What should we do with it? Presidential canidates, especially Bush, are willing to make vague promises to increase military spending. To me, it would be better to slightly decrease the budget of the military gradually to perhaps about two thirds of its current level and, rather than working on creating a large military, work upon creating high quality units capable of deploying rapidly and effectively.
So what do we do with it? Throw money on it? Creat a warrior nation of millions of WW-II rifle toting foot soldiers, or what?
I really don’t know where Bush would spend extra money on defense. Better salaries I would support, not just because the troops deserve it, but because it’s too hard to retain your trained people if you pay them peanuts. (On the other hand, pay has been improved a lot recently, so it could be worse.) Ballistic missile defense is another story which deserves (and probably already has) its own thread.
I definitely take exception to Bush’s “hollow military” rhetoric. I know he’s just trying to criticize the administration, but I still think he’s wrong. I think we have a very effective military which does its job well. I think it will continue to do the job well whether its funding goes up or down. If I had to choose, I would put funds in the very-long-term preparation part of the military - making sure the next generation of recruits has the basic skills (communication, math, fitness) to fill the barracks in ten or twenty years.
Spending isn’t so much about having big numbers of troops, or keeping them well-supplied with Apache’s and tanks, but building NEW stuff. There’s the new jet (the F-22, I think?) that’s been completed, and only a few can be afforded because spending is down. And the Army’s developing and testing a new high-powered, ultra-light rifle.
The military shouldn’t be equipped to deal with problems that may arise in the here-and-now, but should be prepared to deal with conflicts that may rise up next year, in five years, in fifty years.
Instead of spending the budget on “units capable of deploying rapidly” to all parts of the globe, we should concentrate on our ability to defend our own borders.
Part of the problem is Retention of qualified, trained soldiers (of all ranks). Pay is only part of the problem; the other is the increased tempo of operations seen during the Clinton years, along with the type of operations Pres. Clinton likes to send them on.
“Peacekeeping” operations have a nice humanitarian cachet in the media, but to the soldier on the ground it means being placed into the middle of someone else’s civil war, a long way from home, with unclear rules of engagement, lot’s of angry people who talk funny and don’t like you (and that’s just your own folks; them foreigners are even worse!), crappy food, 18 hour days for six months, and oh yes, let’s not accidentally precipitate an incident by having some soldier who’s getting his ass shot at fire back and accidentally kill someone so let’s not issue any ammunition.
It’s a wonder that we even have anyone left to man our units. And the biggest joke in the military is the mandatory/obligatory reenlistment pitch you get about 6 months before your hitch is up. It’s the final ironic justice to the low-ranking soldier who gets to laugh in the face of that arrogant, condescending West Point ring-knocking asshole talking about signing up for another term of service. They treated him like shit for 3 1/2 years, and now suddenly they are talking nice to him and kissing his ass so he’ll sign up for another 4 years of crappy treatment.
Military toys are high-performance machines, maintenece intensive even if they’re just sitting in the motor poool or flight line. Actually taking them out to play for a week or two for training quadruples your maintenence costs; let alone a six-month deployment with around-the-clock operations.
And under Pres. Clinton, the money just hasn’t been there.
And I’m not saying Bush is going to be any better.
Of course I am going to jump in here with some wild opinons and no way to back up the facts except to say I did the research 3 years ago for a HS Econ class…
As of three years ago (Ill try to track down the info again) military spending was at its lowest percentage of the GNP sense WWII. Social spending has increased several times over. If you wonder where all the United States’ money is going, I wouldn’t necessarlly look at the military.
Now, to get back on the OP – The newer stuff gets, the more it costs. Rifles just dont cost a few dollars anymore. Airplanes are much more expensive. Then, as technology progresses, the troops have to be trained to use this new technology.
I have a friend who just left the Marines. He was offered a $90,000 job as soon as he seperated. So, beyond pride and the feeling to serve your country, where is the motivation to stay in the Marines? Deffinately not going to get $90,000 to do so
Though people often recoil in horror at the cost of this or that weapon/missile/aircraft, the reality is this" NOTHING is more expensive than maintaining the HUMAN element of an army.
Truth is, during the Cold War, missiles were a bargain. Missiles don’t have to be fed, colthed, housed or trained. They don’t have wives or kids who need dental work. Using nuclear missiles to discourage Soviet aggression was easier and CHEAPER than using flesh and blood troops.
The military ventures we’re likely to engage in in the immediate future? We PROBABLY don’t have to worry about old-fashioned, WW2 style conflicts. But we may be called upon to take police-type actions, or join in peacekeeping missions in any number of places. Missiles can’t do those jobs. PEOPLE with guns have to do that.
So, conventional left/right interpretations of foreign policy may have to be set aside. IF we want an effective fighting force, we need to spend more on the basics. And there goes the “peace dividend.”