"I hope they took a look at Blow's table. It would be nice if some of them would also take a gander at these two additional columns. Perhaps a little light bulb will go off.…" -totally agree with your post; we should focus more on the measures that will in fact affect our futures stop ignoring our weakness.

imperial overstretch is a theme you've hit before. I am in complete and total concurrence with nearly most of what you write on this topic. At the same time, as I noted in re Israel, your thoughts on this matter have been already, if well-, stated. Again, I'd encourage you to look further afield - as in, really far. You don't need me to tell you, and this will undoubtedly go down as the most patronizing line in the history of the Internet(s), but you have a big brain - perhaps pick some new, really un(der)developed topics or themes (not zombies) and apply realist thinking to them?

Good thing Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is already on this!

The idea that the Republicans would even consider a large cut to defense spending is not only laughable, it also ludicrous. Not to just bash on Republicans I will admit that the weapons to guarantee U.S power in the Pacific (ships, planes, missiles and submarines) are all expensive but the fact is that Republicans will not consider cutting any more than they already have, even with Robert Gates pushing them.

Screw you and screw Blow, you're just HATERS. When we excel, you dis,and you ONLY wanna focus on the Negative.

Actually your figures are wrong by a factor of at least 50% on Military spending for the US when you factor in spending for TSA, Veterans Affairs, the Energy Dept's Nuke Program, NASA's military expenditures and the Intelligence budget. I think these items are far more likely to show up in foreign budgets, but I could be wrong about that. Of course, I've written about this far more on here than anyone else, and Lobelog and WarInContext. Anyhow, you might right on the silent retreat that is NATO, as I seem to have to hammer points to get through. I work with stone for a living, so I'm used to it.

Lol diverting money in order to fix things? If little politicians actually understood what (almost) every single general tried to say-MAKE SMALLER BUT MORE EFFECTIVE ARMY. McCrystal tried but was bashed for that in 2004 (or 06' ?) with his spec ops raids. Countries who understood that already have very effective armies with very small money consumption.
Also this is kind of off topic: why is it called "defense" spending? especially since US haven't fought in "defense" since WW2?

that the 2 highest (in spending per capita and in % of GDP), the US and Israel, are arguably the most belligerent countries on the planet. It goes to underscore George Washington's warning about standing armies....

There has been much written about how many ills we as a nation can solve, if we would just dillute our defense spending a little further. Les Gelb's great clarion call last Autumn ran a similar strand of the fantasy offered above.

What I find intellectually broken on both sides of this debate, is the apprehension of examining the actual inner-workings of the military industrial complex or the school of diplomacy America subscribes to. Where do those processes meet? Are they more oriented toward keeping 435 congressional districts padded with assistance from willing donors among the lobbying class.

America's days ahead look more perilous than at anytime in her history and yet here we sit amidst the din of those who would distill our problems into more defense spending or less defense spending while clinging to a "cetaris parabis" mentality--how uninspiring.

We all need to be smarter--this of course includes the pundit class. So let the real debates on how to reform, refurbish, rethink, redo all of it begin!

Since when does correlation equal causation? I agree that more needs to be done to fix the domestic economy and a massive reinvestment in American infrastructure is necessary but I don't hold a lot of faith that the world will remain all that stable if the US gives up protecting the global commons. The first thing most serious people want after Gaddafi goes nuts is a no-fly zone to prevent atrocities. Who's going to do that, Italy? Tunisia? Don't worry, the UN is on it.

You always get these kinds of articles from people who are not military historians and are not familiar with military affairs. Take a better look here:

U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have, since September 11, 2001, cost about a trillion dollars. That seems like a lot, and it is. But it's not a lot like it used to be. For example, World War II cost the U.S., at the time (in current dollars) over four trillion dollars. That amounted to over 33 percent of U.S. GDP (at the time). World War II cost Russia more than half its wartime GDP, and they continued spending over 20 percent of GDP during the Cold War. The U.S. was able to spend much less of the national wealth on military matters. The current war on terror is costing about one percent of U.S. GDP. So while war may appear to be getting more expensive, relative to the amount of money available, it's actually getting cheaper.

The initial cost of World War II, and most wars that came after it, will eventually double because of the cost of taking care of the veterans. There were over a million casualties in World War II, many of them serious, with long range effects. The long range health problems were not anticipated, nor were the more expensive treatments. You have to pay. The vets are owned a debt that cannot be avoided.

As a percentage of GDP, American military spending continues a decline that has been going on since the 1960s (when, because of the $686 billion cost of the Vietnam war, defense spending was 10.7 percent of GDP). That went down to 5.9 percent of GDP in the 1970s and, despite a much heralded defense buildup in the 1980s, still declined in the 1980s (to 5.8 percent.) With the end of the Cold War, spending dropped sharply again in the 1990s, to 4.1 percent. For the first decade of the 21st century, defense spending is expected to average 3.5 percent of GDP. Most of the current defense budget is being spent on personnel (payroll and benefits), and buying new equipment to replace the Cold War era stuff that is wearing out and to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20101019.aspx

Interesting article, written from a left wing perspective of course.

One of the negative effects is logical. If you look at that table of countries on the list of advanced economies, many are NATO countries and the US does pick up the bulk of the military spending tab for those nations.
However, NONE of those nations has a role as a serious world leader; just something to think about.

The second effect, spending on education, health care, national infrastructure, personal consumption is an abject fallacy written by someone who is either a left wing American or is totally ignorant of American culture and society, First of all, educational spending and infrastructure are state and local matters, defense spending in a national expenditure. Health care is not a "right" and the federal government has no right to interfere in ones private matters. Secondly, since we are on the topic of social spending, health care, education et al, lets also consider that defense spending is only the third largest expenditure in the federal budget just behind interest on the national debt and health and human services. So, we already spend more on healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, and other social programs than we do on the military and we spend more on our national debt than our armed forces. Next let’s consider the results of America’s military spending. Unlike other nation’s military spending, the U.S. spending provides a positive return on its investment. Technologies such as the internet, Global Satellites Positioning and many breakthroughs in trauma and emergency care have come as a result in U.S. military spending. Plus, many of our infrastructure programs are run through the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Then consider this, about 60% of the defense budget is spent on personnel costs, this includes education benefits like tuition assistance for higher education, English as a second language for foreign born service members and an avenue for citizenship, and health care. American service personnel become superior citizens who go on to become productive participants in society and are less likely to need many of the aforementioned social programs. And let’s not forget the various natural disasters that occur around the world and the U.S. military response to alleviate the hardship of others.
Mr. Walt, your column is just left wing pablum.

He made interesting points, but not like someone who wants to make the fedral government more lean and mean.

Military expenditures - Do D is developing a new grenade launcher that will cost $35,000 each and cost $1,000 per round and each squad will be issued one. DoD is looking to replace the M-4/M16 and are debating five different replacements (costs unknown). The last time I looked at the high tech of the other side in Iraq and Afghan they were still using the Ak-47 and the RPG. The use of the Humvee as a serious combat vehicle was/is a joke. It replaced the JEEP that is still in private use as the JEEP Wrangler. I could go on, but read Military.com for the latest weapons. Can anyone tell me why children and spouces of the military should be getting tuition assistance.?Latest inf o from Military.Com says that most similiar positions in the military and the civilian/government jobs are better paid through the ....military.

Overseas bases - time to shut them down..how much money are we spending in Germany and Japan and why are troops still there 66 years after the end of WW II. Union troops were only in the South for about 10 years after the Civil War.

Returns on our investments:: We created the internet and have GPS and trauma units and other sceintific breakthroughs. How much are we getting in royalties for these inventions?

Medicare. medicaid and other federal programs - turn all of these back to the states that are aleady without funds.. Let our disabled and elderly go without health care. Turn SSI back to the states where it was "General welfare"

Federal dept of education - dump all PELL grants and other aid to assist people in improving their lives

U.S. Army of Engineers - Hurricane Katrina and the levees in New Orleans...enough said.

War on terror....it takes two minutes to walk through Isreal's airports....they are looking for terrorists, not bombs....what the differene between terrorists and freedom Fighters...freedonm fighters are on your side...when people are willing to blow themselves up for thier beliefs, they will never be defeated...see Godfather 2 when Michael is in Cuba

Natural disasters - should that be our planes and troops or should we contribute to the Red Cross and the UN?

NATO/Europe - both have many countries that have a higher standard of living than the USA, have a stronger currency (EURO) and spend less on military expenses. They are getting bigger and stronger. They let us bleed while they become stronger...maybe they learned from the Roman Empire.

We need to stop being the world's cop and ambulance and get our own house in order, starting with GOP and DEMS who don't vote party lines 95% of the time and are willing to make this country better.

Last thing...remember that the first illegal immigrants and undocumented aliens in North America were the Vikings, the Pilgims and the settlers in Jamestown.

Stephen;
You briefly touched on the concept of off shore balancing in the article, and believe with current U.S. debt,, slower than expected economic recovery and political desires to trim the Federal budget - you are on track, although an off shore balance approach (as you advocate) is part and parcel to this discussion.
The threat of use of a big stick at times carries more weight than the actual wielding of the stick.
The time to strike with this approach to foreign policy is now, we will cut defense, we will have to reduce foreign adventurism, and if we are smart we will leverage our strengths while encouraging the rest of the world to be more active players, the timing has never been better.
As Sun Tzu has stated - Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.

Since entitlements were running a surplus till this very year, the entire deficit can rightly be blamed on the defense budget.

As usual, Walt finds data that fit into a preconceived conclusion and then cites them to support his notion without thinking through whether they really make the case.

Far better than comparing the US to various other countries is to compare the US in the past to the US today. This approach removes factors that lead to a systematic difference in spending on defense, such as the difference between, let's say Liechtenstein and Israel.

What he will find is that the fraction of outlays and of GDP going to defense was actually higher in the past than it is today, and the US ranked higher along the scales in Blow's charts. Using Walt's logic, the implication is that we are spending too little on defense.

A serious academic would then go back and take another look at the data and his interpretation and recognize that the issue is deeper than Walt's analysis. But Walt being Walt, never bothers to do so.

As usual, Walt finds data that fit into a preconceived conclusion and then cites them to support his notion without thinking through whether they really make the case.

Far better than comparing the US to various other countries is to compare the US in the past to the US today. This approach removes factors that lead to a systematic difference in spending on defense, such as the difference between, let's say Liechtenstein and Israel.

What he will find is that the fraction of outlays and of GDP going to defense was actually higher in the past than it is today, and the US ranked higher along the scales in Blow's charts. Using Walt's logic, the implication is that we are spending too little on defense.

A serious academic would then go back and take another look at the data and his interpretation and recognize that the issue is deeper than Walt's analysis. But Walt being Walt, never bothers to do so.