The Pros And Cons Of Military Budget Cuts

“President Obama has, conveniently, rewritten the standard of military strategy to conform to his defense-budget-cutting desires”(Bucci, 1). This quote shows how someone can manipulate the budget to make people think it is going to be for the better, but there are always two sides to a story. The defense budget cuts are causing the military a plethora of stresses because it’s taking away some training programs, benefits from soldiers, and even making America look tenuous.

Donald Trump’s audacious administration is actually proposing a budget for 2018 that increases military spending by 54 billion dollars!(4) To make this feasible massive cuts have to be made to the detriment of bureaucratic organizations such as: the department of education, the EPA, department of labor, housing and urban development department. To give that number a frame of reference, the estimated cost of providing tuition free public universities under the 2016 Sanders plan is approximately 75 billion dollars.(5) We already have nearly eight hundred military bases around the world, do we really need to allocate more resources to this department in which we already have the ability to act unilaterally on a global scale with impunity?(6) Or are there other departments in our society that could benefit more from an influx in funding?

Since the inception of the United States of America 250 years ago, our government has enacted a practice of lies and deceit that keep its citizens in the dark. Matters such as false allegations that result in long standing wars, financial misuse and abuse, secret alliances that serve the government agenda's, and the altering of history affect not only the US citizens, it affects the global population as a whole. This deception has resulted in mistrust of the US Government as people question what our government is up to and what they are seeking to gain. In order to earn the public's trust, the United States Government needs to be transparent with its citizens, giving us the information whether it's positive or negative instead of allowing

The quick evolving military environment, needs the US Army redouble its efforts to reduce the uncertainty associated with the downsizing. There are some predominant principles that can guide the Army’s efforts in minimizing the impact of uncertainty during the force reduction. Even with major political and legislative challenges, keeping balance among the different proportions of readiness is a goal of US defense policy. During the budgetary preparation, downsizing of the armed forces often becomes one of the first victims of fiscal reduction. This was true of the years between World War I and World War II, when the Great Depression made military preparedness a very low national priority. The Army’s downsizing effect put its readiness

Renowned historian and classicist scholar Victor Davis Hanson’s January 11, 2012 commentary entitled “Heavy Price of Defense Spending Cuts: Nations That Choose Butter over Guns Atrophy and Die” warrants a thoughtful analysis of its merits and shortcomings by U.S. military officers entrusted with leading this nation’s youth while implementing our national strategy.

After major conflicts, the government downsizes its military numbers significantly, losing the best-qualified leaders to lead the future’s military. This drastic method of downsizing the military after major conflicts harms our troops and could harm the future of our great nation. If the nation really needs to downsize its military, then it should be done in a very careful manner and to pay extra attention to not losing the best qualified leaders it currently has.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

“We must never forget why we have, and why we need our military. Our armed forces exist solely to ensure our nation is safe, so that each and every one of us can sleep soundly at night, knowing we have guardians at the gate,” said Allen West,a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a former member of the House of Representatives. He explained America’s need for a strong military perfectly in this quote. The United States depends on their military to protect them from all different kinds of threats like cyber warfare or terrorist attacks.

The history of force reductions after the Cold War era and Operation Desert Storm proves the reliance on contract support to America’s fighting force was important to accomplish the mission. (CGSC, 2015). The Army should maintain its level of contract support relative to the current budget constraints and force reductions. Contract support with oversight from Army Material Command is a force multiplier but will require several mitigation measures in order to be effective in future campaigns.

I believe that the United States should not spend any more time, money, nor effort on the military than they already have done because they should be spending more time on repairing the amount of national debt they have instead of being the “police of the world.” They are already a step ahead in the game with the advanced military technology, but continue to neglect education and health care for the rest of the country, for examples the veterans who are homeless. They should cut the amount of money and amount of troops out there when they could be here and safe.

In an effort to provide protection for our international interest our political leadership point of view is to show militaristic prowess. Mr. Bacevich has mentioned several examples regarding excessive spending within the Department of Defense (DOD) that dwarfs those of America’s closest allies. Also noted, Mr. Bacevich explained that the Navy maintains several large attack aircraft carriers; however, in the battle fleets of the world, there is no ship even comparable to a Nimitz-class carrier. The question is “why do we continue to move away from the general principle to maintain the minimum force required.” I think because we are living in a capitalist society the power of money is at the forefront. The DOD is an industrial military conglomerate.

School boards across the country have been struggling to fully fund art, music, and culture programs that without a doubt serve to round out the education of the country's youth. States such as California have faced major budget cuts. In 2008, California projected a shortcoming of $42 billion. (California Schools Girding for cuts under fiscal Plan) During a signing ceremony the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger stated, "During a down economy and facing an historic budget deficit we have to make some very difficult decisions..." He later warned local school districts that the cuts will impact the students (I’ll be back). California is not the only state who has faced budget cuts. When put up against struggling budgets brought

To fund or not to fund the Armed Forces? Many Americans have asked why we should pay for the military. Is the military a priority to fund during harsh economic times? Critics argue that the military is overfunded. The military should be shrink and suffer budget cuts, to save the country billions of dollars. This might, however back fire at the U.S if passed. The Armed Forces are an important component of the Country. Under funding the military will cause the United

Steve Cohen, a former member of the Board of Directors of the United States Naval Institute at Annapolis, thinks that America is slowly becoming more vulnerable because of the lack of upkeep in the military. He does a good job of making the individual feel quite unsafe, somehow telling them that their lives could be in danger because we will only be able to fuel two naval vessels to the East Asian water by next year (Cohen). At first glance, it’s a dodgy connection, but his point is, if we cut spending in some areas, who is going to stop non-military politicians from cutting down more thoroughly and leaving us open to invasion or attacks from outside powers? H h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

"The belief that a defense budget in decline portends an America in decline." Attitudes like that can bankrupt a nation, and the public senses it." Says California Representative Howard McKeon, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee. America is one of the secure countries in the world. Factors such as weak neighbors, vast ocean barriers, superior nuclear weapons, and massive amounts of wealth make America a force to be reckoned with. America does not face the same threats that other countries do. Even though our country is secure, we act as if we fear an imminent attack. Some argue that the reason we are so secure is because the defense budget allows us to be prepared on all fronts. They argue