Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint

Not much longer Ken. Even Time magazine is talking about a coming economic collapse and mass civil unrest now.

Will the Federal Reserve Cause a Civil War?

We never could afford to be the world's policeman. ​

 

Ken - is there not a benefit to the US of helping South Korea remain independent of North Korea?

 

And North Korea has a nut job for a leader and is willing to subject it's population to any hardship for political purposes.

Size of the economy is not really and issue when China is willing to supply their military.

 

Withdrawing into our own borders is merely an invitation for the rest of the despots in the world to come knocking. This has been proven time and again throughout history. We can and we ought continue to work to spread freedom around the world, and also to protect the fragile nations where freedom of the people has gained a foothold!

On another note, relative to the topic, it always amazes me when we think that America is a special case, out of all the nations and events of the entire history of the human race. We are not, and we are just as vulnerable to overthrow, financial collapse, ruin of our people, return to third world status, etc., as any other nation or people group in history.

Want that from a biblical perspective? There are no references to a great power from the West coming to rescue anyone in the end times events...

 

Who is going to protect us after we play turtle and decrease defense spending to a level that won't sustain even basic defensive forces?

Answer...nobody. And eventually the wolves will be at our defenseless throats. Sounds a little like 1941. Except...


With todays weapons, we won't be able to play catchup.

And the designers of this defensless strategy will moan the loudest and be the first to surrender. Who needs outside enemies? We have enough right here at home to do us in. All they need is a little outside help.

 

I am surprised that a libertarian would be calling for cutting defense - which is one of the things that the Constitution actually authorizes the government to do - in favor of protecting domestic spending on entitlements - something that the Constitution does not authorize the government to do.

 

Entitlements without national security don't mean much.

Probably the first thing that we need to do is to aree on the purpose of the military - which in my opinion is to protect our national interest - by standing against those countries that would do us harm and would do harm to our allies.

That also means defining things like victory in Afghanistan. Obama is increasing our involvement there while still not telling us what the purpose is.

Say what you want about Bush - but at least he stated his intentions concerning the wars - which was to establish a foothold for democracy in that region.

 

Ok - I did not say that defense spending should remain "unscathed".

Obvioulsy it is going to take a combination of things...

Spend defense dollars better and more in line with the mission

Cut or freeze social security benefits

Increase the age of retirement

Allow an opt out

Less government spending in general

 

You forgot one huge one. Repeal Obamacare.

Another one is stop the bailouts, completely.

Another is to divest the government of any GM ownership.

Another is to do away with the largest welfare program in the country, the earned income credit. Do away with it. Completely. The tax code is for taxes, not socialist's redistribution of income scams.

All of this should be done before either defense spending or SS should be touched or altered in any way. One thing we tend to forget is that SS is self supporting. It cost the government no money until they started spending it for other things. Now we have the interest payments. So the solution is for government to stop stealing the SS contributions to fund their other socialist programs.

 

I'm confused.

You usually are most worried, according to you, about the constitutionality of things.

Here, you've been shown the explicit constitutionality of defense--not to mention the enormity (and quickly, we could demonstrate the unconstitutionality) of many entitlements--yet you seem more worried about the latter than the former.

That makes little sense for a libertarian.


However, if you happen to be a democrat, the reasoning's just fine.

 

Now THAT is an excellent point.

 

I could sell it in a heartbeat. Show some nice, pretty PowerPoint slides that will graphically point out the increased security risk. Inject a lot of pictures of the World Trade Center, the Khobar towers, the nightclub in Germany where US servicemen died, the USS Cole, and others. Pictures are worth a thousand words. Show the cost of fertilizer and other components, punctuated by a picture of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Show a statistic about how much nuclear material is required to make a dirty bomb, followed by some artist's rendition of the aftermath of a dirty bomb. Play up the fear factor so that it can't be ignored, and actually injects fear where there wasn't any before; as well as escalating the fear factor where it already existed.

People like you, would be extremely angry with me for playing with people's emotions. But take a wild guess how it would play out with the masses.

 

Here's a thought: treat the military like we should be treating the government.

Do we really need big government? NO. Reduce government agencies to reduce spending on government.

By the same token, do we need a bunch of military leadership? NO. Reduce the military leadership.

We talk about reducing military programs, such as the Osprey; no. Our potential enemies (China, Russia, etc.) are still developing their military capability; we must continue to analyze where they're at, what they're developing, and develop our own means of neutralizing those threats. The *best* defense against this is to continually develop our own military capability that they're unable to match. The article provided in the opening post mentions that the Osprey doesn't have the long-range capability to properly conduct its mission; I disagree. The Osprey can be modified, if necessary, for in-air refueling. C-17s can air drop, or short take-off and landing supply other requirements.

Instead, look at the overhead organizations. Is the Pentagon itself properly manned? If you'll recall, I stated that I supported the cutting of JFCOM; are there other areas that could be cut or reduced?

The problem, however, is that this sort of examination takes time, to ensure that it's being done correctly and will have long-term benefits. Instead, both what's being implemented and what's proposed in the article, are looking at short term, "now" benefits that may have repercussions 3-5 years from now that fall into the category of "unintended/unexpected consequences."

Take the time to do the job right, instead of having to constantly re-do the job because what you did had a second or third-level effect that completely undoes what you were attempting to do.

Take the article given in the opening post; match it to the actual security strategy (which was developed by military people who eat, sleep, and drink potential threats to our great nation -- sorry Poncho, but you're a whack job; yes, they do take into consideration economical factors, but that's because any good strategy looks at the centers of gravity (which include economical factors), both ours and theirs, and asks the questions: what are they trying to accomplish, and what are we trying to accomplish?); then match it to each of our allies and enemies; and then re-look at the propositions and determine if they're still valid.

Yeah, that'll take some time. But that's what I've been saying in this post.

ADDED: By the way, don't forget that strategy (such as the opening post article) is easy; implementation is hard. I believe it was Gen Omar Bradley who was attributed with the quote: Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.