awm, on 2017-March-04, 11:30, said:
Seems to me that Trump talks a lot about other countries doing more and the US having less military involvement abroad. He also talks a lot about how we need to make better deals and how he can (or did) save the US money on some of these expensive planes and other military hardware.
So... Why does he want a 50 billion dollar INCREASE in the military budget?
If you believe assessments about our military, it's in about the same shape as some of our infrastructure -- workable, but crumbling. There have been plenty of stories recently about how the Air Force has to cannibalize parts from some planes to keep barely sufficient number of planes operational for current commitments, that there aren't enough Army units that are combat ready, that troops currently deployed to hot spots are giving their weapons and equipment to their replacements troops so they can be fully equipped for the mission, etc. Part of that undoubtedly is from being engaged in conflicts in the Middle East for so long and having equipment wear out or be destroyed. Part of it is from equipment becoming obsolete.
So what? Our military strength and preparedness is a big part of our ability to execute our foreign policy and impinge on World affairs. If you have a reasonably strong and capable military, and, if necessary, are willing to use it, then it adds credence to what you are saying diplomatically. Or, as Theodore Roosevelt used to say, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." If you don't have that strength, then all your tough talk is hollow, useless, and will be ignored by your potential adversaries.
As President Trump says, there are a lot of bad dudes out there. Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, etc. They are presently acting aggressively to test and push the US and lessen its influence around the world in favor of increasing their own. At some point, if those aggressive actions continued unchecked, it means we'll have to accept the hegemony of these bad dudes rather than our own, hopefully, benign influence around the world.
Let's take Russia. If you take a look at Russia's history through the 20th century, you understand one thing. Russians are tough. Any country that has undergone the ordeals they did is going to be left with people who are really tough and hard. (In WWII, they lost something like 10MM-20MM people I think) As a result, they only respect and respond to strength. If you are going to deal with them, you have to be strong and resolute. And likely, they are going to test how strong and resolute you are. If they sense weakness, they will take advantage of it. That's exactly what Putin did with his adventurism in the Ukraine when he figured out how weak President Obama was and that there'd be no consequences other than some burdensome sanctions for acting as he did.
It appears that President Trump is pursuing a two track approach to strengthening our military.
On one track, he wants to make sure the money we spend on the military is well spent, so we get maximum utility out of every dollar we spend. That means negotiating fair prices for military hardware we purchase and not overspending on the development of new military equipment. That's a similar approach to that President John F. Kennedy used when he appointed Robert McNamara, who was President of Ford, to be his Defense Secretary.
On the other track, if current spending can't supply the things needed to even maintain our current capabilities and preparedness, then additional funds are necessary for that. In addition, as we move forward, some military equipment and systems become dated and obsolete, and you need to replace them with newer, up-to-date equipment and systems. But those new systems don't just magically appear when needed. So you have to provide some funds for development of these new systems because of the lead time to have them ready to be procured when needed. But for these new systems to be ready "on time", you can't just rely on potential savings elsewhere. They require some up front spending.
These two tracks are not mutually exclusive, but can be quite complementary. If done right, developing efficiencies and savings in military spending will offset some of the additional funding for development and keep military spending under control as possible over time.
Help
