• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Jessica Tuchman Mathews"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Military"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

America’s Indefensible Defense Budget

The sheer size of the military establishment and the habit of equating spending on it with patriotism make both sound management and serious oversight of defense expenditures rare.

Link Copied
By Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Published on Jun 27, 2019

Source: New York Review of Books

This piece will be in the July 18 edition of the New York Review of Books.

A parable, to begin: in 2016, the 136 military bands maintained by the Department of Defense, employing more than 6,500 full-time professional musicians at an annual cost of about $500 million, caught the attention of budget-cutters worried about surging federal deficits. Immediately memos flew and lobbyists descended. The Government Accountability Office, laying the groundwork for another study or three, opined, “The military services have not developed objectives and measures to assess how their bands are addressing the bands’ missions, such as inspiring patriotism.” Supporters of the 369th Infantry Regiment band noted that it had introduced jazz to Europe during World War I. How could such a history be left behind? A blues band connected effectively with Russian soldiers in Bosnia in 1996, another proponent argued, proving that bands are, “if anything, an incredibly cost-effective supplement” to the Pentagon’s then $4.5 billion public affairs budget.

When the dust cleared, funding for the bands was not cut, because the political cost entailed in reducing the number of them by, say, half would have been enormous. The resulting $250 million in annual savings, on the other hand, while a significant sum for most government agencies, would have produced the almost unnoticeable difference of three one-hundredths of one percent in the Pentagon budget.

The sheer size of the military establishment and the habit of equating spending on it with patriotism make both sound management and serious oversight of defense expenditures rare. As a democracy, we are on an unusual and risky path. For several decades, we have maintained an extraordinarily high level of defense spending with the support of both political parties and virtually all of the public. The annual debate about the next year’s military spending, underway now on Capitol Hill, no longer probes where real cuts might be made (as opposed to cuts in previously planned growth) but only asks how big the increase should be.

The political momentum that drives this annual increase, disconnected from hard thought about America’s responsibilities in a transformed world, threatens to become—or may have already become—unstoppable. The consequences are huge. At home, defense spending crowds out funds for everything else a prosperous economy and a healthy society need. Abroad, it has led us to become a country reflexively reliant on the military and one quite different from what we think ourselves to be or, I believe, wish to be....

Read Full Text

This piece was originally published in the New York Review of Books.

About the Author

Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Distinguished Fellow

Mathews is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She served as Carnegie’s president for 18 years.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    Washington Already Knows How to Deal with North Korea

      Jessica Tuchman Mathews

  • Commentary
    Trump Wins—and Now?

      Jessica Tuchman Mathews

Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Distinguished Fellow
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Political ReformSecurityMilitaryNorth AmericaUnited States

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?

    Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?

    A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Needs a New Negotiating Strategy with Israel

    Unless Beirut lowers expectations, any setbacks will end up bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.

      Mohanad Hage Ali

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.