. Americans spent a smaller proportion of their earnings on defense and yet could easily defeat Afghanistan. Why? Again, for the reason Jennifer stated.

(Don't you love the word "reason" ?)

You are partially correct. Here’s a web site that provides a ranking by nation of defense spending per GDP:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/mi..._fig_gdp&int=-1

You’ll see the United States and Afghanistan are ranked at 26 and 24 respectively -- not much difference. But a look at the per capita figures shows a wide disparity:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap

On this scale the U.S. is number 3 and Afghanistan is number 103. Also, bear in mind, that these are 2005 figures, and I suspect that Afghanistan’s military budget has been much beefed up since the U.S. invasion of Oct., 2001.

Another vital point: the Taliban government was defeated within weeks of the invasion of Afghanistan. But al Qaeda is another matter entirely. I have not heard even starry-eyed Bush flacks suggesting that the end of al Qaeda is nigh.

As for the Minerva vs. Ares thesis, which god was favoring Mao when he defeated Chiang Kai-shek in 1949? Or Lenin when he defeated the White armies in the Russian Civil War, 1918-1921?

[Capitalism Forever]

On this scale the U.S. is number 3 and Afghanistan is number 103.  Also, bear in mind, that these are 2005 figures, and I suspect that Afghanistan’s military budget has been much beefed up since the U.S. invasion of Oct., 2001.

??? In 2001, Afghanistan was preparing for war against the U.S. Currently, Afghanistan has a pro-American government that has no interest in making war.

I have not heard even starry-eyed Bush flacks suggesting that the end of al Qaeda is nigh.

I am not a Bush flack (although I may qualify as "starry-eyed") but I hereby suggest that the end of al-Qaeda is nigh.

As for the Minerva vs. Ares thesis, which god was favoring Mao when he defeated Chiang Kai-shek in 1949?  Or Lenin when he defeated the White armies in the Russian Civil War, 1918-1921?

Same god that helped the Soviets launch spaceships. Communism may be an irrational philosophy, but Communists are not always stupid. And the enemies of Communism are not always smart and sometimes they have bad luck.

Now try to ask your question in the form "Which god was favoring the Muslims when they defeated ______?" I'll wonder what you'll come up with.