How Much Military Is Enough?

[Lakhota]

The U.S. once regarded a standing army as a form of tyranny. Now it spends more on defense than all other nations combined. Photograph by Grant Cornett.

Sixty-two legislators sit on the House Armed Services Committee, the largest committee in Congress. Since January, 2011, when Republicans took control of the House, the committee has been chaired by Howard P. McKeon, who goes by Buck. He has never served in the military, but this month he begins his third decade representing California’s Twenty-fifth Congressional District, the home of a naval weapons station, an Army fort, an Air Force base, and, for the Marines, a place to train for mountain warfare. McKeon believes that it’s his job to protect the Pentagon from budget cuts. On New Year’s Day, after a thirteenth-hour deal was sealed with spit in the Senate, McKeon issued a press statement lamenting that the compromise had failed to “shield a wartime military from further reductions.”

The debate about taxes is over, which is one of the few good things that can be said for it. The debate about spending, which has already proved narrow and grubby, is pending.

The United States spends more on defense than all the other nations of the world combined. Between 1998 and 2011, military spending doubled, reaching more than seven hundred billion dollars a year—more, in adjusted dollars, than at any time since the Allies were fighting the Axis. The 2011 Budget Control Act, which raised the debt ceiling and created both the fiscal cliff and a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was supposed to find a way to steer clear of it, required four hundred and eighty-seven billion dollars in cuts to military spending, spread over the next ten years. The cliff-fall mandates an additional defense-budget reduction of fifty-five billion dollars annually. None of these cuts have gone into effect. McKeon has been maneuvering to hold the line.

Much More: Jill Lepore: How Much Military Is Enough? : The New Yorker

 

[Lakhota]

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Eisenhower's Military-Industry Complex Warning, 50 Years Later : NPR

 

[Katzndogz]

Under this royal regime the military should be miniscule. The fighters should be outside the military and not subject to king obama's orders.

 

[Political Junky]

Under this royal regime the military should be miniscule. The fighters should be outside the military and not subject to king obama's orders.

Do you realize how much more independent contractors get paid than regular military?

 

[Katzndogz]

Under this royal regime the military should be miniscule. The fighters should be outside the military and not subject to king obama's orders.

Do you realize how much more independent contractors get paid than regular military?

That means Americans can hire them to fight obama's military.

 

[whitehall]

Strangely enough I agree with the scenario. The pop-media free ads sponsored by the current administration depicts the gigantic unopposed US navy as a "global force for good" while the Navy burns fossil fuel at a rate that would strangle everyone else.

 

[Political Junky]

Under this royal regime the military should be miniscule. The fighters should be outside the military and not subject to king obama's orders.

Do you realize how much more independent contractors get paid than regular military?

That means Americans can hire them to fight obama's military.

So talk of cutting spending is just GOP bullshit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The US also regarded deprivation of property rights as a form of tyranny. But we've come to see the light. Slavery is rightfully illegal.

 

[Lakhota]

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a great man, a great general, a great president, and he left us a great warning about the military-industrial complex. His great warning seems ignored by those who could scale back military spending.

 

[jwoodie]

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Eisenhower's Military-Industry Complex Warning, 50 Years Later : NPR

Why don't you answer your own question instead of mindlessly reciting quotations from other people? I believe we maintain a relatively small standing military which should be reasonably compensated (e.g., as much as law enforcement) for their increasingly complex duties. I don't know the specific breakdown of the Defense budget, but I expect a large portion is devoted to high tech equipment, which keeps us one step ahead of our adversaries. I also suspect that there is a large amount of fraud, waste and abuse in that budget.

I would like to see a leaner, meaner military in the future, but political correctness (something the Israelis don't have to contend with) is pushing us in the opposite direction. For example, the addition of female law enforcement officers has often resulted in two officers (male & female) in one patrol car because most female officers are not physically able to handle all of the situations police officers find themselves in. If this PC policy is applied to military ground combat units, we will have to substantially increase the number of personnel involved.

 

[skye]

I posted this on another thread but I say it again here ....

this is part of it

......Obama wants to diminish America's power to just that of another mediocre country, and stop the US as a super power from defending the world against the very obvious enemies!

Single-handedly he is destroying the safety of the world and putting a new politically correct culture into place.

 

[Lakhota]

I would cut defense spending in HALF over a ten-year period - but NOT active military personnel or veterans' benefits and would make sure the VA is well-funded to care for veterans.

 

[deltex1]

The bigger question is what to do with our powerful military. No one is afraid of the Big Bad Obabble.

 

[Political Junky]

I posted this on another thread but I say it again here ....

this is part of it

......Obama wants to diminish America's power to just that of another mediocre country, and stop the US as a super power from defending the world against the very obvious enemies!

Single-handedly he is destroying the safety of the world and putting a new politically correct culture into place.

Not everyone agrees that the US should be a super power in order to defend the world.

 

[skye]

I posted this on another thread but I say it again here ....

this is part of it

......Obama wants to diminish America's power to just that of another mediocre country, and stop the US as a super power from defending the world against the very obvious enemies!

Single-handedly he is destroying the safety of the world and putting a new politically correct culture into place.

Not everyone agrees that the US should be a super power in order to defend the world.

Oh we know that!

how do we know that!!!! the Emperor is at the White House.

 

[bucs90]

Lakhota, you ask in interesting question. Your post showed the quote that the US, back in the Founders day, used to see a standing army as a form of tyranny. Well, remember what the army did back then. It controlled all domestic situations also. The military WAS the domestic authority also. But at some point, sheriffs and police departments became more popular, and took over the burden of domestic control from the military.

And as time has passed, many, especially on the right, have created quite a contrast between the two. The right sees police as a tyrannical body. And so does much of the left. The right hates funding PD's, hate benefits, etc, etc, etc. BUT, the right will spend ANY amount on defense. They look down on cops, but glorify the troops. When both do the same core function: Protect US citizens. The right LOVES the idea of authoritarian environments like the military, the guns, the glory, the discipline, the uniforms, the tanks, planes, battleships, YES GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!! And I gotta admit....that shit is freakin' cool, I like it too! But, its easy to like when that stuff is used solely on OTHER people. The right wing doesn't care much for cool gadgets, guns, tools, etc, for domestic cops to use on THEM. In fact, how dare the cops even challenge the authority of a rich Republican in his neighborhood.

The right sees cops as mere "government workers". Pee-ons. Little more. They love law-enforcement...the verb. But not law-enforcement...the noun.

And thats a huge contrast in attitude. Because yes, a standing army was once feared and seen as tyrannical. But we are one of the few nations in history whose military took little to no role in domestic policing. So, its easy to love our military.

Would we love them as much...if the Marines were doing traffic enforcement? If the Army was enforcing laws in our streets? What if Navy patrol boats were enforcing fish/game/water laws on our lakes...where rich right wingers speed around drunk on their boats?

I dont think we would. I would, as I appreciate the role that cops do. And I know our military is full of noble, brave, smart people who would do an outstanding job of ANY mission given.

But I just know that the average right winger, who worships the military and would spend any amount of money on military, would NOT have the same amount of love for the military if the military was in fact doing all domestic policing.

So, thats the long answer to your question. The core to that answer is the attitude we have towards the military. The military doesnt interact with us much at all. Thus, they are easy to love, and hard to say no to.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

This country has the largest army in the world...............an army consisting of millions of U.S. CITIZENS.

Cut the military budget, and the military-industrial complex will whine and snivel.

Try to take over 300 million firearms away from the citizenry, and there will be a CIVIL WAR.

Which do you prefer?

 

[Political Junky]

Cons put down other countries every day, and yet feel a need to protect them ... odd.

 

[skye]

In simple words....the Islamist-in-Chief has castrated the Military ... Barack Hussein Obama.

what a disgrace of a man!

 

[bucs90]

For example, the addition of female law enforcement officers has often resulted in two officers (male & female) in one patrol car because most female officers are not physically able to handle all of the situations police officers find themselves in. If this PC policy is applied to military ground combat units, we will have to substantially increase the number of personnel involved.[/quote]

Thats actually very rare. There are very few neighborhoods in America that are bad enough that 2 cops must ride in the same car if 1 is a female. Sometimes if a call is shady they'll send a backup officer with a female. But females make up fewer than 10% of cops anyway. And 99% of neighborhoods in America are safe enough that a female can do just fine. I worked with quite a few that were 100% capable.

I think your example would be better suited to compare US SWAT teams with females. Now that is quite rare for a female to be on the SWAT team, because it is true, they struggle with that role. Mostly due to the heavy equipment they carry, and the need for every team member to be capable of picking up any role on the operation in case another guy goes down (i.e. kicking in a door, carrying the shield, the ram, dragging a wounded buddy away to EMS, etc).