Totalling US$623bn, it is an obscene amount

It's not only the largest defence budget in the world,

but nearly all other national defence budgets combined

AND larger than most overall national budgets,

including those of the developed world

Money and spending are not proof of being the global superpower

Given the US military is taking a beating in Iraq

and has yet to resolve its conflict in Afghanistan,

we can ask: is it really the most powerful in the world?

There are sums of money that are obscene: sometimes, it is the actual sum, especially if it is very large or small.

Sometimes, it is the purpose, especially if it is socially unacceptable.

Sometimes, it is the disproportion between the sum and the purpose.

And sometimes, it is a combination of all three. The US defence budget now tabled by President George W Bush falls into the latter category.

Totalling US$623bn, it is an obscene amount - which sounds only slightly better in euros or sterling, given the weak dollar: €481.6bn, or £316.47bn.

This is not only larger than any other defence budget in the world, or indeed, nearly all other national defence budgets combined; it is actually larger than most overall national budgets, including those of the developed world.

One analyst reckoned it would be the 17th biggest, just behind the Dutch national budget.

To be absolutely accurate, the actual defence budget requested is US$481.4 billion (€372.18bn; £244.55bn), which, in itself, is an 11% increase over last year.

The balance of the request is in emergency funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007-08, and for counter-terrorism needs.

However, whichever way you look at the figures, they give cause for alarm, for five main reasons.

1. Spending such a huge amount of money on troops and materiel for conflict in a world still suffering from hunger, deprivation and disease in various quarters, simply jars. don't work.

5. Tabling such a huge defence budget is ultimately counter-productive with one's allies. At the end of the cold war, most EU member states - old and new - effectively took the "peace dividend" and stopped spending on defence, while the US increased its defence budget year on year.

This trend created a growing gulf between US and European capabilities, and this widened massively after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, when the US began its massive hike of annual 10% increases.

Now, with this proposed new budget, the difference between the US and all EU states together is so vast, it makes no difference whether the latter do or do not increase their own spending to a more realistic level: in comparison to the US, they will be as nothing.

In a sense, it is this reality that has lead to the EU members of Nato's sustained unwillingness to increase their capabilities within the alliance, where the US constantly complains of their inadequacies.

However, when one ally is so manifestly stronger than all others, there is little incentive to build up one's strength.

Material goods have always been integral to the "American Dream" - but they have also always been combined with advancement and success.

The obscene defence budget proposed by the Bush White House, therefore, reflects the negation of the dream: material goods without success or advancement.

In an ever more polarised world, that is a worry to us all. Ilana Bet-El @ CIF