胡倩榕
By Hu Qianrong
2021年8月，美国总统拜登从阿富汗仓皇撤军，在长达20年的时间里，美国在阿富汗花费超过两万亿美元。随着阿富汗战争收尾，美国对预算制度进行了调整，不再单独设置海外应急行动（OCO）预算。然而，美国的国防预算没有随着阿富汗战争的结束而回落，拜登暗示的和平红利也未能成为现实。
The scrambled withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan ordered by US President Biden in August 2021 wrapped up the 20-year-long war that had cost the US more than USD 2 trillion. With this, the US adjusted its budgetary system and canceled the separate allocation for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). However, the amount of US defense expenditure didn’t shrink with the end of the war in Afghanistan, neither did the peace dividend promised by President Biden become a reality.
近日，拜登将国会提交的《2022财年国防授权法案》签署为法律。这份总额高达7682亿美元的“国防授权法案”，再度将美国军费开支推向新高。其中，7400亿美元用于国防项目预算，278亿美元用于核武器项目，3.78亿美元用于与国防相关的其他活动。
President Biden recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, which, standing at USD 768.2 billion in total, once again pushed America’s military expenditure to a new high. Of the total budget, USD 740 billion will be spent on national defense projects, USD 27.8 billion on nuclear weapons projects, and USD 378 million on other activities related to national defense.
在特朗普政府主导的2021财年，美国国防部获得拨款7037亿美元。拜登政府的首份国防预算将用于国防部的开支拔高了363亿美元，增幅达到5.1%。国防预算整体增长超过5%。
During FY2021 when Trump was in office, the Department of Defense (DoD) received USD 703.7 billion. The Biden administration’s first defense budget lifted the allocation for DoD by USD 36.3 billion, with the overall budget expanded by over 5%.
在美国，国防预算水平既是一个战略问题，也是一个经济问题，同时还可作为美国两党政治的工具。2022财年美国国防预算大幅上涨是多方合力的结果。
In the US, the sum of the national defense budget is both a strategic issue and an economic issue as well as a tool in bipartisan politics. The spike in the budget in FY2022 is the result of the joint efforts of multiple factors.
在战略层面，美国难以坐视军费削减，极力维持所谓竞争优势。《2022财年国防授权法案》额外增加的250亿美元军费指向明确，就是为了应对美国与中国的“战略竞争”。一个可预见的趋势是，拜登任内，美国必然加大在中国周边及印太地区的军事投射。美国防部发布的《2021全球态势评估》报告呼吁美国加强印太布局、巩固与盟友的协作以共同抵制中国潜在的军事行动，甚至不惜牺牲美国在其他地区的军事存在。《2022财年国防授权法案》中亦有较长篇幅论述美国未来的印太部署。为震慑中国，总统国防预算提议为“太平洋威慑倡议”拨款51亿美元，国会在此基础上又提高了20亿美元。
On the strategic level, the US is straining itself to maintain the so-called competitive edge as it cannot allow its military expenditure to contract. The additional USD 25 billion in FY2022 NDAA was specifically allocated to deal with the “strategic competition” between the US and China. A foreseeable trend is that during Biden’s term, Washington is sure to increase its military projection around China and in the Indo-Pacific region. The 2021 Global Posture Review released by the DoD called for the US to intensify deployments in the Indo-Pacific and consolidate the coordination with allies to jointly fend off potential military operations by China, even at the expense of America’s military presence in other regions. The FY2022 NDAA spent a long part elaborating on America’s future Indo-Pacific deployments. To deter China, the president proposed to allocate USD 5.1 billion to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, to which Congress added another USD 2 billion.
在经济层面，美国国内高速通货膨胀，是军费水涨船高的重要背景。2021年以来，美国的消费者物价指数创下30余年来的最大增幅，对军队公职人员薪资和武器价格构成巨大的上行压力。国防开支如不提高上限，美国国防部很难兼顾军队公职人员和国防承包商的利益。一方面，五角大楼号称军队工资福利的增长速度应当高于通货膨胀率，承诺为现役和退役人员加薪2.7%。美国劳工部指明，2023财年军队退役人员的涨薪幅度应达到4.6%。另一方面，高企的通货膨胀率进一步推高了美国国防承包商对武器合同成本的预期。尽管通货膨胀对军工项目的负效应不会即刻发生，但除非通货膨胀得以有效控制，否则迟早会传导至武器价格。
On the economic level, the rapid inflation in the US set an important stage for the rising military budget. Since 2021, the US has seen the biggest jump in its CPI over 30-plus years, which put heavy upward pressure on the remuneration for military personnel and on the price of weapons. If the upper limit for defense expenditure is not lifted, the DoD will find it hard to pay its employees and weapon and equipment contractors at the same time. On the one hand, the Pentagon claimed that the remuneration and benefits for the military must increase higher than inflation and promised a 2.7% pay raise for both serving and retired servicemembers. The US Department of Labor also said the payroll for retired military personnel must rise by 4.6% in FY2023. On the other hand, the mounting inflation rate bloated contractors’ expectations for the cost of their weapon contracts. Although the negative effects of inflation on military projects won’t come to the fore immediately, it will reach the price of weapons sooner or later if not effectively controlled.
在两党政治层面，《国防授权法案》是两党讨价还价的标的，与美国提高债务上限的决议亦脱不了干系。12月初，美国国会两党还在讨论是否应当将债务限额与《国防授权法案》挂钩。一方面，提高债务上限是共和党人的政治武器，他们没有十足的动力为债务限额表决提供便利。另一方面，由于《国防授权法案》对国防部拨款水平较高，民主党人并不情愿给予足够的支持。最终，提高债务上限和提高军费开支的决议都在2022年前表决通过。拜登将政府借款限额提高2.5万亿美元后，军费困境立马迎刃而解。这愈发使得两项重要议案变得像政治作秀：在债务上限议题上，共和党迁就民主党；在军费开支议题上，民主党迁就共和党。
On the political level, the NDAA is a result of the Democratic and Republican parties’ bargaining and is related to the resolution on lifting the debt cap. The two parties were discussing whether to link the debt cap with NDAA in early December. For one thing, raising the debt cap was the Republicans’ political weapon as they are not sufficiently motivated to facilitate a vote on the matter. For another, the Democrats are loath to support the NDAA for it allocates a lion’s share to the DoD. In the end, both the resolutions on raising the debt cap and increasing the military budget were passed before the year 2022 began. As soon as Biden lifted the government’s debt cap to USD 2.5 trillion, the quandary for military expenses was resolved, which made the two motions of such great significance look like a political game – the Republicans making concessions to the Democrats on the debt issue and the other way around on the military budget issue.
美国2022财年国防预算，尽管明面上打着“威慑中国”的旗号，上涨的军费固然有遏制中国的考虑，但其首要目的是确保美国军人和国防承包商的利益。
In sum, despite the high-sounding slogan of “deterring China” and that part of the incremental budget is indeed intended to contain China, the FY2022 NDAA is essentially aimed to guarantee the interests of American servicemembers and defense contractors.
（作者为中国人民大学重阳金融研究院助理研究员）
(The author is an assistant researcher at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University)
Editor's note: This article is originally published on china.com.cn, and is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
