A good column in today's NYT makes the point that with the ending of the FARC insurgency in Colombia (after 52 years), we now have peace throughout the Western Hemisphere. Of course, there is still plenty of violence and other problems, but I think the broader point here is that we (people in general) tend to focus on bad news, and often overlook the good news on how much progress has been made in various areas.
Here's an interesting passage to consider: "Today, there are no military governments in the Americas. No countries are fighting one another. And no governments are battling major insurgencies.
This progress of an entire hemisphere toward peace follows the path of other major regions of the world. Western Europe’s bloody centuries of warfare, culminating in the two world wars, have given way to seven decades of peace. The last military governments in that region, in Greece, Spain and Portugal, yielded to democratic rule in the 1970s. In East Asia, the wars of the mid-20th century — Japan’s conquests, the Chinese civil war and the wars in Korea and Vietnam — took millions of lives. Yet despite serious political disputes, East and Southeast Asia today are almost entirely free from active combat.
In fact, the world’s wars are now concentrated almost exclusively in a zone stretching from Nigeria to Pakistan, an area containing only a sixth of the world’s population. Far from being a “world at war,” as many people believe, we inhabit a world where five out of six people live in regions largely or entirely free of armed conflict."
Colombia's Milestone in World Peace - (
New Window )
There will always be crime, everywhere. And the Mexican Cartels do slightly blur the line between crime and insurgencies, but its not quite on the level of political insurgencies, civil wars or wars between neighboring countries.
Question is, leaving the question of wasteful spending aside, would the world be as peaceful if not for the level of defense spending? Would Putin be moving more aggressively against the former Russian states, particularly Ukraine and the Balkans? How aggressive would China be in the South China Sea? And there still ate the issues running from Nigeria to Pakistan. What I would like to see is a more reasonable level of spending by out NATO allies. The piggybacking was necessary in the aftermath of WWII, but should have been addressed as early as the 60's. The intervention in the Balkans in the mid/late 90's should have been strictly an EU action.
Quote:
at some point we have political will to downsize the DoD. The current spending levels are border line insanity.
Question is, leaving the question of wasteful spending aside, would the world be as peaceful if not for the level of defense spending? Would Putin be moving more aggressively against the former Russian states, particularly Ukraine and the Balkans? How aggressive would China be in the South China Sea? And there still ate the issues running from Nigeria to Pakistan. What I would like to see is a more reasonable level of spending by out NATO allies. The piggybacking was necessary in the aftermath of WWII, but should have been addressed as early as the 60's. The intervention in the Balkans in the mid/late 90's should have been strictly an EU action.
Defense spending is no longer just about keeping the world safe.
It also drives a shitload of high-quality American Engineering jobs.
Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )
The Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians might disagree.
China spends $215 billion.
The US spends $596 billion.
Even the most liberal, anti-war people in our country still understand the need to maintain a level of defense spending to maintain our military strength as a deterrent to would-be malicious factions abroad. The issue is the lack of political courage to scale back the defense budget even just minimally - even as the country is still working with a huge deficit and with several other domestic issues that need to be addressed - and even as we're currently living in the most peaceful time in the history of the civilized world.
Quote:
There are also better uses for the money, e.g. cancer research
The Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians might disagree.
And I missed the most obvious, the Yazidis. We've actually prevented Holocausts.
njm, can we accomplish those goals for $400B or $500B?
Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
China spends $215 billion.
The US spends $596 billion.
Even the most liberal, anti-war people in our country still understand the need to maintain a level of defense spending to maintain our military strength as a deterrent to would-be malicious factions abroad. The issue is the lack of political courage to scale back the defense budget even just minimally - even as the country is still working with a huge deficit and with several other domestic issues that need to be addressed - and even as we're currently living in the most peaceful time in the history of the civilized world.
While certainly not accounting for all of the difference, the difference in pay scale for an all volunteer US army and an army of draftees at Chinese prevailing wages explains a material part of it.
Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.
I guess the benefit of this is that it does focus people's attentions on problems that need to be fixed -- and there will always be those. The downside is, sometimes we take for granted what progress has been made, or if the bad news seems overwhelming, there's a tendency for people to throw up their hands and say there's nothing they can do.
Quote:
all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.
Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.
Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.
Quote:
In comment 13087179 BillKo said:
Quote:
all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.
Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.
Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.
Sorry, I misread your post. Yes, the military is a sacred cow these days, and any talk of closing obsolete bases or canceling useless weapon purchases is met by cries of "you don't support the troops". Irritates me greatly.
Quote:
In comment 13087179 BillKo said:
Quote:
all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.
Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.
Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.
Which people?
How does the Times count the Venezuelan or Cuban authoritarian regimes?
Quote:
the Colombian government is going to put the peace deal to a referendum, so it could still be rejected. As we saw with Brexit, leaving these decisions to the masses can backfire. Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )
Yes, these "masses" should simply defer to the infallible judgment of their betters.
How does the Times count the Venezuelan or Cuban authoritarian regimes?
Interesting point. Don't Raul Castro and Maduro (and Chavez before him) wear military uniforms?
Can't have one without the other...
On a more somber note, can we truly say the the United States is at peace or be content with the state of world affairs when there are American servicemen and women still overseas fighting and dying on behalf of our country?
It's already started of course but expect the trend to continue that has military forces expanding their role to less traditionally "defense" related tasks.
Quote:
In comment 13087197 NYerInMA said:
Quote:
In comment 13087179 BillKo said:
Quote:
all the talk of how much we spend on defense. Defense is important.
Some would want you to believe we have cut our military to the degree where we can't defend ourselves anymore.............
Depends on how you define "defending ourselves." For example, do you really need to be able to project force anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice? Do you really need to keep 28,500 troops in South Korea AND ~50,000 troops in Japan? It's nice to be able to crow about having the world's best military, but that's a different profile than defending the U.S. from external threats. I think you could probably knock at least $100-$200 billion off the military budget and still be able to defend the U.S. effectively. As posted above, at this point the military budget is more about providing jobs for the economy than actually deploying a fighting force in defense of the homeland.
Oh I agree....it's the one spot you can cut and still be very effective. But I am saying some people would make you think we have cut it so much, that we are a shell of what we used to be.
Which people?
Trump for one.
I'm going to guess we spend a lot more on our own infrastructure. According to the CBO (via the OMB and Census Bureau) we spend ~$416B on US infrastructure in 2014.
Link - ( New Window )
Based on what? Per this site the total is ~$160B over the 10+ years:
The Iraq expenditure is more than four times the sum committed to Iraq by America’s allies. In Afghanistan stabilization is expected to cost at least $9 billion per year through 2014.
These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.
$414B in one year >>>>> $160B over 10 years
Link - ( New Window )
$1.4 trillion ONLY for reconstruction costs doesn't pass the smell test. Could you provide a source?
Quote:
There is still a war with Mexican drug lords. That counts.
There will always be crime, everywhere. And the Mexican Cartels do slightly blur the line between crime and insurgencies, but its not quite on the level of political insurgencies, civil wars or wars between neighboring countries.
I think this all depends on how you look at it. When you have the Mexican government using its military to combat these cartels, that has killed more people than many insurgent groups have, I think it's premature to say there is relative peace in all countries. Throw in similar stories in other Central American countries, and you are still fighting overwhelming threat of violence in many of these countries.
njm, can we accomplish those goals for $400B or $500B?
We're trying to get there by reducing our forces. However, many of our weapons systems are aging with many equipment still being used well beyond their prescribed life-cycle, and in order to get newer (and more capable) systems, you have to spend a boatload of money. Now we can argue that going back to buying 3rd and 4th generation fighters or less capable ships, tanks, and other systems may be more cost effective, but warfare is all about advancing faster than your enemies. And in order to do so, you have to research, build, and buy those 5th generation fighters, those stealth ships, those IED and mine survivable vehicles, and so and on and on.
Things get expensive fast. Oh yeah, lets also not forget that the cost associated with so many service members having been exposed to combat/trauma/etc. can add up in the future as well.
My reading of the article is that the $1.4 trillion represents the total of BOTH reconstruction and non-reconstruction costs over that multiyear period.
Quote:
.
My reading of the article is that the $1.4 trillion represents the total of BOTH reconstruction and non-reconstruction costs over that multiyear period.
That's how I read it as well. That the reconstruction cost was $160 billion and the remainder was the cost of doing military operations and stabilizing those nations since the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan began.
Quote:
China spends $215 billion.
The US spends $596 billion.
Even the most liberal, anti-war people in our country still understand the need to maintain a level of defense spending to maintain our military strength as a deterrent to would-be malicious factions abroad. The issue is the lack of political courage to scale back the defense budget even just minimally - even as the country is still working with a huge deficit and with several other domestic issues that need to be addressed - and even as we're currently living in the most peaceful time in the history of the civilized world.
While certainly not accounting for all of the difference, the difference in pay scale for an all volunteer US army and an army of draftees at Chinese prevailing wages explains a material part of it.
You want a peace dividend, it means shedding military personnel.
And the deterrent/stabilizing effect of our military is huge.
Quote:
In comment 13087119 NYerInMA said:
Quote:
the Colombian government is going to put the peace deal to a referendum, so it could still be rejected. As we saw with Brexit, leaving these decisions to the masses can backfire. Colombia's peace deal with the FARC could still fall apart - ( New Window )
Yes, these "masses" should simply defer to the infallible judgment of their betters.
How does the Times count the Venezuelan or Cuban authoritarian regimes?
Interesting point. Don't Raul Castro and Maduro (and Chavez before him) wear military uniforms?
It's not the Times that is making these claims, it's the op-ed contributors: Pinker and Dos Santos. I guess they're not classifying Cuba or Venezuela as military dictatorships, although you could certainly make the case they are. Perhaps they classify Cuba as a Communist dictatorship, although of course it's backed up by the military. Venezuela is a little more complicated. It has opposition parties, but whether those parties will ever be allowed to win the presidency is an open question.
We do need better R&D and preparations to bring inevitably bring Matt Damon back when he gets stranded somewhere in the solar system.
Quote:
based on the current environment I believe the opposite is true.
njm, can we accomplish those goals for $400B or $500B?
We're trying to get there by reducing our forces. However, many of our weapons systems are aging with many equipment still being used well beyond their prescribed life-cycle, and in order to get newer (and more capable) systems, you have to spend a boatload of money. Now we can argue that going back to buying 3rd and 4th generation fighters or less capable ships, tanks, and other systems may be more cost effective, but warfare is all about advancing faster than your enemies. And in order to do so, you have to research, build, and buy those 5th generation fighters, those stealth ships, those IED and mine survivable vehicles, and so and on and on.
Things get expensive fast. Oh yeah, lets also not forget that the cost associated with so many service members having been exposed to combat/trauma/etc. can add up in the future as well.
Drones are the future. Cheaper drones.
And yes, China stealing EEZ's of other Asian countries would go on unabated. They already told the World Court to eff off.
I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I seriously doubt we could cut back much, especially when many of our "allies" have reneged on their responsibilities.
And yes, China stealing EEZ's of other Asian countries would go on unabated. They already told the World Court to eff off.
I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I seriously doubt we could cut back much, especially when many of our "allies" have reneged on their responsibilities.
The South Korean troop deployment makes more sense than the Japanese one. But it is really our responsibility to police the South China Sea because South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei, and Malaysia can't be bothered?
I would hope at the very least that the U.S. could get some compensation, whether it be in the form of outright payments or some sort of economic preference, for these efforts in order to offset the costs of providing protection.
Now people can argue that we don't need to have such power projection anymore, and there will be valid points on both sides. But fact remains that it's mutually beneficial to have these bases.
Hahaha...hahaha