Its grift. Why does the US have to spend money on military aid to first world countries, even if a very sizable chunk is spent on American weaponry?
That money could be spent on maintenance rather than fattening our MIC.
NGOs are similar. In theory they sound good, the leaders can pull sizable salaries, eclipsing any congresspersons earnings and they are incentivized to keep the bad thing happening—if they solved the problem their reason to be would cease.
To understand why the US government spends so much on rich countries, you can’t just think in economic terms, since that’s not what why the US government is doing it.
The reason is geopolitical. It is seen as necessary to give money to allies to prop up their military so the US hegemony can be maintained. Adversaries (China, Russia, Iran) need to be made afraid not only of US might, but also of Allies’ might. So the US doesn’t wait around for those countries to spend on their military on their own, or god forbid to realign their alliances based on their spending. Checks it is.
It would be ideal if US allies would spend more on their militaries, but the last time a US President insisted on that he was mocked mercilessly.
But contrary to popular belief, the MIC isn’t that fat. They are mostly public companies - you can check out their profits yourself. Here’s one: https://valustox.com/NOC
Their margins tend to be small. Their revenues are incredibly steady (they’re pretty much government departments). Staying ready for war like this is actually a wise course of action - it would be catastrophic to have to ramp up in the next emergency like in WW2.
The military is not exactly ready for war, though. Shipbuilding capacity is greatly diminished and the Navy has massive issues with most of its design and procurement programs. Other services have issues too, though not as severe.
The military is in desperate need of more new contractors like Anduril and SpaceX to provide competition for the incumbents, as well as stronger collaboration with allies like having Japanese shipyards build some of our ships.
Anduril and SpaceX will probably be very good for the MIC. But the incumbents aren't doing too badly - they're currently supplying a proxy war against one of the US's major rivals.
The programs and systems may not be perfect but at least there are programs and systems.
> It would be ideal if US allies would spend more on their militaries, but the last time a US President insisted on that he was mocked mercilessly.
I think the mockery was over how he transactionally framed it rather than the principle itself. But TBH do we really want European countries to rearm? After centuries of fighting they quieted down after outsourcing it to the US. And since they weren't fighting that outsourcing wasn't even that expensive. I am sure it was cheaper to have all those US troops supporting NATO countries than to get drawn into yet another war over there.
> Staying ready for war like this is actually a wise course of action - it would be catastrophic to have to ramp up in the next emergency like in WW2.
It's like insurance -- you hope that it's a deadweight loss but pay for it because it's cheaper than holding the risk yourself. And I do think the western countries overdid it in regards to downsizing after the end of the cold war.
I'm not sure there's that much military aid to first world countries. Where there is like with Israel I think generally the US thinks it's strategically advantageous.
Egypt, on the other hand, has a huge fleet of tanks that they just keep in storage (at their own cost). They basically are taking the military aid in the hope that the US would help them should a war develop.
That money could be spent on maintenance rather than fattening our MIC.
NGOs are similar. In theory they sound good, the leaders can pull sizable salaries, eclipsing any congresspersons earnings and they are incentivized to keep the bad thing happening—if they solved the problem their reason to be would cease.