Military Vs Small Military

The military has been instrumental in the protection and development of U.S interests around the world. From the Revolutionary War, which established the United States as a nation, through the World Wars, which set up the U.S as one of the world super powers, to its current war on terror, the military has helped and protected U.S. interests around the world. During all these wars American soldiers have proudly served their country. Because of these wars America is famous throughout the world for military power and its protection of freedom in the world. Today the U.S is an international symbol of wealth and power; it has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world as well as the strongest military. Yet even America falls prey to a

     The history of the United States military is a very prestige, brave, heroic, and memorable one at that. Starting on September 3, 1793 the United States was officially it’s own nation and it’s own military. At that time many other countries didn’t believe that we would succeed but, now we are one of the strongest, freest, and most prestige country to possible ever be developed.

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

Consequently, the Obama Administration has silenced defense leader for a long time, so he could keep his Budget Control Act or (BCA). For example “8 years under the Obama Administration, top defense officials were largely silenced and prevented from articulating their concerns about budget cuts and decreased readiness”(Cooper pg1). The Obama Administration neglected top defense officials, which has resulted in “Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff”(Spencer). Nevertheless, this has also resulted in “3 of 58 Army brigade combat teams are considered ready for combat”(Cooper). Conversely, Obama cut down the military so far that America has 150,000-225,000 troops ready in the Army when all of our combat teams should be ready for combat, so that the armed forces can protect America’s interests at home and abroad. Moreover, the Army is not the only who has experienced decreased readiness, for example, there have been budget cuts across the board which have resulted in “The Air Force is the smallest and oldest it has ever been”(Cooper). “80 percent of the United States Marine Corps or (USMC) do not have the minimum number of aircraft they need for training and basic operations”(Cooper). “The Navy’s fleet is the smallest it has been in nearly 100 years”(Cooper). “Maintenance period will increase costs 2.6 times”(Pickup). Accordingly, all parts of the Armed forces have experienced budget cuts

Absolutely, positively, emphatically, unequivocally, without a doubt, NO! Not now, not ever! Well, maybe for one reason, in the event of an existential threat to our nation. Now that I have stated my opinion I will back this up with information from several studies providing evidence for continuing the worlds greatest all volunteer (entry) military force.

Throughout military history, the government quickly downsizes its army to its bare minimum after conflicts, usually within five years, due to budgeting issues. According to Mary Ann Evans, the author of Downsizing In The U.S. Army: Common

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.

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.

Military Budget is ‘Foolish and Sustainable’”, Benjamin Friedman and Justin Logan, a researcher and a director, respectively at Cato Institute, discuss ways in which a minimization in military spending can have positive outcomes for both the U.S. and other countries. To summarize the essay, they state that the best approach is if for the U.S. to reduces its military presence in other countries. Effectively, this would prevent countries from relying on U.S. intervention and allow more countries to be dependent on themselves; additionally, it will also prevent “weaker” allied nations from gaining a false sense of emboldenment to take risks they otherwise would not against neighboring countries, which would inevitably force the U.S. to intervene. Friedman and Logan estimated that a disinclination to impose rule over these “weaker” nations will not only increase content among both nations, but it will save over $250 billion over a span of a decade and thousands of lives, and still leave a force capable of winning any ground war if needed (Friedman, B., et al., 2012, 177-191). Friedman and Logan have valid claims that agree with and support my position as to both how, and why, there should be cuts in military

Former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter, in his article “Adapting to the Threat Dynamics of the 21st Century” states that the U.S. military needs to be well prepared for unannounced attacks from “terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else al-Qaeda and its associates appear.” China and other nation have higher advantages in many key manufacturing areas than U.S. the military needs to have abundant funds, trained soldiers, invest in the air and sea mobility assets, and updated technologies. Winter acknowledges that a temporary reduction in some key manufacturing areas could cause the U.S. industrial stupendous harm. “It is the matter of ensuring the survival of America and the free world.”

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the United States military is estimated to contain around 1.4 million active duty personnel. Even in times of peace, having a strong force ready to protect the U.S and its citizens makes living in the U.S better than it already is because we don’t have to worry about being bombed or invaded. But, when the United States takes on a larger operation, the military may need more help. Backup might be needed, so the military may need to call up more forces. In a major conflict, the United States may even set up the draft, requesting soldiers from the civilian population. The idea of the draft has been around since ancient times. The United States has enforced many different draft systems to fill its

Given constrained funding and the requirements of short-term national military objectives and longer term operations, the Army should balance the Total Force as follows: first, decrease the Active Component deployments and increase the Reserve Component, specifically the National Guard. Second, assign National Guard units to specific regions and/or missions so that their training can be focused on these conflicts. And third, increase the use of National Guard units to reduce active component use particularly for low-intensity conflict and short term missions.

Kenisha, I completely understand your perspective, but really how much more do we have to show and prove the world that we have the best and strong military and #1 in almost everything? As Natasha mention, America already has the strongest military and defense. In opinion, we have to see the bigger picture here and be a strong nation by first improving within our country than helping other countries that simply don’t want our military help or even start a war where there isn’t. According to, The Dallas Morning News, “Since the Vietnam War, we have conditioned ourselves to the idea that American military intervention for geopolitical purposes (as opposed to national defense) is somehow justified to spend more.” If Obama already

     The United States’ enormous economy enables it to fund the most powerful armed forces in the world. The nation’s annual military spending averages at $369 billions as of 2002 on just national defenses (Greenberg 546). How many countries in the world today, can afford to fund this type of military spending yearly? The answer is none. The US currently owned the most highly technological advanced weapons in the world, capable of almost anything and can target any country with a press of a button. Although most country already acquired this type of technology, the US’s is still the more dominating and with the most abundant in warheads. More importantly, The United States

The United States has the strongest and most advanced military in the world. If that was not enough, Obama renewed the United States commitment to the NATO Alliance, which now gives the U.S. access to powerful allies. According to opednews.com, The United States