% of GDP is the only way to fairly compare the priorities of various nations whether it is military or anything else. I explained this below and it shouldn't be hard to understand. If Denmark spends more of its GDP on foreign aid then its foreign aid is more generous than the US's. That does not mean it has more impact than then US however. Relative measures indicate priorities, absolute values indicate impact. Tom ignores it or uses it as it fits his particular axe. LJ just ignores it altogether as if the worlds richest nation should spend no more than any other. The fact is the US military is currently stressed handling its current obligations. Now you can argue whether or not those obligations are necessary, but to arbitrarily say a dollar value is too much is just plain silly when it is not out of line proportionally with other countries.

How much is enough? The amount you need to meet the goals you've set. The US is able to set goals no one else can dare to set because it has the wealth to do it without being as focused on military as the top 25% in %GDP spenders. The world average by the way is 2% meaning the US is less than double the average while many oppressive or embattled countries spend 4 to 16 times the average.

LJ asked "how is this level justified?" then ignored the answers

A) Because it is in line with most of the world as part of its GDP.

B) Because the US has more obligations than any other country on Earth including protecting the countries LJ compares it to instead of them protecting themselves.
&
C) The US is the one called on to provide military solutions when no one else can or tries to.

B & C are so obvious there is no need to ask the question. A is the only one that is not obvious and answers a related question "Are US military expenditures reasonable?"

LJ's post clearly played into the hands if not directly supported those seeking to portray the US as warmongering. This implies an over emphasis on military expenditures. I believe the
GDP numbers clearly show that is false especially in light of unique US obligations.

Regards,
Mark