Despite two huge oceans on our coasts, and two friendly countries north and south, Americans are paranoid, and stupid about how to achieve a safe nation and sustain national security. For one thing, national security requires "soft power" more than bullets! The State Department wastes their budgets just like DoD, but the State Department is better "welfare" than DoD and is likely to keep people alive rather than kill them.
Americans see the "welfare" of DoD as more valuable than the welfare we give our citizens because they see security and safety as more important than caring for our citizens, despite the fact we do not fight modern wars on our soil . . . At least not so far.
"Welfare’s last stand"
Long in retreat in the US, the welfare state found a haven in an unlikely place – the military, where it thrived for decades
Jennifer Mittelstadtis a political historian of the United States and an associate professor at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Her latest book is The Rise of the Military Welfare State (2015).
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-us-military-became-a-welfare-state
"The military welfare state is hidden in plain sight, its welfare function camouflaged by its war-making auspices. Only the richest Americans could hope to access a more systematic welfare network. Military social welfare features a web of near-universal coverage for soldiers and their families – housing, healthcare, childcare, family counselling, legal assistance, education benefits, and more. The programmes constitute a multi-billion-dollar-per-year safety net, at times accounting for nearly 50 per cent of the Department of Defense budget (DoD). Their real costs spread over several divisions of the defence budget creating a system so vast that the DoD acknowledged it could not accurately reckon its total expense."
Ignorance is one of Tweety's MANY weaknesses. He knows NOTHING of DoD. Does DoD know the threats we face?
America is paranoid. We do not need to accept overly complex weapon systems, state-of-the-art. Too complex systems are part of the problem. Technology does not have to come packaged in a failing system.
"The Pentagon must modernize before it’s too late"
By Robert O. Work andElbridge Colby September 17, 2018
This is CLEARLY a case of former militarists feeding our paranoia! BUT, we need to meet real threats when they are REAL.
"Robert O. Work served as deputy secretary of defense from 2014 to 2017. Elbridge Colby served as deputy assistant secretary of defense from 2017 to 2018. Work is a distinguished fellow and Colby the director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security."
First warning sign - advice that says we need to upgrade in a hurry. Rushing defense acquisitions can hurt a lot by rushing into impossible tasks. Rushing a weapon system can help a little by lowering expectations, but DoD and the Industrial Complex tend to ask for state-of-the-art solutions to problems needing an efficient and effective solution, not a coffee pot that can survive an B-1 crash landing.
"For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon has a genuinely new strategy: Focus on our rivals — Russia and, in particular, China — and maintain a competitive advantage over them. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warns in his 2018 National Defense Strategy that if we fail to do so, we may lose the next big war against these nations. If that happens, say goodbye to the free and open international order the United States has built and upheld since the 1940s.
So will the Defense Department take the big steps needed to implement this strategy? That’s the key question — and this is a key moment. That’s because, earlier this year, Congress gave the Defense Department its largest budget increase since 2001 — a 10 percent raise, after inflation. In return, the Pentagon must show meaningful progress in realizing this strategy.
And it needs to do it in a hurry. [Uh oh! Rushing inot waste and abuse will not provide American tax payers a good solution!] China and Russia have spent decades building militaries specifically designed to fight and beat ours."
Is the Wash Post feeding America's paranoia, and is this a Military Industrial Complex ploy to get BIGGER BUIDGETS!? Yes. Maybe intelligent thought ill be applied?
"Accomplishing this means either not doing some things, or doing other things in a less expensive way. For instance, we cannot squander the readiness of our forces in the fight against terrorism, as we have too often done. But we need to be prepared to leave expensive platforms that don’t fit the new priorities on the cutting-room floor, no matter their proud history or political constituencies."
DO NOT INBCREASE MILITARY BUDGETS! DO NOT ACT TO PLEASE CONSTITUENTS ON INDIVIDUAL STATES!
"Throwing more money at the military won’t make it stronger" [Duh! Captain Obvious!]
By Fareed Zakaria Columnist focusing on foreign affairs March 2, 2018
"Why we must raise defense spending"
[Because we need more WELFARE! SOCIALISM! JOBS! NO NEED TO READ ROBERT'S WORDS. HE'S CONFUSED ON WHAT WELFARE IS, AND IT IS NOT!]
By Robert J. Samuelson Focusing on economics December 10, 2017
"The Pentagon and the welfare state have been locked in brutal combat for decades, and the Pentagon has gotten clobbered. [NOT TRUE! BOTH HAVE DRAINED OUR BUDGETS, and DOD IS AS MUCH WELFARE AS SOCIAL SECURITY! THINK!] Protecting the country was once the first obligation of government. No more. Welfare programs — Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and other benefits — dwarf defense spending. As a result, we have become more vulnerable."
Paranoia and stupidity, Robert, peddled by you in this article, are not going to help DoD finds the right way to spend trillion dollar budgets!
"China on Its Way to Becoming Powerful Enough 'to Beat Any Military in the World,' U.S. Says"
By Tom O'Connor On 8/23/18 at 9:23 AM
https://www.newsweek.com/us-says-china-way-becoming-powerful-enough-beat-any-military-world-1086473
"Trump is right to spend more on defense. Here’s how to do so wisely"
By Michèle Flournoy March 1, 2017
Does Michele know what she is talking about? Lets read on. Is it the common readiness issue?
" . . . inadequate training time and maintenance and replacement of equipment . . . "
What is the priority?
"The larger challenge will be striking the right balance between building a bigger force and building a better one. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has rightly defined his priority as building a “larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force” to contend with a more challenging international security environment and increasingly capable adversaries. But there are tradeoffs between paying for additional personnel and force structure vs. investing in the technology and capabilities necessary to prevail in more contested air, land, maritime, cyber and space domains."
What else? Keep in mind we have as much defense as the next5,6 or 12 countries if you use different metrics.
" . . . are deterrence and alliance capabilities being strengthened?"
There are many reasons to change our perspective on funding DoD, the biggest is that we are out of balance with SOFT POWER.
" . . . how will we pay for the increased defense spending? The Trump administration has promised dollar-for-dollar cuts in non-defense programs, reportedly targeting the State Department and USAID for cuts of 30percent or more. This would create an even more imbalanced national security toolkit, limiting our ability to prevent crises through diplomacy and development and result in an overreliance on the military. As Mattis said while head of the U.S. Central Command, “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”"
The author lists five reasons to increase the budget smartly, but we've been down this pseudo-expert, solution providing road before to no good end. Remember the "best and the brightest?"
The annual budgets for DoD were stupid in the first place. NATO got it right a long time ago, providing their defense organizations a five year, FIXED budget number. Get what you need within that five year fixed budget. I assure you, the Military-Industrial Complex in the United States would find a way to make the five year, fixed budget work for effective and efficient defense.
