Economic Stimulus to the American Economy from Defense Aid to Ukraine

A recent report recognized the economic stimulus being experienced in America from the defense aid being provided to Ukraine against the Russian aggression against it. Liberals see non-defense spending, no matter how wasteful or inefficient, as economically stimulative, but defense spending only as wasteful, as if somehow a dollar spent for defense, whether for the United States or our allies, is somehow unequal to that spent for non-defense matters. They also fail to recognize that spending for defense is not a choice against social spending, as defense spending includes food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education for active duty personnel and their dependents, as well as various benefits for retired military servicemen, including their pensions. In addition to liberals, libertarian and far-right isolationists view foreign military aid as spending money “over there,” as if the materials are manufactured abroad. Defense spending, including military aid to foreigners, and even the expense of engaging in combat abroad, is not primarily spent abroad, however, but domestically. Even servicemen’s combat pay is often saved or sent home. That foreign military aid or defense spending can be economically stimulative is not a justification for defense, let alone for war, but a refutation of the argument that it is as costly as critics claim. Defense spending and foreign military aid are justifiable alone as protection of security and liberty, without which prosperity would be unlikely. Not only do they fail to count both sides of the ledger by recognizing the economic stimulus of defense spending and foreign military aid or combat abroad, but anti-war critics also contradict themselves by complaining of the economic costs of war, but then also complain about the increase of trade after an enemy is replaced with an ally or the sharing in the post-war reconstruction contracts that mitigate such costs. Thus, they argue against war for its economic costs, but then oppose any war for its economic benefits, as if to imply falsely that any economic benefit derived from it was the only intent of the war, which would nonetheless contradict their argument against the costs of the war. As it is unlikely they are simply poor at math or consistent reasoning, it is believable that they oppose defending America or its ally or interests militarily because they think other means short of war are enough to thwart terrorists or aggressors, or because they minimize or even deny the threats to it, or they do not think America is worth defending. Thus, they exaggerate all costs and minimize all benefits. Defense spending and, especially, war, whether engaged in directly or indirectly, are certainly costly, but not as costly as critics think. Regardless of the fiscal and economic aspect, defending ourselves is certainly worth it for non-economic reasons, as President John F. Kennedy said in 1961 in his Inaugural Address, to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”