Do we support machines of war or warriors?

Do we support machines of war or warriors?
by
Chaplain Kathie

Americans love to say we have the best military in the world, but I was just wondering exactly what part of the military most people really mean. After all, there are the machines used in war and then there are the men and women we send. Big difference.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Military Budget


Part of a series on:
U.S. Budget & Debt Topics
Major dimensions[show]
United States public debt
United States federal budget
Health care reform in the United States
Social Security debate (United States)
Military budget of the United States
Economy of the United States
Subprime mortgage crisis
Taxation in the United States

Mandatory Programs[show]
Medicare (United States)
Social Security (United States)

Terminology[show]
Cumulative deficit = Debt
Inflation
Balance of payments

v • d • e
The military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense, or more broadly, the portion of the budget that goes to any defense-related expenditures. This military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Contents [hide]
1 Budget for 2010
1.1 Emergency and supplemental spending
1.2 By title
1.3 By service
1.4 Programs spending more than $1 billion
1.5 Other defense-related expenditures
2 Budget Breakdown for 2011
3 Support service contractors
4 Military budget and total US federal spending
5 Comparison with other countries
6 Recent commentary on military budget
7 See also
8 References
9 External links


[edit] Budget for 2010
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3][4] An additional $33 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[5][6] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[7]

[edit] Emergency and supplemental spending
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[8] In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[9]

[edit] By title
The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is[10]:

Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%

By service
Service 2010 Budget request[11] Percentage of Total
Army $225.2 billion 33.9%
Navy/Marine Corps $171.7 billion 25.9%
Air Force $160.5 billion 24.2%
Defense Wide $106.4 billion 16.0%

Programs spending more than $1 billion
The FY 2009 $104.2 billion procurement and $79.6 billion RDT&E budgets appropriated several programs with more than $1 billion.

Program 2009 Budget request[12][13] Change, 2008 to 2009
Missile Defense $9.4 billion +8.0%
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $6.9 billion +6.2%
Carrier Replacement Program $4.2 billion +23.5%
F-22 Raptor $4.1 billion −6.8%
Virginia class submarine $3.9 billion +14.7%
Future Combat System $3.3 billion −2.9%
DDG 1000 Destroyer $3.2 billion −8.6%
C-17 $3.0 billion
V-22 Osprey $2.7 billion +3.8%
Space-Based Infrared System $2.3 billion +130.0%
F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion −4.8%
MH-60R/S $1.9 billion +72.7%
EA-18G Growler $1.8 billion +12.5%
Chemical Demilitarization $1.6 billion +0.0%
Stryker $1.3 billion +18.2%
Littoral combat ship $1.3 billion +116.7%
CH-47 Chinook $1.2 billion +9.1%
P-8A Poseidon $1.2 billion +33.3%
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle $1.2 billion +9.1%
UH-60 Black Hawk $1.1 billion −26.7%
E-2C/D Hawkeye $1.1 billion +22.2%
Trident II Ballistic Missile $1.1 billion +0.0%
Mobile User Objective System $1.0 billion +25.0%

As you can see, there is the money we spend to wage war and then there is the money that goes to train and supply the needs of the troops. When we say we have the best Air Force, are we talking about the jets or the pilots flying them? Are we talking about helicopters like the Black Hawk or the pilots? When we say we have the best Marines, are we talking about the equipment they use and the weapons they use or are we talking about the Marines? How about the Army? Are we talking about what they use or are we talking about them? When it comes to the Navy, are we talking about the sailors or the ships? We should always be talking about both and holding them equally in value because one does not work without the other.

When it comes to the men and women wounded doing their jobs, can there be any excuse on this earth to explain not taking care of them? We wouldn't complain about maintaining their equipment but we can't seem to manage to maintain them properly. When a machine needs repair, we don't cast it into the dump. We fix it but we don't seem willing to fix them when they are wounded but still want to stay in. When they are so severely wounded they cannot stay in the military, we can't seem to rationalize the need to be supported financially would not have happened if they were not wounded serving the rest of us. There is so much that we don't do but most of the people in this country seem to just assume all is being done simply because we do have the best military in the world. The problem is, we really never specify what part we are talking about. The budget seems to have most of the money going to the machines but it is the men and women the rest of the country usually means. Just thought I'd point that out so that the next time you hear someone say "best military" ask them what part they are talking about.
(You guessed it. I had another odd conversation today.