Social Question

ETpro's avatar

How can militarism that bankrupts a nation make it more secure?

Asked by ETpro (34208 points ) January 5th, 2012

President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Martin Dempsey held a briefing in the Pentagon briefing room. They announced the end of the Two War Strategy, and ideas for a slimmer military budget that is sustainable. Of course, the immediate press reaction was, “Can we abandon the Two War Strategy and maintain US security?”

What!!!? Can we keep funding an unsustainable multi-war strategy forever and maintain US Security? That might be a more logical question. History is littered with nations that bankrupted themselves trying to maintain a far-flung empire. Where is the security in bankrupting the country?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

13 Answers

Linda_Owl's avatar

The short answer is….. it won’t. We are still up to our necks in Afghanistan & it now appears that we are preparing to invade/attack Iran. There is no benefit for America in these wars, but these wars will bring in tons of money for the military industrial complex

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Well spending money on shit to blow up other peoples shit sounds like very sound economic policy to me.

Blackberry's avatar

O Canada, O Canada….....I’m on my way. Lol.

mazingerz88's avatar

I’m glad Gingrich doesn’t Fluther. He would probably say, militarism does not bankrupt America, it’s the social welfare program that does. Most political decisions based on common sense is greeted by reaction based on irrational fear. And most gullible people succumb to that. It’s better to be bankrupt than dead, see?

Aethelflaed's avatar

I’m no economist, but I’m fairly positive that if we just make sure everyone who isn’t insanely rich is denied healthcare, education, and housing, we can actually keep strengthening our nation’s security by going to war with every country that looks at us the wrong way.~

Jaxk's avatar

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. We complain about the cost of the wars but in reality they are only about 20% of our military spending. We complain that our military spending is higher than the rest of the world combined. Very true.

We maintain military presence throughout the world and act as the protector for entire free world. That is where we get ourselves into deep shit. I believe we should have the strongest military in the world. It provides a level of security that we can’t get any other way. I’m just not sure it needs to be so far flung. If S.Korea needs protection (it does) then S.Korea needs to pony up the cash to pay for that military presence. If they can’t (or won’t) it’s time to pull out. Same with Germany, Europe, and all the other places where we maintain a presence.

I don’t fault Bush for going into Iraq (I know that’s hotly contested) but 10 years was too long. No more nation building or trying to ‘Win the Hearts and Minds’. If we feel there is a threat to our security, we need to win and win quickly. Hell we won WWII in 4 years with antiquated military against the greatest military machine in the world. 10 years for Iraq is ridiculous (and we didn’t win the hearts and minds anyway). War is not an endeavor to be taken lightly but when you do, you don’t play by Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Overall I believe the military could be cut by about a third without hurting our security or our standing in the world. Mainly just pulling back our presence anywhere the military is not in our immediate security interests or not paid for by the countries that need it. We need the most advanced military but we don’t need it everywhere in the world. IMHO

mazingerz88's avatar

@Jaxk Nice. I agree with everything that you said, except for that one not faulting Bush for going into Iraq.

Jaxk's avatar

@mazingerz88

A disagreement I can live with.

ragingloli's avatar

Yeah I guess some people do not realise that spreading your forces too thin across the globe leaves your base less defended.
Then there is the fact that american warmongering leads to more terrorism by reinforcing terrorists in their opinion about america and increasing their recruitment numbers.
I would also bet that Iran’s alleged aspirations to get a nuclear weapon are also partly a direct response to america’s warmongering.

@Jaxk
It was the Soviet Union that defeated the Nazis by simple zerg rushing and destroying the majority of German forces on the eastern front.

cazzie's avatar

I thought rhetorical questions were pointless here on fluther?

ETpro's avatar

@Linda_Owl President Eisenhower’s warning about the growing power of the Military Industrial Complex has proven to be prescient. I do not think we took his warning seriously enough.

@mazingerz88 It seems all the RepubliCon candidates with the possible exception of Huntsman have gone right back to the same Neo-Con chicken hawks that brought us into usch grief and were so utterly wrong in their advice to Bush.

@Aethelflaed Perfect satirical sendup of the lunacy.

@Jaxk What @mazingerz88 said. If you care to debate whether Bush and even the American people should have known the Iraq war was sold on lies, I will be glad to have that debate. I’d suggest you or I concoct a question separately for that purpose, though.

@ragingloli “Then there is the fact that american warmongering leads to more terrorism by reinforcing terrorists in their opinion about america and increasing their recruitment numbers.” One of the facts Ron Paul inconveniently pointed out. And you are absolutely right about what defeated the Nazi war machine.

GracieT's avatar

@ETpro, once again WELL SAID!

ETpro's avatar

@GracieT :-) Thanks.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther