Posted on Jun 14, 2014
Is 2014 really the time to downsize our military in any way?
2.58K
4
8
0
0
0
I am going to lob this one out there and leave it open to interpretation a bit. I for one have no choice but to keep up on world events. This leaves me asking, is this really the time to downsize our military in any way?
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Downsizing
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
0
0
0
I too have a job that entails keeping apprised of world events. This is NO time to be making ANY cuts as 2015 is forecast to be the year that the Global Economy is supposed to take a serious hit. Keep an eye on what's happening in Greece, a serious domino effect is poised to happen if they abandon the Euro and return to the drachma.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's all part of the plan of the WAR machine. The downsize is to get the voters at ease and to reduce operating cost while the new Government transitions whoever that will be. Once the situation hits a point of no return in where we must deploy again re arming our forces it's part of the economic grow plan. You need to have the country behind you to do so and right at this moment we are simply not there. Also recalling the IAR and expanding our forces would not be as difficult as we think we have 13 plus years of experience in doing so we would start with the sop loss stop move, re calling Inactive guard/ reserve with time on their contract and flooding the county with recruiters. We would be at war levels within 24months we already have being trough this road.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In a sense, we have no choice but to down size our military.
The last 14 years have allowed a particularly unsavory element creep into the ranks as a result of the numbers game.
The last 30 years have allowed a prioritization of the military industrial complex as a special interest organization that eats up 4.7% of the nations GDP making it only the 8th largest spender as a percentage. But being the largest economy in the world, that 4.7% represents 41% of the worlds global military spending.
I honestly believe that if we are going to remain competitive on an international we need to seriously consider a downsizing of our military budget.
After all, we should be congratulating ourselves on our own merit rather than on our ability to take what we want from the other kids on the playground.
The last 14 years have allowed a particularly unsavory element creep into the ranks as a result of the numbers game.
The last 30 years have allowed a prioritization of the military industrial complex as a special interest organization that eats up 4.7% of the nations GDP making it only the 8th largest spender as a percentage. But being the largest economy in the world, that 4.7% represents 41% of the worlds global military spending.
I honestly believe that if we are going to remain competitive on an international we need to seriously consider a downsizing of our military budget.
After all, we should be congratulating ourselves on our own merit rather than on our ability to take what we want from the other kids on the playground.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
If there was a national dependency on oil, I would agree with you. Unfortunately our dependency on oil is not controlled by the middle east, but by multinational corporations. In 2012 we were the second largest producer of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia by a slim margin. Our consumption of 18.5 million barrels a day (mpd) exceeds that production by 7.4 mpd, a gap that can be corrected be reducing the oil lobby in Washington and opening up other sources of energy (solar, hydro, nuclear, bio, etc.), or even contracting with countries outside of the middle east.
Even a shift to more sustainable modes of production for food (currently petroleum product intensive practices) and industrial products, or an increase in domestic prices for gasoline that would push commuters to less gas intensive means of transportation are options that would support a conservation of available resources as well.
Even a shift to more sustainable modes of production for food (currently petroleum product intensive practices) and industrial products, or an increase in domestic prices for gasoline that would push commuters to less gas intensive means of transportation are options that would support a conservation of available resources as well.
(1)
(0)
SFC Christopher Perry
I am glad you brought up the multinational corporation side of the discussion. In this highly globalized world we are not an island. A ripple in any part of the world can reach the shores of every state these days. Let us not forget 2008. There are very few examples of isolated incidents on the global stage today. The price of oil spiked when things kicked off in Iraq. While we may disagree on our oil dependency, in the end it does not matter. We are in the age of the global market. We have also, by way of past foreign policy, become the top dog when it comes to unpopularity. What I mean is, we are seen as the "great satan" in the eyes of international terrorism. Another reason we can not look at things purely from the internal perspective. A terrorist Iraq would mean massive turmoil in the region. While I think we may have gotten a little off track it makes for a fun spin on things. To control the situation in the Middle East would require a strong well equipped military. Pulling things inward would mean a shift in the Middle East the like of which we have never seen. To defend our borders from an emboldened terrorist threat would require a military of an unimaginable dimension. See what happens when you get my brain going? I am forced to view the world from the worst case scenario perspective, which can make you a little strange. It can also make you the guy the CoC does not really like to talk to.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
Unfortunately the perspective you are looking at is a glass half empty. Even when we take a look at every act of international aggression (Nation state or terrorist) that has successfully reached American shores, the counter damage has always done more to destabilize the alleged aggressor. For that matter, the damage we do to ourselves on a daily basis (domestic murders, theft, whimsical torte claims, and even domestic terrorism) exceeds the effects of either the 9/11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor. We kill more Americans from firearms in 4 months than died in the twin towers, an attack that allegedly took 5 years to plan... I don't see the cost benefit analysis of remaining on a post 9/11 security footing. I don't see why we went to it in the first place except as a knee jerk reaction. Except that security oriented corporations saw a profit to be made...
We may be the "Great Satan", largely because of our bully posturing, but the ability of anything other than a homegrown insurgency to meaningfully impact American GDP is impossible without a significant nation state economy backing it.
We may be the "Great Satan", largely because of our bully posturing, but the ability of anything other than a homegrown insurgency to meaningfully impact American GDP is impossible without a significant nation state economy backing it.
(0)
(0)
SGT Rick Ash
On the topic of 9/11, many of my friends feel that it was an inside job by Dubya so he would have a reason to invade Iraq. That always confused me since there was a neat little packet of Saudi passports, not dust covered, but discovered by first responders to Ground Zero. Wasn't popular opinion that the pilots of the planes were Saudi's?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google