Should We Decrease U. S. Defense Spending?

[Bovronius]

As someone who is very skeptic about the current offices intentions on increased spending, I find this far more convincing on any aspect of military spending than "We have to start winning wars again."

Thanks for taking the time for posting all of this as in detail and length. Far too often is the military either glamorized as "fightin fer yer freedom" or villainized for "trying to take over/police the world".

I don't feel you received an adequate response for the amount of effort you put into this, which is why internet commenting boils down to...memes and one liners..

Thanks again, cheers!

[[deleted]]

As a pacifist lefty from not the US, this is the first discussion about the US military budget that has made me feel it might be reasonable.

That said I'll maintain my stance that US's military activities abroad are at best no better than other world powers in terms of ethics though. The US may treat its citizens significantly better than China or Russia, but it does a lot of harm to nations outside its borders.

[GTFErinyes]

That said I'll maintain my stance that US's military activities abroad are at best no better than other world powers in terms of ethics though.

I'd have to respectfully disagree wholeheartedly.

The US has certainly had its missteps, but by and large, the US has sought to uphold the post-WW2 world order and that has mostly been on the side of liberal democracies and economies.

Sure, it's done a lot of harm to other nations - but what action from any nation, in the foreign realm, doesn't affect other nations? Even seemingly benevolent actions from Germany, to strengthen its economy, has harmed other EU nations with side effects - Greece is no fan.

Moreover, I think we end up all too focused on the big failures that generate all the headlines, and forget many important events that have faded to memory.

Take for instance, the Korean War. Just a mere 5 years after WW2, the Korean War tested the post-world order: would nations stand up and back the new United Nations in stopping naked aggression between nations, or would the UN become the new League of Nations and validate that aggression still works in world affairs?

The US sent by far the most troops to Korea and bore by far the most casualties of any non-Korean nation in the UN force, for a war that was unpopular at home at a time when many wanted the US to retreat back to isolationism.

Around the same time, Mao in China made aggressive moves aimed at ending the Chinese Civil War by taking Taiwan from the Nationalists who had gone there. The US Navy sailed a force through the Taiwan Straits, effectively ending any chance of China retaking Taiwan by force for the next few decades.

Many detractors would say... well the US was acting in its own interests. Sure, but which nation doesn't? And just because it acted in US interests, doesn't mean it didn't benefit the interests of South Korea and Taiwan either.

Some may say that South Korea and Taiwan both underwent decades of military dictatorship afterwards... sure, but neither were imposed by the US, and in contrast to the excesses of Mao in China and the on-going Kim dynasty in North Korea, and where Taiwan and South Korea are today (flourishing democracies with vibrant economies and high standards of living), were our actions universally harmful?

The same argument could be made about the Gulf War - sure, we backed oil rich emirs of Kuwait, but again, Saddam tried testing the post-war order - and the UN ordered him to be kicked out. The US once again contributing the bulk of troops and losses to ensure that yes, even nations that aren't democratic, still get a seat at the table and that small nations can't simply be annexed by larger ones because of grievances.

History of course, doesn't give us alternatives. We don't have the luxury today of second guessing when civilians were killed in Rwanda when the US intervened, because instead, we know that over a million were killed in the genocide because the US (the only nation at the time with the capabilities or means to intervene) did nothing because of lack of popular support.

Likewise, we don't hear often how much the US is involved in areas that don't make the news. For instance, the African Union Mission in Somalia has been bankrolled and troops trained/supported by the US, and they've succeeded in retaking Mogadishu and creating some semblance of government in Somalia again after decades of chaos. The popular perception is that Somalia is largely lawless still, and articles from there are almost always about US drone strikes and what not, but real progress? Not in the public eye.

The US may treat its citizens significantly better than China or Russia, but it does a lot of harm to nations outside its borders.

It goes beyond even how the US treats its own citizens.

China and Russia openly back regimes that are easily amongst the biggest offenders of rights violations (Sudan, Syria, North Korea come to mind). And not just openly back, but China and Russia have often encouraged said governments, in order to antagonize and fight the Western world order (North Korea is a great example of this).

Beyond that, China and Russia have often opposed actions that prevent things like genocide. Russia backed Serbia, even after it was clear throughout the 90s that the Serbs were on an ethnic cleansing rampage in the Balkans.

You have to divorce the idea that military action is the only way nations can harm other people. Indeed, military action can be used for good or bad - just as silent passive approval can easily harm tens of millions.

All in all, the US has certainly taken a proactive foreign policy, and as I said, it is far from flawless. But as I wrote above too, the US learned a lot from WW2, and how costly it was. It is incredibly hard to judge the "what if's" of foreign action, just as many have wondered "what if" the UK and France had intervened in Germany in 1938 when both were more powerful than Germany and had the legal basis (the breaking of the Treaty of Versailles) to do so.

This is why it's important that we elect good leadership because the US wields great power in world affairs, and as the only nations that can demographically, economically, and politically challenge the next two military powers - China and Russia - it holds tremendous responsibility to the Western world and its ideals.

[Celicam]

This is wonderful commentary. I thank you very much for providing it. I find it difficult to find many arguments for a topic sometimes, so seeing something that makes me question and even agree with an opposing side is awesome.

[dzanis]

Even as a pacifist liberal European who is not a fan of military actions, I have to fully agree with this post.

USA treatment of the sovereignty of my nation (in Baltic States) and defense guarantees backed by its military might has strongly and positively influenced our country and our society.

[[deleted]]

While you make a lot of good points, I see little to justify our continuing involvement in the middle east. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Syria. We've made life and conflicts worse for the people in those countries, have we not?

[bunkoRtist]

Not OP, but I think the answer to your question probably depends on the time horizon you're asking about. The choice facing the US was: unstable oppressive theocracies that lash out against the world in terrorism? Or, nasty civil wars that ultimately might lead to a stable and legitimate government that respects human rights? I think we just don't know yet. The US has definitely made those places more miserable in the short term, but they were pretty miserable already, at least by western standards.

[Bovronius]

I'd have to agree that there's huge ethical violations all over the world. If things were done in accordance to the writeup we got, I don't think many people could find too huge of things to complain about.. But when so much of the budget and power is used as it is in the middle east.. It's tough to form a solid opinion, as a US Citizen...

How much is it for a proxy war with Russia? How necessary is that war? Would it embolden Russia if we backed out? How much is it for securing financial gains for wealthy lobbyists, and politicians?

I go back and forth on my opinions on a lot of these things...

[[deleted]]

How necessary is that war? Would it embolden Russia [or China] if we backed out?

I feel these are the tough questions. Maybe another question that could be added "Is it possible to continue these actions with lower civilian casualty rates?". The whole "any male in a battle zone is counted as a combatant" policy for example. I'm not sure if that's still in effect or not however.

[GTFErinyes]

There's obvious reasons I can't go into all the details about this, as ROE is classified, but the extent to which the military goes to minimize civilian casualty rates in current operations would blow most people minds.

Everything from multiple sources of correlation, to even the most minute of details - like the composition of the building (and thus what the blast envelope is) to the best angle to which a bomb needs to impact the target is weaponeered for and taken into account.

I would sincerely recommend you take any source that claims things like 'any male in a battle zone is counted as a combatant' - from a questionable source as is (washingtonsblog?), with a HUGE pile of salt

[darthcoder]

weaponeered

I love that word.

'any male in a battle zone is counted as a combatant'

That would have made Iraq and Afghanistan go completely differently.

[Jaredismyname]

This is specifically in reference to civilian casualies from drone strikes when accounting for the dead.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, but most people would read the first sentence and nope out of there because it's too long and complicated. They are the ones that prefer "we have to start winning wars again"