Saturday, January 13, 2007
War VS. People
The war has cost America now over 400 billion dollars. As a student I get affected by this war because tuition gets raised and financial aid gets cut. Are we at war for what the news and government really tell us or is it true that the real war is right here in America? Is it true that the real people who are suffering is Americans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I think we could still stand to spend a little more on our troops, actually. US expenditures on defense remain at a very modest level, compared to both the gross domestic product and total taxes collected. Our defense budget comes out to about 3.7% of our GDP, low even for a country in peacetime. As a percentage of federal outlays, each year's annual military spending from the mid 90's to the present has been lower than every previous year since 1940. It's now at 19.8%, for comparison the lowest point it reached between World War 2 and the Vietnam war was around 30%, the lull between Vietnam and President Reagan's military buildup was around 24%, and in the late 90's it was as low as 17%.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009124
I believe this war is a waste of our government money and our Fathers,our Mothers,our Sons and our Daughters lives. Have we really accomplished anything with this war? Are we going to accomplish anything or will all those lives be taken in vain? The U.S. need to stay home and fix the problems we have here.
Three problems with those numbers, Dan.
1. They don't include any of the spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are outside of the official budget.
2. The historical comparison is not a very valid one, since World War II and the Cold War were far more consuming of resources than anything that has happened since the beginning of the 1990s. Expenditures should not be at World War levels when we aren't in a World War.
3. Comparing the military expenditures of countries by a percentage of GDP makes no sense. Military expenditures are not directly related to the size of a country's economy. Japan's economy is almost as powerful as ours, yet they have a tiny percentage of our military budget. Absolute spending is how you compare military spending, since it matters little how many bombs you have as a percentage of GDP, it only matters that you have more (or better quality) than your enemy. We spend more than everyone else in the world combined. That's the only comparison that matters.
1. The first link does include discretionary spending specifically, not just the predetermined defense budget. I can't be sure about the second link, but the interest of fairness is why I bothered including 2 sources anyway.
2. I tried to be as fair as possible when comparing past numbers; I didn't compare the war on terror to our countries previous wars, I compared it to the low points of relative peace between the wars. (WW2 took up to 90% of the budget, not 30%; I know we're not in a world war so I compared our current situation to previous peacetimes.)
3. I provided both (and the only two) forms of budget comparisons I could find, vs. GDP, and vs. federal spending. This is the main reason I obtained a second source, to not be as one-dimensional as those who would only include the numbers that look the best. Again my attempt was to be as fair as possible; I thought about including numbers from websites trying to prove the opposite ( http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm ), but the other side of the fence appears much more skewed- they threw in a percentage of the national debt because they feel that war is 80% responsible for our entire debt, and threw in separate programs such as VA without trying to prove that the VA is spending more now that we're at war.
Yes it's true that Japan's GDP comparison is at 1%, because their economy is large and military small, but every country can't be at the bottom of the list. ( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html ). I agree that the GDP comparison is not perfect, but I believe I direct $ comparison is not fair either. We would still spend far more than every country in the world were we not at war (according to what I've found, we currently spend more than the next 20 countries combined, not all of them by the way), largely because we have the most to defend. More importantly, we are generally the first, and often the only country, to provide military aid to the rest of the world; if our military weren't so large, and so active in maintaining stability in places thousands of miles from our borders, other countries like Japan would have many more reasons to increase the size and power of their own military. Look at the 1991 gulf war for example; NATO declared war, and supposedly NATO defeated the Iraqi army (the 4th largest in the world at that time btw), but how much did the other countries really help us? What motivation do the other NATO countries have to spend on their military, when they know any conflict they get involved in will largely be settled by the United States?
And of course you are correct that the necessity of military spending won't increase simply because the GDP increases, but simply having "more bombs and better bombs" than the enemy shouldn't be enough. Surpassing the enemy is not the goal, it's surpassing the enemy by as much as possible, to reduce the deaths of our forces. If the military had more available electronic warfare planes, predator UAVs, and Blackhawk helicopters, for example, the likelihood of instances such as remote controlled IED strikes, enemy combatants escaping our forces, and casualties bleeding out before the medevac arrives, would decrease, respectively.
As for Wesley, I appreciate someone referring to the soldiers' lives over taxes, but a lot of soldiers are still hoping that the deaths of noncombatants in our own country won't turn out to be in vain. By now almost every soldier in the US Army has had their chance to get out, knowing that we are at war, and almost every new junior enlisted soldier joined knowing they would be sent to the middle east. Regardless of who had WMD's and who didn't, who supported terrorism and who didn't, terrorists are there now, flooding in from other countries. As such, many of America's servicemen and women hope not for simply an end to war, but hope for stability in the middle east, and eventually a lack of countries there that will provide a safe haven to terrorists.
1. Discretionary spending refers simply to optional spending that isn't automatically required each year. Discretionary spending is part of the budget. The war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan is supplemental spending, which is in addition to the official budget.
2. While comparing our current spending to World Wars isn't valid, it also isn't valid to compare it to peace time, since we are currently involved in two official wars and an unofficial "war on terror." I'm not sure what historical period would be a better comparison (Maybe a smaller war such as the Korean War).
3. It would clearly be incorrect to claim that war is primarily responsible for our debt, it would be say that it primarily comes from defense spending (mostly during peacetime). Almost all of our national debt was racked up from 1980-1996 and 2001-present. These time periods are directly associated with the Cold War and the war on terror and took place at the same time as tax cuts. Increased spending and decreased tax revenue equals national debt.
When you do the third homework assignment, you'll see the numbers for military spending. Those numbers clearly show that as of 2005's official budget, we spent 48% of all military spending in the world. When you add in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, that number goes above 50%.
I'm not sure by what measure we have the "most to defend." Both Russia and China have significantly more land, China and India have significantly more population and many countries have comparable resources.
We don't give military aid to every country in the world, and I'm not sure that such assistance is part of the official military budget. It may be, but it may also be from other parts of the budget or off-budget altogether.
All major military/economic powers in the world provide military assistance to their allies. It's true that we are among the leaders, if not the leader, in military aid, we are far from the only country to do it.
While we were the biggest contributor to the success of the first Gulf War, there were certainly major contributions from many of our allies, from troops and equipment from every NATO member and some from outside NATO to large financial contributions from countries like Japan.
I've also never heard the "surpassing the enemy" theory -- which is a common one -- expressed "as much as possible." As far as I've ever heard, the idea is "as much as necessary," not "possible." It would be possible to spend trillions of dollars on the military, but it wouldn't be necessary or helpful to anything in particularly.
Some of the problem with military spending, though, is not that it is inadequate, it is that quite a bit of it is poorly spent. All of the major contractors that work with the military have been convicted of defrauding the government. And you have members of Congress requiring spending on multi-billion dollar weapons systems that aren't necessary and aren't even requested or wanted by the military. The more useful weapons systems seem to generally be much cheaper than some of the stuff we waste money on.
I'm also not too sure that there are many soldiers willing to die to make sure that a fellow soldier's death three years ago wasn't in vain. Some may buy that logic, but most of the soldiers I've talked to wouldn't.
2. The Korean war took a whopping 70% of federal outlays to fund at it's peak. I felt it was too large a war and an unfair comparison. I compared the current spending to peacetime, because those times provided the level of spending most similar to right now (although all were higher, except the peacetime in the 90's).
4. So does "above 50%" mean just barely above it, or closer to 59%? If it's the way it sounds, that indicates the statistics change by approximately 4% when you include the spending done specifically for Afghanistan and Iraq; that would mean that the statistics that don't include supplemental spending might not be exact, but still suggest that our spending is relatively low for peacetime, even though we are at war.
5. By "most to defend" I mean that we are by far the biggest economic superpower (if you can call anyone else a superpower). We also have the honor of having large numbers of people throughout the world hate us, and we aren't afraid to make alliances with others who are hated (Israelis, for example). We are also a potential threat to every other country's sovereignty and economic well-being, should they do something "we don't like." As such much of the world's focus is on us, much of the hatred in the world will be aimed at us, and much of the world could potentially benefit from our misfortune.
6. I agree that we are not the only country to provide military aid, and that is part of my point- if the US were less active militarily, other countries would step up to the plate, and as such likely increase their own military spending. But in the real world, other countries know we have many interests to protect around the world, and in many conflicts we'll not only get involved, but lead the way or do it all ourselves. As such, they can afford to spend less on their military than they would if the US were somehow isolationist.
7. I simply speak on behalf of the wishes of many US Army infantrymen when I say "as much as possible," as there are many, many advantages that can save American lives that they "wish" they had, but aren't afforded, (somehow) due to cost. There is also no perceived limit to what can help, no line that indicates "necessary" until so many advantages for our forces exist that the war is immediately won. For example, the "trillions" of dollars in your example, if we put every last cent of that into Predator UAV's and their command station personnel, it would in fact be very helpful. While of course nothing so simple could be the most efficient way to spend it, an enormous amount of predator coverage would allow our forces to have a set of eyes over every area of the country at once, and even fight most of the battles via remote control. US casualties would screech to a near-standstill, and the enemy would rarely escape from any attack. This is of course not what I actually suggest, and doesn't prove we need to spend trillions on the military, but merely suggests that spending money on the military *can* save lives, or even get the war over quicker.
8. I would tend to agree with the lack of efficiency and moral responsibility involved with using taxpayers money to help soldiers on the ground, both from congress and the military leadership (in fact I've seen some things that may shock you in this regard). Undoubtedly more support elements that save lives could be purchased if less money was wasted on developing unneeded trash equipment, etcetera. I'm all for reforming of the current spending system (no easy task , mind you, and I don't see it happening until our political system itself is reformed), but simply cutting funding isn't going to do that.
9. As for the deaths in vain, I referred to the attack on non-combatants (civilians), on American soil. The military saw a huge surge in enlistment immediately after the 9/11 attacks, and the start of the war on terror. I joined shortly before the invasion of Iraq, but after the war in Afghanistan had started, served the standard tour of duty, and am now out. With some rare exceptions (5 and 6 year tours, inactive reserve activations), those who are going to war now knew about the situation in Iraq when they made the decision that landed them in combat. Even fewer, or perhaps none, have not had the chance to get out of the military since the start of the war in Afghanistan. So undoubtedly in the past few years there have been many who've decided they strongly disagree with the war, have gotten out, and ranted about it to their college professors, but more and more the ratio is leaning towards those who want to go downrange, or at least accept the possibility of being sent.
4. The percentage of overall world military spending that is done by the U.S. has nothing to do with whether or not our spending is high or low compared to peacetime, it is a measure of how much more we are spending than our enemies (or allies for that matter).
5. I'm not sure I buy the "most to defend" argument you make. We are the biggest economic superpower, but that doesn't necessarily mean that much or most of our economy needs to be defended. Most of it is beyond the reach of foreing powers. Sure, they can blow up buildings, but they can't have much impact on our economy other than a temporary one. Also, we are far from the only country that has large numbers of people throughout the world hating us. That is true of lots of countries and, generally speaking, militant Muslims rage against the "West," not just the U.S. Others don't seem to have to much problem making alliances with countries like Israel, either. And it was less than ten years ago when we had widespread global goodwill on our side. Outside of the extremist Muslim world, we were widely liked up until the invasion of Iraq, which is when that started to change.
6. Logically the "they don't spend much because they know we'll take care of things" makes sense, but I'm not sure there is much evidence to support it. Most of our involvement in foreign affairs from 1973-2003 was quite minor (Gulf War excepted) and in relatively minor conflicts (Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Balkans) for limited amounts of time. I'm not sure that such a record would give many countries the feeling that we would take care of them if they needed it. Maybe, but I'd have to see some evidence to back that argument up.
7. I'm not sure that most of the things you might suggest would help in the field are not purchased because they are too expensive. I think political considerations are a bigger part of it. There may not be a perceived limit, but logically, there has to be an upper limit. You wouldn't suggest that we need $300 trillion for the military, so their is obviously an upper limit, the only debate is where exactly that limit might be, which isn't an easy question to answer.
I certainly agree that spending more money in the field can save lives, I think that is self-evident, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the overall military budget has to be raised to do that. Most of the defense budget has nothing to do with combat expenditures.
As far as getting the war over quicker, I'm not sure that is possible. For us to win, we have to either wipe out most or all of the insurgents or get them to stop their attacks. For them to win, all they have to do is not all die. Insurgencies are rarely defeated, although it is possible. I don't think 21,500 more troops will have any effect, though, as it isn't nearly enough according to any analyst of insurgencies that I've ever heard of, including the new Lt. General in charge of the Iraq theater.
8. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting cutting funding. Reform would be a much more efficient, effective and morally correct method of increasing funding for troops in the field.
9. I don't disagree that more recent enlistees know what they are getting into, but I still doubt many would say they are signing up in order to prevent anybody's death from being in vain. And, of course, the attacks on American soil had nothing to do with Iraq. There was a increase in enlistment after 9/11 and steady declines since the invasion began. My understanding is that the stop-loss program has prevented quite a few people who wanted to get out from doing so. And it isn't just those who have gotten out who disagree with the war, a significant majority of active military (both those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who haven't) disagree with the war, according to last December's Military Times poll.
7. Not necessarily "too expensive" for the entire military, but once a certain task force or battalion has expended it's own individual budget, things that could help are not bought. (We agree on the stance that somewhere else in the DoD somebody with a HUGE budget is just flushing away money, in the meantime.)
The example I gave was extreme of course, but it would potentially allow us to remove ground troops from areas in favor of constant UAV support for the Iraqis, hence the "war over quicker." Again not the most realistic approach, but it's possible.
8. From what I took from the original post, someone is suggesting cutting funding. If all anyone suggested was reform to get more money into support aircraft or whatnot and less into poor decisions or simple tit-for-tat exchanges between politicians and defense contractors, I'd be all for it. This post started, however, leaning more on the side of simply taking the money away and letting the DoD figure out what to scratch.
And while reform *could* be used to simply save taxpayers some money, considering the relative low money I'd prefer it get recycled to where it's actually needed in the military.
9. Like I said in the other post about Iraq, at the time the Sept 11th attacks had nothing to do with Iraq, but since Al-Qaeda is there now, they are connected. If we stabilized Afghanistan and left Iraq to it's own devices, we haven't done anything to prevent Al-Qaeda from acquiring a suitable home.
The stop loss program only works for one deployment, after it's over they get to go home, albeit late. So those that are trapped doing something they don't want to do are few and their numbers decreasing. I don't doubt the polls, but many of them could be the people about to get out, and many others could simply think the war should still be fought but in a different (usually much "rougher") way, for example continuous bombing campaigns and things that would affect the world's opinion of us enough to not be a reasonable course of action.
>From what I took from the original post, someone is suggesting cutting funding.
I don't actually see that in the original post.
>Like I said in the other post about Iraq, at the time the Sept 11th attacks had nothing to do with Iraq, but since Al-Qaeda is there now, they are connected.
I'm not sure I understand this logic. Are you saying that since al-Qaeda is in Iraq now, there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11? I don't see that at all. 9/11 and Iraq still have no connection. Al-Qaeda and Iraq now have a connection, but it isn't Iraq the government or Iraq the country, it is the insurgency in Iraq.
>we haven't done anything to prevent Al-Qaeda from acquiring a suitable home.
We would have prevented them from acquiring a suitable home in Afghanistan and that is something, not nothing. Besides, we have destroyed the home and training grounds they had in Afghanistan, which is significant, because they will have to re-establish and re-fund everything that is destroyed. We have done a lot to cut their international funding, so this is a important accomplishment.
>I don't doubt the polls, but many of them could be the people about to get out, and many others could simply think the war should still be fought but in a different (usually much "rougher") way, for example continuous bombing campaigns and things that would affect the world's opinion of us enough to not be a reasonable course of action.
It's just as possible that many of those active military complaining about the war are not people about to get out or people who think it should be rougher. You jump to a conclusion here not warranted by the evidence.
Al-Qaeda's recent big "achievement," and their current attempted big "achievement" are connected in my book. Separate organizations may or may not contribute, but I believe the Iraq war to be Al-Qaeda's main focus right now.
I don't think an organization such as Al-Qaeda, that's spread out from East Africa to the Philipenes, has that much to lose in an area as unstable as Afghanistan. There were even more sightings of Bin Laden in Pakistan and the Sudan BEFORE the war started, when Bin Laden had no reason to stay out of Afghanistan. While there's no way to know for sure right now if we actually made a financial dent in Al-Qaeda, I firmly believe withdrawing out of either country would lead them to step up their international terrorism efforts, and likely prove that we hadn't.
As for the polls, either conclusion cannot totally be warranted by the evidence. Simply a "yes or no" response to the question "Do you agree with the war?" does not indicate that a "no" answer means what people may think it means. What I have learned from my personal experience is that over a 4 year period, most soldiers I met who complained about the war as a whole complained in a much different way than most civilians would complain. The most common complaints I heard questioned why a country as powerful as ours would let ourselves get drawn into a lengthly ground war, when we could just as easily bomb and destroy and withdraw over and over again until either A) the locals got fed up and took the power away from those who were "drawing fire", or B) there were simply nothing left to bomb. "Forget world opinion, do it the way the Romans would have done it" was a common phrase for this idea.
Thinking of al-Qaeda as "an organization," isn't a very good way to think about it. Most of the people who are in "al-Qaeda" have had no contact with Bin Laden or anyone who ever had any contact with him or any of his people. It's more like a franchise thing without the contract. New groups pop up calling themselves al-Qaeda affiliates, despite having no real connection to the original group.
You can see this most clearly in the fact that the State Department actually recognizes al-Qaeda-in-Iraq as a separate terrorist organization from the original and lists them as such in their documentation.
Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, most of the leadership and planners for al-Qaeda (the actual group, not the wannabes) were in Afghanistan and we have killed our captured most of those people. Last I heard (from the administration and from analysts) was about 75%. My understanding is that we have stopped the primary funding sources for the original group.
As for your comments on the polls, keep in mind that your personal experience is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and can't possibly prove anything. Even though you may have talked to a lot of people in four years, that doesn't mean that you talked to a large enough or representative enough sample for those opinions to be characteristic of a broader group.
Post a Comment