That is objectively and obviously false. Why would you say something you know (assuming you read the OP) to be untrue?
Military spending has gone from 4.89% of GDP in the first year of the Obama Administration to ~3.3-3.4% of GDP in recent years. That's a huge decrease.
There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multiple times over the past couple years. Many of them later got backpay when a budget was passed, but not all.
You may not care about the morale and dedication of those people, but this isn't a values-based or tribal-loyalties based discussion. It is an objective fact that China doesn't have to deal with this process and the resulting inefficiencies.
It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'.
I'm not questioning anyone's morale or dedication, but I AM questioning competence at the top levels when it comes to spending all that money wisely. You can blame 'political footballs' for some of that but there are plenty of failures where the military and their contractors have straight squandered fortunes. And it's not because of "too much democracy", it was after the money was allocated to a purely military-contractor relationship where nobody's voting on anything.
Within a decade, the budget varied so greatly that there was a 22% difference between the high and the low in real terms. When you have drastic budget cuts, you have to cut projects. Those projects can't just be picked up again where you left off when you get more money - contractors will have moved on, and in most cases the new contracts need to be re-competed.
These are structural disadvantages we as Americans place on our own military, and from which the PLA does not suffer.
I appreciate the data, especially the real $ pulled forward from 2009.
My impression was the drop-off from 2009-2013 was all about reducing investment in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cancelling super promising projects. Do you have an example of a great project that was cancelled? I know we reduced our order of F-22s but that was concurrent with a way bigger, splashier investment in F-35s so I'd call that 'bad priorities' rather than 'lack of resources'.
I'd say that the PLA's big advantage was not invading Iraq. I almost added something about a lot of our defense spending being glorified jobs programs but I'm pretty sure that's also true over there too, just with a differently-shaped politics driving it.
The EFV was supposed to replace the AAV but ended up canceled in the 2011-2013 crunch. $3bn reset. However, this can't be blamed entirely on the budget crunch - there were reliability issues with the platform, which, given the budget crunch, the Marine Corps did not feel it could adequately address. The threshold for when you stop throwing good money after bad depends in part on how much margin of error you have in your budget of good money.
Things like building aircraft carriers and training 100s of thousands of people in a non-flat leadership structure aren't processes that can turn on a dime. The joint chiefs testimony on the effects of budget predictability on readiness is certain to be more articulate than anything I can say. Brief overview here: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/945964/...
I see that you're a Marine on your bio, so I guess we are just not going to see eye to eye on how important/relevant amphibious landing capabilities are :) I actually remember hearing about that EFV and thinking 'what a waste of money' at the time.
Respect for acknowledging the reliability issues.
I think another elephant in the room is the bifurcated (or trifurcated) nature of things the armed forces are expected to do. Occupying countries with large goat-herding sectors is totally different from sci-fi peer military conflict planning.
Meanwhile, most of the brass just wants to re-enact WWII, which serves neither mission. Everyone loves the idea of carriers or a d-day landing, when "large # of cheap, expendable drones and missiles" completely obliterates both of those strategies.
Did you ever read about Millenium Challenge 2002? Marine general plays red team, sinks entire US fleet with the realization that if you launch a lot of missiles at once at a carrier group, the anti-missile batteries can't stop them all. They decide on a do-over with a new rule that he can't do that anymore, and run the exercise to the predetermined conclusion that validates their doctrine.
Your point would stand on its own just fine without the accusation. Even if your data is correct, refenestrator may not know that data. Don't make accusations like that unless you know (like, provably) that he knows it.
> There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multiple times over the past couple years. Many of them later got backpay when a budget was passed, but not all.
GEFTA (signed into law in 2019) guarantees retroactive pay for furloughs due to lapses in appropriations. Before that, anyone exempted who still had to show up was guaranteed pay, and Congress would virtually always still backpay the people who were furloughed. It wasn't legally guaranteed, but I can't think of any cases in the last 10-20 years where retroactive pay didn't happen.
It's still pretty disruptive though, and it definitely sucks for contractors if they get sent home, as they don't get retroactive pay.
