Military Politics Of The United States

The America I believe in, has a military that has fought for our freedom. Our military has fought for years to ensure our safety. Without the military we would be under the rule of an enemy country. The military is especially brave, and we can barely convey they are afraid. Like David Hackworth said, “Bravery is being the only one who knows you’re afraid.” We must be as brave as they are, and give them support. According to the web site army.mil, the military does what they ensure for us, since they acquire honor, integrity, respect, and courage. My uncle, Henry, is a retired veteran, and he has been through war. He stands a highly respected person in the military. I asked him when I was younger why did he join the military. Confidently, he

As citizens of the United States of America we must pay taxes to the government. The government takes these taxes and distributes them among different areas to fund each are; one of the highest percentages of spending goes to defense. The whopping amount of around 610 billion dollars makes the United States’ military the largest in the world, so large that its funding out-weighs the next seven highest spending countries. The problem with this is that the military does not really solve the large amount of very important domestic affairs; in fact we barely see the fruits of it. There are many reasons why we should cut down on the percentage spent on defense and focus more on other areas.

In order to advance the vital interests of the United States, we need a military that is equipped with best of everything and the backing of a nation to use them to defend our national interests and goals when needed.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down and that will help lower the defense spending by almost $1 trillion over the next decade. The congress is realizing that they need to do some restructuring and have already begun rearranging the military budget in response to austerity. Congress conjured up a $630 billion defense appropriations bill that made plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years and in return ramp up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles says The Washington Post. The American Conservative

The United States spends far more than any other country on defense and security with no end in sight to their expenditures. The total military spending by the United States is nearly equal to the combined military spending of every other nation combined. This unreasonable amount of spending hinders the capacity to provide basic needs, as well as eliminating money that can be used to resolve other domestic issues, while at the same time allowing for short-term economic prosperity and increasing our national defense capacity.

The United States of America’s defense budget is accounted for by the spending for the Department of Defense. All the funding directed to the Department of Defense covers its base budget through payment of the department 's normal activities (National Priorities). Most presidential candidates support the idea of the United States of America developing a bigger military force or at least leaving it as big as it currently is, except most notably Berny Sanders. The United States of America currently stands at a $494 billion-dollar deficit (US Debt Clock) and many politicians want to reduce this deficit by cutting down budget or enforcing a balanced budget amendment. Berny Sanders has for years and still at the moment still criticizing politicians who have such ideas which he terms as regressive. Berny Sanders argues that the federal defense spending and military budget are three times larger than that of the second biggest spender: China. He further argues that even among military members, many believe that

The US Military had a great influence over the Second World War. Their Military is strong, but like every other military it all comes down to the discipline and hard working Soldiers that shape a military. The Average US soldier went through a brief but highly rigorous basic training session and then other forms of training thereafter. Every soldier was trained in a specific task to carry out and work together as one unit of being. An Army is a combination of multiple parts acting as one.

Army General Tommy Franks, U.S. Navy Admiral Timothy Keating, U.S. Army General Hugh Shelton and U.S. Marine Corp General James Conway. 2 of these officers, who are Generals Frank and Conway, are quoted either visually or audibly arguing that Obama’s defense cuts are bad policy that threatens America’s security. First, without some qualification, the ad’s statement that “America’s military leaders agree” is likely to wrongly cause its audience’s hasty generalization that all military leaders agree with its statement in argument here. Moreover, this argumentative conclusion does not even follow from the support of the just 4 cited officers or is, in other words, non sequitur. The political advertisement here argues that the defense cuts will be devastating to the financial security and welfare of American military personnel and their dependents. The officers state, instead, that the cuts are devastating to the nation’s defense preparedness. Overall, one observes here a scare tactic intended to cause the segment of the ad’s audience, which consists of active duty military and their families, into voting against Obama without any substantiation of its exaggerated claims of potential harm to them from his policies. The sad thing is that this November 6th election eve scare tactic, discrediting of the Mitt Romney campaign’s intellectual integrity, is likely largely wasted anyway. Most military personnel have already voted much earlier by absentee ballot.

The third issue that was discussed in these articles is a strong disconnect between what is being planned vs reality. Following 9/11, Pentagon budget went up significantly to justify the ongoing fight against global terrorism. However, if we look carefully, it is obvious that a higher percentage of the defense budget is going to fund Cold war era programs and may reduce readiness for Asymmetric warfare we are currently experiencing or may experience more in future. Additionally, unreliable information coming from DOD’s accounting system makes it extremely difficult to generate future force projections and cost estimates based on past and present status of expenditures. Overall, it creates an unrealistic ballooning defense budget that is not economically sustainable.

Yes, have our current military. It is an extension to providing a free environment for all. Already, 81% support and like the current military overall (Forbes.com)The military is there to serve and protect America as a whole. They instantly defend the constitution when oath is taken (Opening phrase is, I will support & defend the Constitution (In Military.com) ) We also have many leaders with many ideas, if they see a problem, they will do something to change it and make it better. We trust our leaders and trust them to make our decisions for the better of our futures as a free country. Obviously, within a military there are flaws and room for improvement, however we have faith in our leaders and so far, our leaders have proven to be successful in our current issues. For instance, in recent events, the military has actually increased its security around military bases because of general ISIS threats, and they do not want to risk the safety of our nation’s people. (ABC

Many people think that we spend too much on our defense, and that we should turn our attention to the citizens and industry with our funding. If the military's funding gets cut then we won't have a good enough defense to defend our country. We would be at a greater risk for invasion. The results to an invasion of the United States would not be ideal; our citizens

Citizens in almost any other country wake up every day to the fear that this will be their last. These same people go to bed at night not knowing if they will wake up in the morning. Many kids in Iraq, for example, have woken up in the morning to find their parents lying dead on the floor, if not witnessing the crime while conscious. These horrific crimes, while they still happen here, are not nearly as abundant as in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or even France now. Yet with all their crime, people here still want to cut the military’s budget. I agree, a higher school funding should be in place, but I would rather spend a little more on ensuring that I can make it to school without Isis picking me

I am going to present you with the topic of military spending and you can decide for yourself which side you are on. First, the arguments “for” military spending are, its used for important military matters, it allocates a certain amount for emergency and supplemental spending, it is useful in deterring foreign threats, it makes military preparation efficient, it supports peace keeping in foreign regions, it prevents recruitment and retention issues, it can keep defense factories operational and it is spent to ensue national security. Next, the arguments “against” military spending are, its share to global military spending is already too big, it is used to fund unrealistic wars, it may support the contradicting view about readiness that may not reflect reality accurately, it is not balanced with foreign aid and diplomacy, and it might be used irresponsibly.

The allocation of funds is an ongoing debate when administering all aspects of fiscal policy. Policy makers around the world routinely debate what should take precedence when it comes to government spending. In general, lawmakers fall into one of two categories. They either believe and support that more government funds should be spent on social services, or the opposing view is that more should be allocated toward defense spending. Despite what elected officials might think, there is a finite amount of funds, therefore, without continuing to increase the national debt, an increase in spending in one category should cause a decrease in another. In 2016, the United States spent $615 billion on defense, $914 billion towards social security,

History has shown us that military spending increases in times of war, conflict or terrorist threats and requires the government to adjust non-military discretionary spending. Defense spending, and the size of the military force, must be reduced as those areas are resolved, so that all levels of leadership are all good stewards of taxpayer dollars and having a robust military presence for show is doing the