Mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to mankind, John F. Kennedy. The U.S. military budget is a great cause for concern both for the federal deficit and the matter of safety. While there are many changes that need to be made to our federal budget one of the most evident issues is the amount of money the United States spends on the military. The United States needs to cut its military spending to aid in reducing the deficit, increase American safety, bring the global view of America back into a positive light, and help foreign relations with other governments.
The United States had to borrower over 514 billion dollars last year in order to cover our national budget, and of the 3.881 trillion dollar budget 640 billion of it was used towards our military spending. In comparison to other military world leaders the United States spends more than the top eight world countries combined as seen in the graph to the left, clearly there is room for cuts. The United States could cut its military spending by over 66% and still be spending more than the next top military spender, China at 188 billion together (Peterson Foundation, 2014). Some of the proposed cuts involved are troop reductions, equipment and vehicle downsizing as well as global military base cuts. One of the most staggering statistics to coincide with our military spending compared to other countries is how many global bases the United States currently has compared to them as well. It costs the United States over $102 Billion annually to keep up with their 737 global military bases, that’s not including the bases within U.S. borders. As seen in the graph above (right) The United States has more global miltary bases than any other country, the point, and cost of...
... middle of paper ...
...lly when called upon, but no longer does the U.S. need to force themselves into nations apart from their own. The American image can be restored, safety can endure, and the federal budget and ongoing deficit can be lightened.
In conclusion, American citizens need to reflect on this information and it is important they think about the future they are creating for themselves and their children. Do Americans sit at home discussing the military defense of our country thirty to forty years ago, or do American citizens show more concern about the present day national deficit, and what will citizens think about thirty to forty years from now? The federal spending on our military is where the main focus in cuts needs to be, America’s safety will not be reduced if handled appropriately and American wallets will feel less of an impact if we act now instead of down the road.
Eisenhower served as the President of United States for a period of eight years. On January 17, 1961 he gave a memorable farewell speech which was broadcasted on TV. The speech is known for the vision of Eisenhower who predicted the strong influence that military-industrial complex will be created on the citizens of Unites States in future. His speech narrates his fears on the massive spending, concerns on planning and deficit spending. He is concerned for the Federal funding that might be more towards the technological and scientific developments. The basis of the speech is to achieve peace in the world and warn the nation for not being excited with the prosperous state and not live for the moment in the youth and glamour while aiming at an easy life. According to him, there are big chances that the power will be misplaced and this might persist but the nation must strive for a balance between the freedom and democratic processes. I think the standpoint of Eisenhower is not consistent with that of a military man as he wants the expenditure on the defense strategies to be lessened and want to promote the growth of the country by sparing the federal funds on other things than national defense. Though he believes that the country cannot risk the emergency improvisation, which is required for national defense. As he said that that “the country is compelled to create permanent armaments of vast proportions”
Despite his many compromises however, Thomas Jefferson’s intent to dissolve the national debt was to a great extent unvarying. Jefferson and his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin honestly feared a large federal deficit as a threat to Republicanism. To avoid this threat, the President sought to diminish the role of the federal government, and decreased the national budget. These budget cuts substantially diminished the size and resources of the American army and navy. When criticized, Jefferson defended these military cuts as being consistent with Republican policies in that a smaller U.S. Army would be seen as less of a threat to other nations and reduce the risk of provocation, resulting in the ultimate promotion of peace.
In WWII leading up to the battle of Bastogne, Patton’s leadership style and keen ability to continuously assess the battlefield enabled him to visualize and articulate to his subordinates what his vision was. The innate ability of Patton choosing the right subordinates to help lead his 3rd Army enabled him to have great success on the battlefield. Many things went right for Patton, most of all was his successful implementation of mission command. He was able to understand quickly his environment and formulate a successful plan and seamlessly articulate it to his subordinate officers. Was it luck or skill that facilitated the General to achieve all his success during this one single battle? Patton's intuition and perhaps the best thing that
No matter how important our troops are to the people of America, President Obama is cutting the benefits for our military veterans. ”President Obama put his signature on the two-year budget bill, which includes a contentious provision to pare down annual cost of living increases in benefits for military retirees under age 62, saving the government an estimated $6.3 billion over a decade”(lawmakers, veterans groups push to restore military benefits 1).
The United States of America's military is currently involved in two major wars with U.S. opposition in Afghanistan and Iraq. All though both of these efforts can be said to be in the clean-up stages, many more soldiers will be needed to stabilize the regions, to provide police work, and to fight the insurgencies that have risen in opposition to the invasion of U.S. troops into foreign lands. The current presidential administration states that to adequately deal with the problems of post-war Iraq and unstable Afghanistan the United States needs to increase the number of active-duty soldiers serving over-seas. Top officials in the administration have said that a reorganization of the military is already in progress, and it will create more combat regiments, but the quoted additional 25,000 new military participants needed per year can hardly be met through these minor reorganizations. In addition, recruiting numbers are at their lowest in over ten years (?All Things Considered?, NPR News Source.) Many feel that the reenactment of the military service draft is inevitable because it is the only way to come up with the astounding number of new troops needed to finish the jobs started in the Middle-East by George W. Bush and his Republican administration. If increasing the size of the military is inevitable, then the draft is the wrong way to go. Aside from the moral objections that many Americans have to a draft, there are major logical fallacies in the reasoning that a draft would benefit the military, America, or its interests abroad; therefore, the draft should not be reenacted to increase the number of the United States? combat troops.
The United States on several occasions have had to enforce the Monroe Doctrine and police international lands, our power to stop tyranny, corruption and our desire to maintain international unity will continually allow the United States to remain the great Nation that it is.
budget and to guarantee interest payments on the war debt. In (Doc. A) a letter
In a world where people rush to purchase lottery tickets in the hopes of hitting a jackpot worth a few million, these expenditures are incomprehensible and may seem excessive; however, not everyone feels this way. In an article found on the U.S. Department of Defense’s website, the “DoD has done its best to manage through this prolonged period of budget uncertainty, the secretary said, making painful choices and tradeoffs” and that in “today’s security environment we need to be dynamic and we need to be responsive. What we have now is a straitjacket” (Pellerin, 2015). At the end of the day, it is all about who is being asked whether the defense budget is excessive; for those that do not feel an imminent threat is looming, the budget would seem over-the-top, but for those that either feel that a threat is imminent, or those working in the defense sector, would most likely be in favor of sustaining the current budget or increasing it. Furthermore, another topic to look at is how the United States compares with other countries on defense spending and is the difference validated?
Will the security of our nation be compromised? Will U.S. enemies take it as a chance to land a brutal blow against America? Yes, these things will happen. However, they will only happen if the military budget is decreased too much, or if funds are not used appropriately. For instance, maybe the U.S. needs to invest less of its resources into meddling into foreign affairs. At some point, America became the terrorists in the “War on Terror.” Undoubtedly, America has the strongest and best-trained military on the planet. Mainly because of how many resources we’ve invested in building it. Granted, this great country will not falter with some military budget cuts here and there. Instead, it can take those funds and invest them into the leaders and workforce of tomorrow and brighten its
This imposes problems on the military and even on the government. One article states that, “Reduced budgets and the threat of sequestration create a sense of uneasiness in the ranks, and those fears are fueled by politicians willing to shut down the federal government rather than compromise.” (Army Magazine) This is because with the increase of budget cuts they start to cause problems for the ones who are working and this creates lost jobs in the military. No one wants to lose their job not even the ones that have put forth a great amount of time and effort in the military. For the ones that have been in the military for a long period of time this can actually have negative effects on their life style and even cause problems when returning
One thing that I have learned about college is that you have to sometimes talk about things that make you uncomfortable or scared in order to learn. I do not think I am alone in saying that the United States’ current debt situation is terrifying. Ten trillion dollars alone is an expansive and unimaginable amount of money, and since PBS produced Ten Trillion and Counting in 2009, the national debt has grown to twenty-one trillion. As stated, the documentary was produced during the first months of former President Barack Obama’s first term and focused on former President George W. Bush’s relationship with national debt during his eight year tenure. Ten Trillion and Counting explains some of the questionable decisions that former President Bush made, especially regarding fiscal policy.
Since the attacks a number of civil defense programs have been initiated, which leads to more departments asking for an allowance within the national budget. This ultimately is leading to a larger and larger deficit that is quickly encompassing full percentage points of our GDP. There is a debate on how much defense spending is actually needed, because during the Clinton administration there were massive cuts to the defense budget, which lead to critics saying that our military force was in question. These same critics said that without the funds that had been cut-off by Clinton the military would spiral down to not being able to defend the homeland, let alone take on any offensive. The one argument I have is that President Bush was not in office long enough for his increased defense budget to take affect when he overthrew two regimes (Afghanistan & Iraq) with the same military force that was said to be completely ineffective because of lack of funds.
According to most policy makers, they believe cutting these spending is very harmful because they might go into some projects that Americans depend on. They put it that these cuts might create massive unemployment, compromise military readiness to sudden aggression and do away with projects that have put America to be where it is in the current global politics. However, according to my view, I do not think the cuts I have done would really jeopardize the lives of many Americans. I believe that my approach has looked it from a more balanced approach because it only reduces it by $ 320 Billion, which is not an amount that can put America into danger. Consider that during Obama administration, the target cuts were projected to be 2.5 Trillion. Thus, my cut is not that much significant.
This massive military funding only led Russia to assume that the United States was planning to attack, and undercut, its efforts for peace. Also, in order to maintain such large military growth hundreds of billions had to be borrowed from foreign sources, which made the American economy largely dependent on such large military spending.... ... middle of paper ... ...
...wed for it to write the rules of the game, create well established institutions that are respected by the majority worldwide, and have inspired other countries to follow in its footsteps in search of their own version of the “American Dream”. However, the decisions that generated that American prosperity were based on the notion that concessions, accountability and investment towards the future were crucial for its later success. As seen in hindsight, somewhere throughout history, this message became heavily influence by personal gains and short term gratification. If the United States wants continue as a key player, it will need to solve its domestic qualms with in turn have and continue to affect the international community. Military dominance, cultural influence and innovation cannot sustain itself in an environment that lacks stability and long term planning.