美國總統(tǒng)特朗普上周在北約峰會上的失禮又上了頭條。更糟糕的可能是他還大膽要求北約國家達(dá)到隨意定下的軍費(fèi)支出數(shù)字，當(dāng)然他這種行為也不是一次兩次了。特朗普要求北約國家軍費(fèi)支出達(dá)到各國GDP的4%。

公平點(diǎn)說，這個瘋狂的想法并不是特朗普突然提出的：2006年開始北約就定下官方目標(biāo)，軍費(fèi)開支至少達(dá)到GDP的2%，而且特朗普也不是第一個提出軍費(fèi)翻倍的人。目前美國軍費(fèi)開支約為GDP的3.5%，第二高的希臘支出比例僅為2.3%。

將軍費(fèi)預(yù)算與經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模掛鉤簡直愚蠢，相當(dāng)于說要保住美元就需要更多士兵，仿佛軍隊(duì)要圍著一堆不斷增加的金條，而不是在保護(hù)真正的國土。

然而，特朗普完全支持這套任性無理的計(jì)劃，根本沒有理性思考的意思。他希望將安全方面的負(fù)擔(dān)分散到各國，不要讓任何一國獨(dú)自承擔(dān)。

如果特朗普真正關(guān)心美國利益，那么敦促北約成員國支付更多軍費(fèi)的真實(shí)原因就是美國可以少支出一些，騰出空間做些別的事?？雌饋硖乩势绽斫饬嗽撨壿?，至少清楚一部分。

然而事實(shí)上，特朗普才沒打算縮減軍費(fèi)支出。他要求軍費(fèi)支出增加800億美元，預(yù)算計(jì)劃還將達(dá)到歷史高峰的軍費(fèi)水平延續(xù)到至少2023年。

今年美國軍費(fèi)支出7000億美元，已超過國會每年分配1萬億美元軍費(fèi)的一半，這還不包括退伍兵醫(yī)療和福利支出。目前軍費(fèi)預(yù)算水平超過了越南戰(zhàn)爭和朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭期間最高水平。美國也是全球軍費(fèi)支出最多的國家，是俄羅斯和中國軍費(fèi)加在一起的兩倍。

如果說軍費(fèi)仍然不夠，肯定是使用方式有問題。軍費(fèi)預(yù)算如此龐大，難怪美國人們沒法享受一些美好的事物，例如全民醫(yī)療、托兒服務(wù)或廉價(jià)高等教育。而這些正好都是在軍費(fèi)很低的歐洲常見的。

當(dāng)然了，我們并不需要?dú)W洲多花軍費(fèi)才能實(shí)現(xiàn)自己少花錢。有些費(fèi)用完全可以縮減，并不影響國家安全。美國國防部的一項(xiàng)研究顯示，國防部浪費(fèi)在官僚主義上的錢高達(dá)1250億美元。報(bào)告被悄悄束之高閣，還好《華盛頓郵報(bào)》記者把它挖了出來。

解決方案非常簡單：軍費(fèi)支出計(jì)劃不應(yīng)根據(jù)隨意制定的規(guī)則，應(yīng)該根據(jù)安全需求。國防部應(yīng)為《華盛頓郵報(bào)》爆出1250億美元等浪費(fèi)負(fù)責(zé)。兩黨領(lǐng)袖都應(yīng)該為阿富汗和伊朗曠日持久的戰(zhàn)爭負(fù)責(zé)，兩場戰(zhàn)爭花了5.6萬億美元，卻并未明顯提升國家安全（而且可能弊大于利，因?yàn)閼?zhàn)亂導(dǎo)致新恐怖主義團(tuán)伙出現(xiàn)）。

我們不用等其他國。我們可以盡快減少支出不必要的軍費(fèi)，只要當(dāng)選的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人有勇氣直面洛克希德·馬丁、波音和雷神等國防承包商就能實(shí)現(xiàn)。每年這三家承包商通過軍備訂單都能斂得超過3000億美元。

2012年美國進(jìn)步與政策研究中心的國家安全專家研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果能減少炫耀性卻無實(shí)際效用的武器系統(tǒng)，降低持有核武器數(shù)量等，10年內(nèi)軍費(fèi)預(yù)算可削減4400億美元且不損害國家安全。由于現(xiàn)在軍費(fèi)預(yù)算比當(dāng)時(shí)還高，節(jié)省的空間可能更大。

省下來的錢可以像歐洲一樣投在更需要的地方：全民醫(yī)療、補(bǔ)貼托兒、免費(fèi)高等教育，還有其他能讓美國人生活更幸福的領(lǐng)域。這些方面沒做好，特朗普可以怪北約的支出規(guī)則，但真正的失敗是在家里。是他熱愛炫耀軍事實(shí)力而不夠重視民生，其實(shí)在歐洲很多民生福利早已普及。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

林德賽·科什格里安在美國政策研究學(xué)會負(fù)責(zé)國家重點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目。

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

President Trump is already drawing headlines for his gaffes at last week’s NATO conference. But perhaps worse is his bold—but more mainstream—demand that NATO countries meet an arbitrary military spending goal. The president wants NATO countries to spend 4% of their GDP on their militaries.

In fairness, Trump didn’t dream up this daffy idea himself: Spending at least 2% of a country’s GDP on its military has been an official NATO goal since 2006, and Trump’s not the first to suggest doubling that amount. The U.S. currently funds its military to the tune of about 3.5% of its GDP, compared to only 2.3% for the next highest country by this measure: Greece.

But the idea that our military budget should be tied to the size of our economy is goosey: It’s saying that we need more soldiers to protect more dollars, as if our troops must physically surround an ever-expanding pile of gold bars, instead of a nation with fixed square mileage.

The president has fully embraced this arbitrary and senseless part of the plan without any intention of following through on the underlying rationale: to spread the burden of security so that no country is left holding the bag alone.

If U.S. interests are truly Trump’s concern, the real reason to want European NATO members to pay more for their militaries would be so that the U.S. could pay less, thereby leaving more resources for other things. Trump even seems to grasp this logic, at least in part.

But spending less on the military is the furthest thing from the president’s mind. He requested, and got, an $80 billion increase for the military, and his budget projections keep the military humming along at this historically high spending level through at least 2023.

At $700 billion this year, military spending is more than half of the trillion-dollar budget that Congress allocates each year, and that doesn’t even include spending on veterans’ health and benefits. Our current military budget is more than the peak spending during the Vietnam or Korean wars. The U.S. spends more than any other country in the world—twice as much as Russia and China combined.

If what we’re spending isn’t enough, we must be doing it wrong.

With a military budget like that, no wonder the common refrain from the right is that we can’t afford nice things like universal health care, childcare, or affordable higher education. Those things happen to be common in the European countries where military spending is, in fact, lower.

Of course, we don’t need Europe to spend more to justify spending less on our military. There’s already plenty to cut without compromising national security. A Department of Defense study found $125 billion in wasteful bureaucratic spending in the Pentagon—and was quietly buried until reporters at TheWashington Post dug it up.

The solution is simple: Military spending should be determined not by arbitrary spending rules, but by security needs. The Pentagon should be held accountable for waste like the $125 billion the Post reported. Political leaders of both parties should be held accountable for allowing endless war in Afghanistan and Iraq that has cost our nation $5.6 trillion without any clear security benefits (and likely to our detriment, as chaos provides grounds for the formation of new terrorist groups).

We don’t have to wait for other nations. We can cut wasteful military spending as soon as elected leaders can find the gumption to stand up to military contractors like Lockheed Martin , Boeing , and Raytheon , which, in total, rake in over $300 billion a year in government contracts.

A 2012 study by national security experts at the Center for American Progress and the Institute for Policy Studies found that the military budget could safely be reduced by $440 billion over 10 years without compromising national security, through measures like cutting showy but ineffectual weapons systems and reducing the number of nuclear weapons the U.S. maintains. With the military budget even higher today than it was then, there are likely even greater efficiencies to be found.

That money could be reinvested the way the Europeans do it: in health care for all, subsidized childcare, free higher education, and other things that would make Americans’ lives better. Trump can blame a NATO spending rule for all this, but the real failure lies closer to home—with his own preference for military showmanship over bread and butter programs that are already par for the course in Europe.

Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.