{
  "id": "95-726",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "95-726",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104019,
      "date": "1995-06-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T21:03:35.029941",
      "title": "Defense Budget: Alternative Measures of Costs of Military Commitments Abroad",
      "summary": "As of Sept. 30, 1994, about 286,594 U.S. active duty military personnel were stationed overseas,\nincluding about 128,000 in European NATO countries, over 45,000 in Japan, and almost 37,000 in\nKorea.  (1)  Under current plans, the number of U.S. troops stationed ashore\nin Europe will decline to\n100,000 by the end of FY1996, but other overseas deployments will remain stable. The Department\nof Defense projects that it will spend $16\u00a0billion in FY1996 to pay and operate forces\npermanently\nstationed ashore in foreign countries.  (2) \n  This $16 billion figure, however, reflects only one way of measuring the costs borne by the\nUnited States for military activities abroad. Other definitions of costs are applied frequently. In the\n103rd Congress, where Members of Congress addressed defense burdensharing issues on the floor\nof the House or Senate more than forty times, figures cited for the costs of \"defending our allies\"\nranged from $1 billion a year to $180 billion.  (3)  The main source of this wide\ndivergence is the very\ndifferent definitions of overseas costs being used. Commonly cited measures of overseas costs range\nfrom very narrow to very broad, including (1) incremental costs of deploying forces abroad rather\nthan in the continental United States; (2)\u00a0direct pay and operating costs of U.S. forces\ndeployed\noverseas; (3) total costs, including prorated shares of weapons acquisition, overhead, and indirect\nsupport, of U.S. forces deployed abroad; and (4) total costs of U.S. forces assigned to fulfill regional\ncommitments. This report explains these measures and analyzes some of the strengths and\nweaknesses of each. \n     1.  \u00a0Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service,\nDirectorate for Information Operations and\nReports,  Worldwide Manpower Distribution by Geographical Area , September 30, 1994.\n  2.  \u00a0Department of Defense,  Defense Overseas Funding,\nFY1996/FY1997 , February 1995.\n  3.  \u00a0See:  Congressional Record , September 9, 1993,\np. H6550 and  Congressional Record , May 18, 1994, p.\nH3539.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/95-726",
          "sha1": "c0deb91287c4794e1b347a5aa3dd7f5cd353aead",
          "filename": "files/19950616_95-726_c0deb91287c4794e1b347a5aa3dd7f5cd353aead.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19950616_95-726_c0deb91287c4794e1b347a5aa3dd7f5cd353aead.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}