The Threat Of Military Expenditure Is Not The Only Thing That Keeps Us Safe

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

Hartung, W. D. (2003, February 14). War without end? The costs of the new military buildup. United States. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.iansa.org/iraq

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

Over years, America has spent heavily in increasing Military stockpiles and sending missions in foreign war-ravaged countries. In such countries as Iraq, Syria and Sudan, such huge expenditure have not yielded proportionate and satisfactory results. Therefore, the foreign military campaigns have largely remained cosmetic since violence on such countries resume thereafter. Additionally, those who bear the burden are the American taxpayers whose toil go down in drain without reward. The reason for failure is that America had not invested in addressing the causal roots of the problems resulting in violence in the countries (Carroll, & Sage Publications, 2003). In its stead, America will invest further in enhancing diplomacy and constructive engagements, aimed at correcting long standing causes of the wars. At the same time, the party proposes more stringent measures in protecting Federal frontiers through strong legislation on immigration and deployment of Forces to avert foreign

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

Hanson’s 2012 premise, albeit over two years old today, is immediately discernible: America faces devastating self-inflicted wounds by implementing the current Administration’s defense spending budget. The dawn of 2014 finds this debate ongoing and the implementation of this budget well in progress, with even more drastic cuts taking effect than the ones analyzed by Hanson previously. While few historians of repute would argue against the reality that the siren song of defense reductions has lured the nation onto the shoals of unpreparedness for future conflict many times in the past, two shortcomings in Hanson’s piece beckon us to pause and reexamine.

The United States is a militaristic country because of the military budget, the military’s expansion into civilian areas, and military culture. The large and increasing budget of the military is an example of U.S. militarism. According to National Priorities

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

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.

The American soldiers fighting in foreign lands create a high cost of war. The multiple factors related to the high cost of maintaining America’s vast military bases in foreign lands is not sustainable, but the human cost of families coping with injuries suffered in war by home coming vets from foreign wars is not acceptable either. The foreign and political sides are the cost of maintaining a large military presence here and abroad is not feasible. Whereas, the concerns of war over domestic issues must be a balance between military spending and infrastructure was in America’s best interest. The main focus on key issues like causalities, political, foreign, and lobbyist and much more topics

In the two hundred years since 1775, there has been thirty-five years of fighting in what we consider major conflicts or wars. This averages out to about one year of war to every almost 6 years of our existence as a nation and during that time, we have not been without formal military organizations. Over the course of history, the United States has engaged in many battles that were a crucial phase in developing who and what we have become. Throughout this assessment, we will analyze what were some of the true tipping points that shaped (1) America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and, (2) How this relationship influences American warfare.

There are many circumstances that calling the military into support domestic emergencies could arise. In the last 15 years we have seen terrorism become the number one domestic related issue where the use of military forces may be needed. From my understanding of the readings in this section and from recent history only; it would have to be terrorism, or a major natural disaster as the only situations I can see where the use of the military would be needed. I’m sure I could come up with others, but for the purpose of this paper I am going to focus on terrorism being the culprit.

Imagine what the U.S economy would be like if the military would have ended intervention in Afghanistan sooner and focused on domestic problems. In this paper, I will explain how the United States could have exited the longest war they’ve ever fought far sooner than they did. The reasons I will use to support this include: The military is not trained to hunt one person, The U.S missed their chance to assassinate Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, The military was making no advancement in Afghanistan, They had no set strategy, Did not stick to one goal, Got in more trouble than it was worth, and the U.S majority were against it.

This essay examines whether or not airpower, along with its technological advances, improved or diminished the United States (US) ability to wage war according to the tenets of jus in bello. The goal of war should not be total annihilation of the enemy without regard to life and property. Although there are many perspectives on this topic, most philosophers believe technologically advanced air power has gone outside the realm of jus in bello. However, based on careful analysis, research shows leaders are required to follow the laws of war and exercise sound judgment. This argument is supported by examining just war theory and the key tenet jus in bello as it applies to technological advances in airpower.