Space_Dandy
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 9 Paź 2014
The United States' defense budget has long been the subject of tremendous concern and controversy, both within the country and among international observers. It has been pointed out that the US military receives funding that is not only the first in the world, but that eclipses the combined total of the next 9 or so nations, most of those being allies. How is this defensible? Clearly there is excessive government spending benefiting weapons tech companies, right? And yet, there is a strong case to be made that the defense budget is not nearly as bloated as is often portrayed.
I'll briefly touch on the central topics of many common explanations for justifying the US' military budget before explaining the elephant in the room that goes unmentioned by critics and apologists alike. The first thing that defenders of the defense budget are quick to point out is the incredible cost of paying, training, housing, equipping, etc an armed force in the US compared to many of these other countries that can be compared with. And this is true, for reasons outside the scope of this writing, it often costs the US government multiple times as much to accomplish something when domestic labor is a factor that perhaps another nation would afford much more efficiently. Paying military salaries, benefits, and support infrastructure is indeed a large share of the total 'military budget' that often goes unconsidered by the armchair critic. That is, VA hospitals and retirement plans, benefits for the wounded, for dependents, these obligations and many others were promised long ago and aren't going away if Congress limits the DoD's budget. The majority of the DoD's budget isn't going towards the big scary military industrial complex.
Under President Obama, slashes were made to the defense budget (while he was in the middle of escalating conflicts in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan..) and the DoD reeled and convulsed in agony. You can read about the 2013 US budget sequestration to get the whole picture if you aren't familiar. Some highlights include jobs slashed, recruitment halted, civilian workers given mandatory unpaid time off (furlough), promotions and hiring were frozen for years, transfers and long-term orders were scrutinized heavily. The bulk of Obama's cuts came out of labor costs ultimately. But the scope of the mission didn't change. Do more with less. The repercussions of this decision now 10 years ago are still being felt today, as annual budgets and manning for government institutions are based on the year prior. There are some positions that have been critically undermanned ever since, quite literally doing the job of multiple people, which results in single-points of failure and bureaucratic nightmares in getting anything accomplished.
So does this mean the defense budget can't or shouldn't be reduced?
There are roughly 750 US military bases across 80 nations. That, more than the dollar figure of the defense budget, is the category in which the US military truly dwarfs the rest of the world. This is not normal. Us Americans never experience having a foreign military permanently stationed on our soil, much less in numbers that dwarf our own domestic forces. But that is a common experience around the world, with US troops almost exclusively. Part of the reason why this is tolerated is the US pays these countries an incredible sum of money for allowing the use of their land. The truth is that this is the reason so many other of the US allies have tiny militaries. Why have your own army when the most powerful one in the world will pay YOU to offer their protection? Most nations produce a military of some kind, but some nations rely 100% on UN/US protection lacking even the most superficial armed forces.
The defense budget cannot be meaningfully or responsibly cut without closing bases down. And that is a matter of foreign policy, where the real problem lies. The US is paying for the privilege of being the world's police. To be in everyone's backyard, watching, waiting. We've been playing 4D chess for a long time now, wagering untold trillions in order to gain influence. To be the central figure in the UN. To have no larger authority to answer to for our own transgressions. Who is our opponent in this century long chess game? Whatever the motivations of our leaders truly are, its clear the game isn't ending any time soon.
Comparing any nation's 'defense budget' whose purpose is the protection of its territory, to the US's global occupation force, as if the later is merely too bloated is to entirely miss the point.
I'll briefly touch on the central topics of many common explanations for justifying the US' military budget before explaining the elephant in the room that goes unmentioned by critics and apologists alike. The first thing that defenders of the defense budget are quick to point out is the incredible cost of paying, training, housing, equipping, etc an armed force in the US compared to many of these other countries that can be compared with. And this is true, for reasons outside the scope of this writing, it often costs the US government multiple times as much to accomplish something when domestic labor is a factor that perhaps another nation would afford much more efficiently. Paying military salaries, benefits, and support infrastructure is indeed a large share of the total 'military budget' that often goes unconsidered by the armchair critic. That is, VA hospitals and retirement plans, benefits for the wounded, for dependents, these obligations and many others were promised long ago and aren't going away if Congress limits the DoD's budget. The majority of the DoD's budget isn't going towards the big scary military industrial complex.
Under President Obama, slashes were made to the defense budget (while he was in the middle of escalating conflicts in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan..) and the DoD reeled and convulsed in agony. You can read about the 2013 US budget sequestration to get the whole picture if you aren't familiar. Some highlights include jobs slashed, recruitment halted, civilian workers given mandatory unpaid time off (furlough), promotions and hiring were frozen for years, transfers and long-term orders were scrutinized heavily. The bulk of Obama's cuts came out of labor costs ultimately. But the scope of the mission didn't change. Do more with less. The repercussions of this decision now 10 years ago are still being felt today, as annual budgets and manning for government institutions are based on the year prior. There are some positions that have been critically undermanned ever since, quite literally doing the job of multiple people, which results in single-points of failure and bureaucratic nightmares in getting anything accomplished.
So does this mean the defense budget can't or shouldn't be reduced?
There are roughly 750 US military bases across 80 nations. That, more than the dollar figure of the defense budget, is the category in which the US military truly dwarfs the rest of the world. This is not normal. Us Americans never experience having a foreign military permanently stationed on our soil, much less in numbers that dwarf our own domestic forces. But that is a common experience around the world, with US troops almost exclusively. Part of the reason why this is tolerated is the US pays these countries an incredible sum of money for allowing the use of their land. The truth is that this is the reason so many other of the US allies have tiny militaries. Why have your own army when the most powerful one in the world will pay YOU to offer their protection? Most nations produce a military of some kind, but some nations rely 100% on UN/US protection lacking even the most superficial armed forces.
The defense budget cannot be meaningfully or responsibly cut without closing bases down. And that is a matter of foreign policy, where the real problem lies. The US is paying for the privilege of being the world's police. To be in everyone's backyard, watching, waiting. We've been playing 4D chess for a long time now, wagering untold trillions in order to gain influence. To be the central figure in the UN. To have no larger authority to answer to for our own transgressions. Who is our opponent in this century long chess game? Whatever the motivations of our leaders truly are, its clear the game isn't ending any time soon.
Comparing any nation's 'defense budget' whose purpose is the protection of its territory, to the US's global occupation force, as if the later is merely too bloated is to entirely miss the point.
Ostatnio edytowane:
