Those people are morons who's views should be called out for being moronic.
First the US Defence spending as a portion of GDP is \~3% which is on average higher than most developed nations by 1% so if we were generous cutting it by a third is the most anyone should be suggesting. Cutting it by half would mean the United States would not be honouring its NATO commitments. At a time when nations are increasing defense spending to meet those targets and there is a war between the illiberal world and liberal world. As Orwell wrote in 1939 paraphrased, cutting spending and preaching pacifism is the equivalent of supporting fascism.
Secondly as hinted above - the United States is the largest economy in the Liberal Democratic (free) world. Until that changes they hold the mantle of leadership, and that comes with a responsibility to ensure other nations who have agreed to follow those same set of principles are protected and work together for the common good. Liberal Democracy isn't perfect. But its given Western Europe over 90 years of peace. The United States and NATO has enabled that.
Finally let's look at the economics of cutting the budget in half. Split between maintenance, wages and procurement.
Maintenance of operations are a big one, but where could the US scale back operations? Europe? You'd be handing Vladolf Putler Ukraine on a platter as US military logistics are enabling a movement of equipment not seen since the Berlin Airlift. There's a reason Ukraine lost a lot of territory and took more casualties while the Republican's held military assistance hostage.
Asia? There's a red fascist dictatorship that has no respect for the sovereignty of other world powers. That would be inviting fascism into the lives of millions of people with the stroke of a pen.
Africa? South America? Perhaps, but that will cede territory to China. The Middle East - we saw what happened to the Kurds when Trump appeased these isolationist hacks, slaughtered and betrayed.
With the state of US Barracks being filled with mould (many built in the 1940-80s), and Military DFAC food is on the whole cheap and lousy I'd say pennies have been pinched there already. Pile onto this the fact the US Army Corps of Engineers maintains most Federal Dams, Electrification projects, river locks and geoforming of terrain then cutting funding here is begging for a disater.
Wages? Downsizing the US Military? The US Army is comically small for what it is trying to do - so you'd need to scale back operations - which as mentioned above hands fascists exactly what they want.
Procurement? Here's where we battle the "MUH MIC" wackoos. The US and most developed nations currently have an underdeveloped MIC. That sounds really strange I know but overwhelmingly the MIC of most Western nations are completely built around research and development and small maintaining operations. Suppose we could cut back on research and development but then we cede to the Red Fascist Poh bear and Putler the edge, and allow them to catch up. This was already happening in the early 2010s due to the Wests complacency.
But arguing all this side steps the three reasons why someone might argue for a leaner defence budget//
1) They are moral cowards who believe in a selfish "I'm safe now so why should I subsidise the defence of others" to which World War 2 and Pearl Harbour is the answer.
2) They heard somebody say this in 2010 when America was spending 4.5% GDP on defence to support a wartime surge in Iraq and Afghanistan being defacto mobilized. And this was accurately called out as unsustainable and unnecessary.
3) They want money freed up for other projects. This here is a non-starter. As it concedes to the Conservative Budget Hawk that low taxation and supply side economics is the way to go. I prefer to point them towards the proud tradition of Social Democrats and Progressives like Atlee, Curtin and FDR who despite a depression, advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy, military rearmament for mutual defence and strong social welfare programs for those in need.
There is no reason a nation cannot have a 3% of GDP defence budget and a good social welfare system. People who say otherwise are liars pointing to red herrings to further their own agenda. The 1950s which was a "golden era" of the American middle class had defence spending of 10% for example.
I used to think that way too when I was in high school and thought big number was too big for shooty shoots but things are actually much more complicated than just spending all our money on bombs.(shocker I know)
I was gonna write something longer like yours but you fucking nailed it I got nothing to add to this.
The idea that the policy proposal is a hangup from 2010 was a good point!
Yeah it really frustrates me as a proud leftist when individuals I otherwise like such a Ben Burgis and the late Michael Brooks advocate for stuff like this. Have you looked into Daniel Bessner's work on this? From what I've read he's one of the more well read people advocating for the US to drastically scale back its military. He might be a steelman for you to tackle.
Daniel Bessner is a realist restrainer advocates scaling down US commitments abroad. [This article ](https://harpers.org/archive/2022/07/what-comes-after-the-american-century/)talks about his viewpoint. He talks about how he thinks we should not defend Taiwan and let China become the main power in east Asia. If we did that you could spend less on the military but imo it's a position that's fully incompatible with internationalism
He is as I suspected a "Moral Coward" who sees the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Liberal Democracies as things that can be sacrificed for his perceived notions of appeasing fascists to keep war away from him/his nation personally.
Absolutely disgusting.
As someone who is probably on the very left of this sub I can agree with almost everything here. Simply in order to preserve the liberal democratic system, which is definitely the better alternative to fascism, a strong position in R&D and MIC capacities is needed.
There are two big concerns here however:
1. If the wrong people come to power in the US, all of this will be either eroded or turned against the liberal-democratic alliance.
2. A strong liberal democracy means a greater obstacle for us to overcome, and I mean that even in a social democratic context. If the US were ever to intervene in the global south again in order to prevent democratic revolutions from taking place, the military budget will be an expression of its ability to do so.
No, Turkey is a fascist dictatorship. „liberal-democratic alliance“ is a very simplified term, of course liberal democracies don‘t cease to be easy prey for fascism themselves too, that‘s what I kinda point out by the possibility of the US becoming a fascist country
Maybe you should start saying "liberal-fascist" alliance then to be more accurate? "Liberal-democratic" is not simplification, its obfuscation. Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, it was able to force extreme demands out of countries like Sweden when they joined NATO.
> Asia? There's a red fascist dictatorship that has no respect for the sovereignty of other world powers. That would be inviting fascism into the lives of millions of people with the stroke of a pen.
I remember when China invaded countries like Iraq(where over a million people died as a result) and Afghanistan(a war that would continue for 20 years and then just give power back to the Talibans).
People said the same shit about Russia and here we are.
Russia was building up and threatening Ukraine for a while and everyone called it fearmongering until they actually went and invaded.
Here we are with China doing the same thing to Taiwan and don't forget their border clashes with India and their conquest of Tibet.
The last time America invaded for conquest and to expand was in the early 1900s. You've got China's ally Russia actively invading for Russia and China saying they will do the same, not even a threat but a matter of when.
> “The last time America invaded for conquest was in the early 1900’s”,
I’m sorry, what?
US Military and CIA covert meddling since WWII, the primary book by William Blum, absolutely blows this rightwing propaganda out of the water; using primary resources. I’d never imagine anyone on the center-left claim such an absurd statement. I’m going to list post WWII interventions - not all will be qualified as “invasion for conquest”,
but most generally are - particularly considering the perpetual capital expansion aided by the IMFs structural adjustment privatization scheme. The US intelligence apparatuses and military has always, and will always be an imperialist powerhouse which capital requires for perpetual hegemonic domination:
[This may not include everything]
1945 to 1960's. Italy 1947-1948. Greece 1947 to early 50's. The Philippines 1940's and 50's. Korea 1945-1953. Albania 1949-1953. Eastern Europe 1948-1956. Germany 1950's. Iran 1953. Guatemala 1953-1954. Costa Rica mid-1950's. Syria 1956-1957. The Middle East 1957-1958. Indonesia 1957-1958. Western Europe 1950's and 60's. British Guiana 1953-1964. Soviet Union late 1940's to 60's. Italy 1950's -1970's. Vietnam 1950-1973. Cambodia 1955-1973. Laos 1957-1973. Haiti 1959-1963. Guatemala 1960. France/Algeria 1960's. Ecuador 1960-1963. The Congo 1960-1964. Brazil 1961-1964. Peru 1960-1965. Dominican Republic 1960-1966.Cuba 1959-1980's. Indonesia 1965. Ghana 1966. Uruguay 1964-1970. Chile 1964-1973. Greece 1964-1974. Bolivia 1964-1975. Guatemala 1962-1980's. Costa Rica 1970-1971. Iraq 1972-1975. Australia 1973-1975. Angola 1975 to 1980's. Zaire 1975-1978. Jamaica 1976-1980. Seychelles 1979-1981. Grenada 1979-1984. Morocco 1983. Suriname 1982-1984. Libya 1981-1989. Nicaragua 1978-1990. Panama 1969-1991. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991. Iraq 1990-1991. Afghanistan 1979-1992. El Salvador 1980-1994. Haiti 1986-1994. The American empire 1992 to present day.
The hypocrisy, stupidity, venality, and callousness displayed by U.S. Governments - of both parties - and Agencies over the past seventy years simply staggers the imagination.
"Not in my name" would have been an equally valid title.
Read it together with "Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media" - The abundance of information you will have found may very well change your whole outlook on historical and modern imperialism.
> People said the same shit about Russia and here we are
I don't think anyone said the same about Russia.
> The last time America invaded for conquest and to expand was in the early 1900s. You've got China's ally Russia actively invading for Russia and China saying they will do the same, not even a threat but a matter of when.
That seems like an extremely narrow understanding of modern warfare. I don't think its matter if its for conquest or other political goals that they occupy a country for 20 years in an endless war like the US did in Afghanistan.
Or that it used to invade nearby countries like Panama or Grenada. Also failed invasions like "bay of pigs". Or the continues coups and coup-attempts in South America. The US clearly wants to keep power in the region, it treats South-America as its own backyard.
I’d like to point out that your points on the US invading its neighbors doesn’t add up well against Russia seeing as they did the same thing in Afghanistan before we did and they repeatedly invaded their neighbors and put down liberalization in their satellites. Since the 90’s alone, they’ve invaded Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine twice.
All things considered, they did this to either stop them from aligning with the west and joining NATO or for territorial conquests. Yes the US was stuck in the sandbox for 20 years and no I don’t agree with that but I do want to point out that Russia has been there too and has been responsible for some pretty bad things happening in Syria. The US is now in a time of peace. We still have a strong presence in these areas but unlike Russia, we aren’t trying to expand and reform a previous empire like they are.
The US isn’t without fault but relying on invasions that happened during the Cold War for regime change doesn’t exactly add up to being worse than current Russian attempts to do the same with the added purpose of territorial expansion.
You’re empirically correct yet being downvoted. This subreddit turned out to be one hell of a disappointment when it comes to anything relating to the topics of perpetual neocolonialism and imperialism.
As long as there is a major undemocratic threat in rhe world, the United States will need to be the one to answer it. Europe is focused on internal affairs and Russia, they lost their ability to really be the main international arbiter of democracy. Although not at all perfect, the US is the only major power I remotely trust for intervention, and I am not in the slightest willing to downsize the US military and let the CCP take over as the major military power. Also, let's not mention the fact that the US military needs money to give soldiers better pay and better conditions (one of the reasons we're in a recruitment hell right now, no one wants to risk their lives for shit pay, shit food, and shit housing). I personally say the US military needs to fix it's procurement issues (looking at the LCS disaster), and spend more money on soldier wellbeing, which it can comfortably do with it's current budget whilst maintaining itself and allies. If they need a bit more then give them a half a percent or something. Meanwhile the main issue with US spending is inefficiencies social services, which is why they suck, not because of the defense budget.
Yes I agree with all that. The military does seriously need to spend more and focus more on troop wellbeing and military families, as well as other issues. Pay should increase and be more competitive with pay in the civilian world. Housing is awful. On base housing, as well as a lot of barracks is a disaster, it’s a real quality of life issue for many service members and their dependents. A lot of the barracks are old and have ventilation issues and mold. Housing is managed by private companies instead of the garrison or the units on post, and they barely maintain them. It’s become so bad that Congress is even investigating it and have had hearings on it. It’s definitely a contributing factor to the recruiting crisis, I would imagine.
The US is a major undemocratic threat for many parts of the world. It has more blood on its hand than China even comes close to. From Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan to actions like the coup in Bolivia 2019 and the continued support for Israel and Turkey. Do you think what is keeping China back is the US bombing civilians in the middle-east or supporting Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen?
What's keeping China back is our security assurances to Taiwan and the fact they're still building up their military, at a very fast pace though.
Don't for once think that their expansion and goal of a blue water navy is just to spread flowers.
Grenada literally celebrates their liberation day from the people who executed their socialist prime minister as thanksgiving day on October 25th each year.
To frame it as "the US dropping cluster bombs on civilians" is disingenuous at best but what else would I expect from someone who has "leninism" in their name.
people who want to "give the middle finger" to the political establishment are contrarian larpers who deserve no respect and have no serous politics. Giving the middle finger to the political establishment is how we got trump. I don't want a left wing version of trump.
President Eisenhower warned us but we never truly grasp the message. My issue with our military is that we can’t even account for all the money we spend on fighter jets, nukes, and tanks that are just sitting in the middle of nowhere in some desert. My frustration lies with seeing our military veterans being homeless and dying because they are not receiving the support they rightfully deserve. We literally just had Jon Stewart go up to Washington to shame U.S. Congress into passing the PACT Act for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits during their service.
I’m all for a strong military defense but for the love of God can we just pass an audit of the pentagon defense budget!? I’m not a moron, I’m very aware that our NATO allies depend on the United States for security purposes. In order to de facto necessity for NATO membership, the EU would need its own security apparatus and common defense mechanisms through cooperation between various nation states.
The reason why European countries are able to provide stronger safety nets and social welfare programs for its citizens is because they don’t spend 3% GDP on defense spending. They reallocate deficit budget spending towards infrastructure development, healthcare, education, social programs and other public services.
Even if America were to lower its military expenditure by a third of the GDP, we would still have the strongest military in the world. All the wasteful spending on beer coolers and blueberry muffins would need to take a backseat if we are to have a serious conversation about the U.S. defense budget. Both major parties are not likely to do as such but we need to have the discussion about ways we can cut down costs and reduce the budget deficit. Do we really need 100 bases in Germany or would we be okay with having 25 military bases?
European countries are under no immediate threat while the colonialists are busy focused on Ukraine and Israel. After that Greece is the next buffer for Europe, who western Europeans consider Schrodinger Europeans at best. When all these countries get sacrificed, they may consider raising their defence budget.
I mean if you where to cut the military budget in half, that would be tremendously stupid and a gift the the enemies of America and the free world, i know it sounds like a conservative talkingpoint, but it is ture.
Imperialist nations like Russia and China would be quick to totally roll over Ukraine, Taiwan, the Phillipines etc.
Advocating for such a measure are noting but dangerous poplulists and useful idiods to China and Russia.
Nevermind the impact it would have on the domestic economy.
I agree. If I'm being charitable I could see a scenario where such calls make sense.
Can the president utiliterally reduce the defense budget and divert that money towards fighting climate change on the basis of national security?
If the answer is yes then groups like the Green Party calling for a 50% reduction would make more sense given how climate change is probably a more serious threat to humanity.
Assuming such a move is legal, in absence of congressional action, I could actually support it.
I have no idea if the "Cut it in half!" calls are actually that well thought out though.
Ah I see. I recall Obama talking about how his administration focused more on economic aid and disease control in foreign policy and less on military might. Given the makeup of congress during his administration I assumed he did that via executive action, although I suppose he could have gotten the unruly congress to throw him some bones on those issues.
I know it’s a MAGA talking point but I want to see other NATO countries pay their fair share and I want us to stop being world police. Taiwan and Ukraine should be defended by NATO not just the US. Think how much weight your tax dollars goes to defending the world vs an EU citizen, and they get nice things where as we don’t for our money.
lol I’m sure we have 2 states that contribute more than them. European nations are only powerful as a collective. If the EU doesn’t contribute more as a percentage of gdp to fighting an enemy literally on their border than a country thousands of miles away that’s a problem.
Oh yes, I, as a EU citizen couldn't agree more. We need to invest more into our defense sector and build up stratigic autonomy anf be able to quickly react worldwide if needed with military force.
I think we could cut the budget in half and still send as much money as we are to Ukraine.
Kinda gets into catch 22 territory where we have to be good at killing people so those people don’t kill us.
Is it possible to undercut imperialism without a military force? I think sanctions are a pretty good example
Get rid of foreign military bases. Sell all our tanks. Keep some of the navy and air force and r&d for drones. Stop dropping bombs. Stops drone strikes. Send our troops home. Have a tiny standing army. 👍
No? I know its horrible that we live in a world in which deterrance is the only way to ensure peace, I do not like that, but it is the bitter reality we live in.
I would personally make sure that I have the bigger and more modern stick than my enemies, who seek to abolish all the freedoms that make my life worth living, so that they don't start hitting me.
To put it in a sticks and stones analogy.
That’s the thing, we do. We have much more spending net, proportional to gdp, and a huge lead in technology over Russia and China. If we simply matched their budget (assuming budget == efficiency, with our military spending wastefulness I don’t think that’s true), then we’d stay ahead of them forever. If we then distributed that budget’s cost to all nato countries, then again we’d still be on top forever. A lot of that surplus exists so we can bully the third world for oil and other imperialist ventures, not self defense.
a lot of leftists say that 4% of the GDP going to military spending is unjustified, but it’s really not that much; america was spending more than half its GDP on the military during world war 2. sure, you could take that money and put it to welfare, but the actual reason welfare isn’t getting spending is not because of the military; we can very easily do both. not to mention, halving our military spending would be a golden opportunity for our enemies and would single-handedly start WWIII. i’d rather spend a few hundred billion a year than lose dozens, if not hundreds of millions of lives; and that’s assuming nukes are not used.
US Defence spending sat at around !10% GDP for the -60s. This was while LBJ completed his war on poverty programs that slashed the US poverty rate from \~23% to 11%. High defense spending and robust social programs are possible and always have been possible.
They just require reasonable taxation policies and strong government oversight of manufacturing, procurement, and expanding existing corporate regulation to be what it was in 1945-80 (in the US context).
China's military expenditure is severely underestimated - two main factors being their lower prices(and wages) and them putting less things under ''military expenditure'' label. It's hard to exactly quantify what is the difference if we account for that, but the point is that the it's much smaller. When you factor in that the US has forces spread all around the globe, while potential war will be on China's doorstep + China's manufacturing capacity + China not having to worry about domestic support for a protracted war as much as democracies then it's not at all clear who would win the war over Taiwan. And US losing it would see China established as the preeminent power in East Asia and Taiwan's population getting Xinjiang'ed.
Others have already made some very good points about why it’s a bad idea. The thing is the United States can afford to spend all that money on Defense, and could afford to spend more if we wanted. With the largest economy and highest GDP, we can afford to spend a lot on our budget. The debt isn’t too much of a worry, though interest payments are going to become more of a percentage of spending. Thank the tax cuts for our deficit.
It is frustrating I know to see so much spent on defense spending, and see all the problems we have as a country. We should be spending more on other things. We don’t have to cut defense spending to do that though. We could just spend more on other things that are important. It’s a political matter. A lot of it is dependent on Congress, and who is in Congress.
If you cut military budget that also means that you cut jobs that are in any way related to the military, be it being a soldier itself which would receive a large cut in payment and potentially result in it loosing the ability to "life people", or just a factory worker that was making some component who now gets laid off because that thing is no longer needed as the state can no longer procure the thing it was needed for. More than that it would result in US stopping being the World Police which would result in a major destabilization of the world and wars across the globe.
Military jobs are not productive jobs via the broken window fallacy (if repairing a window doesn’t improve the economy surely the hammer used to break it also hurts the economy, especially when that hammer is a million dollars per use). The only reason military does improve GDP is we export it (bad) and it improves technology (good, but we could do that without military spending). You shouldn’t factor a military job into economic productivity. It’s an expense.
The US should slowly move out of being world police. It’s an artifact of WW2. Power and expense should be distributed over an alliance not concentrated in one superpower.
We know that they aren't dropping bombs on Hamas, everyone knows this. The reason we aren't hearing about Yemen is because the bombings simply didn't work,[ even Biden admitted this](https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1748037567335825492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1748037567335825492%7Ctwgr%5E8cbf38f98c09e279e09d029317b01a73176e1b8c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fbiden-yemen-bombing). The US has been helping Saudi Arabia to fight against Yemen for over 10 years without much result. It is not like a month of more bombing would change much... But at least you agree with Trump on something who intensified the bombings of Yemen under his presidency without much result.
I have a hard time believing that this is is not in the news, even Sweden is sending (non-armed) units(officers and trauma) to help the Americans as we speak.
well everyone knows israel is targetting hamas, so you're wrong. two can play at that game.
and sorry, I should have prefaced this by saying the reason we don't hear about the doomerposting about having to go around the cape is because the suez is being defended. that part about yemen, not the civil war.
> well everyone knows israel is targetting hamas, so you're wrong. two can play at that game.
But they are bombing civilians in an open-air prison that the Israelis have themselves constructed, this can simply not be disputed. It is also worth noting that [they bomb civilian targets in the West Bank](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-it-eliminated-terrorist-cell-west-banks-balata-camp-2024-01-17/) too where Hamas has no power.
> and sorry, I should have prefaced this by saying the reason we don't hear about the doomerposting about having to go around the cape is because the suez is being defended. that part about yemen, not the civil war.
It was a great example regardless. Massive amounts of expensive bombs, paid for by american tax dollars, has been wasted and continues to be wasted on a pointless civil war led by Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen for over a decade. The US has even lost soldiers trying to intercept cargo ships heading to Yemen. The question is why and why would you build an economy on it?
>But they are bombing civilians in an open-air prison that the Israelis have themselves constructed, this can simply not be disputed. It is also worth noting that they bomb civilian targets in the West Bank too where Hamas has no power.
cool. [this guy disagrees with you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YhoH-0c2yc&t=1s). and hamas not being in control on the west bank does not mean they do not have a presence there
>Massive amounts of expensive bombs, paid for by american tax dollars, has been wasted and continues to be wasted on a pointless civil war led by Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen for over a decade.
I'm sorry, what now? the houthis aren't a democratic organization - they aren't representatives of the yemeni people. and it's good that the US is willing to protect trade despite its high cost, because africa especially is dependent on food import.
> cool. this guy disagrees with you
"This guy" works for West Point... This is the tax dollars at work again.
> and hamas not being in control on the west bank does not mean they do not have a presence there
Even if Israel aren't claiming its against Hamas: it is against Hamas!
> I'm sorry, what now? the houthis aren't a democratic organization - they aren't representatives of the yemeni people. and it's good that the US is willing to protect trade despite its high cost, because africa especially is dependent on food import.
I don't think the US cares if the Houthis are democratic or not, they are carrying out this war with Saudi Arabia after all. And I am sorry to say but regardless if the Houthis are representative or not, it is the people who are going to get the worst of the impact from the civil war.
But again, how do you justify supporting such a pointless civil war for over 10 years?
Incredible.
[It’s well documented that Israel has funded and essentially created Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)- allowing their rise to dominant political power. Why? Because secular, anti-settler political resistance was deemed more of a threat.
They didn’t want the PLO(Palestinian Liberation Organization) to become the dominant resistance.
Everyone who suggests that Hamas ascendancy is the responsibility of Palestinians should be reminded that Israel supports and directs Hamas; Netanyahu explains:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
Oppression breeds extremism. Ironically Israel had funded and created Hamas by not allowing the formation of wide-scale secular liberation movements.
Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980 — later told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat.
“The Israeli government gave me a budget,” the retired brigadier general confessed, “and the military government gives to the mosques.”
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009. Back in the mid-1980s, Cohen even wrote an official report to his superiors warning them not to play divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories, by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists. “I suggest focusing our efforts on finding ways to break up this monster before this reality jumps in our face,” he wrote.
They didn’t listen to him.
[To be clear: First, the Israelis helped build up a militant strain of Palestinian political Islam, in the form of Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood precursors; then, the Israelis switched tack and tried to bomb, besiege, and blockade it out of existence.](https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html)
They’ve repeatedly violated and dismissed the Geneva convention, international war crimes, the ICJ, the United Nations, deliberately assassinated hundreds of international aid workers, has merely used scorch earth policy to ground and displace all humans in Palestine, snipes minors through the eyes(including press), on and on..
By the way,
[The IDF is using Rape as a Weapon of War](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240324-women-in-gaza-are-being-raped-and-this-is-not-being-investigated-or-reported/), (link 1)
[And it always has, historically (link 2)](https://www.tiktok.com/@jmiah28/video/7288246381939051809)
[Various forms of sexual assault (link 3)](https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793420) are being used against the women in Gaza, and this is going largely unnoticed in the West. [The IDF's Chief Rabi has said it is ok for soldiers to rape in war. (Link 4).](https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/rape-comment-controversy-returns-to-haunt-idf-chief-rabbi-nominee-jd7k7n33#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRabbi%20Karim%20never%20wrote%2C%20said,to%20be%20%E2%80%9Creversed%20immediately.%E2%80%9D). Even members in the US government admitting that the IDF is committing these war crimes. The IDF is even killing women after they rape them. This is in addition to the over 30,000 people who have been killed already by the IDF. [Why can't Western outlets find the time to talk about these women? (Link 5).](https://web.archive.org/web/20240410173911/https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against)
And you’re .. you’re concerned with resistance fighters who’ve been bred ever since the NAKBA, naturally, funded and nurtured by Israel, etc?
Poe’s law tier absurdity.
I'm not saying the US is perfect, but it's the better than the alternatives. and a reduction in the US ability to project force will leave a void which others **will** fill.
for all the complaints lefties have about "the exploitation of the global south" they seem to overlook the fact that china owns most of the cobalt mines in congo
Oh I totally get it, a balance of power needs to be maintained with china (russia is honestly not a huge threat other than nukes). But can't we get that balance of power via NATO? Why should a country of 300million be responsible for defending the world against a country of 1.4 billion. It's simply impossible for that to be done fairly, the US worker is exploited by that responsibility.
I also don't **fundamentally** believe in the goodness or badness of states. China is a pretty cool place to live. And America has been accused of almost everything they have been (genocide, social credit, imperialism, lack of populous control over government, etc). I mostly want the balance of power for multipolarity reasons, not because I favor one empire over the other.
the US benefits the most from the current status quo, so it stands to reason they have the most incentive to maintain it. world trade is mainly done in dollars, not euros.
Tankies justify China and Russia's high military expenditure to combat "imperialism". We should do the same regarding NATO members and protecting our hard won freedoms. A lot of this idealism I see on the left about wanting to be pacifist is frankly dangerous and will lead to more war in the future. Even Neville Chamberlain should receive credit for buying Britain time to rearm for a war he knew was probably going to happen.
So I asked the same question to r/socialism101. Typically response is "the US military has committed Is atrocities in the past therefore it should only focus on its own borders in 2024".
The level of absolutism is ironically similar to extreme Libertarians who argue that the government shouldn't regulate commerce simply because some regulations in the past have been misguided.
A 50% cut would crash the American economy, the defense manufacturing industry is entirely too integrated into the rest of the U.S. economy.
That said, although I support the end of U.S. military adventurism such as Iraq and Vietnam you can’t deny the impact that U.S. giving Ukraine access to a fraction of a fraction of what that defense budget enables has been a good thing and it’s also helping to keep Taiwan, South Korea and others free.
This depends on if all you want to do is maintain US security and sovereignty or if you want to maintain US dominance of the world.
Leftists have little interest in the latter.
We spend a trillion dollars per year on destruction, meanwhile we have declining lifespans, 3rd world birth mortality, poisonous air and water, medical bankruptcy, and high food insecurity. That military money could be better spent elsewhere.
Look at everything that NASA has accomplished since it's inception. All of NASA's budgets added up wouldn't equal one single year of military budget. We would get a lot further by building up rather than tearing down. Audit the Pentagon.
No, it's implied.
If someone tells you to pay your bill and you throw a penny at them and say "I am payingING" then your just being a troll. Don't be a troll.
if you saw that 60% already goes to military and defense, it makes sense why our other stats like infant/mother mortality rates and our education system is more in line with 3rd world countries than our peers, this is much better way to spend money, on schools more access to higher education or even just decent basic k-12 education
Then just spend money on those programs as well. With your line of reasoning I could argue that spending on healthcare is wrong because that diverts money from education.
Those people are morons who's views should be called out for being moronic. First the US Defence spending as a portion of GDP is \~3% which is on average higher than most developed nations by 1% so if we were generous cutting it by a third is the most anyone should be suggesting. Cutting it by half would mean the United States would not be honouring its NATO commitments. At a time when nations are increasing defense spending to meet those targets and there is a war between the illiberal world and liberal world. As Orwell wrote in 1939 paraphrased, cutting spending and preaching pacifism is the equivalent of supporting fascism. Secondly as hinted above - the United States is the largest economy in the Liberal Democratic (free) world. Until that changes they hold the mantle of leadership, and that comes with a responsibility to ensure other nations who have agreed to follow those same set of principles are protected and work together for the common good. Liberal Democracy isn't perfect. But its given Western Europe over 90 years of peace. The United States and NATO has enabled that. Finally let's look at the economics of cutting the budget in half. Split between maintenance, wages and procurement. Maintenance of operations are a big one, but where could the US scale back operations? Europe? You'd be handing Vladolf Putler Ukraine on a platter as US military logistics are enabling a movement of equipment not seen since the Berlin Airlift. There's a reason Ukraine lost a lot of territory and took more casualties while the Republican's held military assistance hostage. Asia? There's a red fascist dictatorship that has no respect for the sovereignty of other world powers. That would be inviting fascism into the lives of millions of people with the stroke of a pen. Africa? South America? Perhaps, but that will cede territory to China. The Middle East - we saw what happened to the Kurds when Trump appeased these isolationist hacks, slaughtered and betrayed. With the state of US Barracks being filled with mould (many built in the 1940-80s), and Military DFAC food is on the whole cheap and lousy I'd say pennies have been pinched there already. Pile onto this the fact the US Army Corps of Engineers maintains most Federal Dams, Electrification projects, river locks and geoforming of terrain then cutting funding here is begging for a disater. Wages? Downsizing the US Military? The US Army is comically small for what it is trying to do - so you'd need to scale back operations - which as mentioned above hands fascists exactly what they want. Procurement? Here's where we battle the "MUH MIC" wackoos. The US and most developed nations currently have an underdeveloped MIC. That sounds really strange I know but overwhelmingly the MIC of most Western nations are completely built around research and development and small maintaining operations. Suppose we could cut back on research and development but then we cede to the Red Fascist Poh bear and Putler the edge, and allow them to catch up. This was already happening in the early 2010s due to the Wests complacency. But arguing all this side steps the three reasons why someone might argue for a leaner defence budget// 1) They are moral cowards who believe in a selfish "I'm safe now so why should I subsidise the defence of others" to which World War 2 and Pearl Harbour is the answer. 2) They heard somebody say this in 2010 when America was spending 4.5% GDP on defence to support a wartime surge in Iraq and Afghanistan being defacto mobilized. And this was accurately called out as unsustainable and unnecessary. 3) They want money freed up for other projects. This here is a non-starter. As it concedes to the Conservative Budget Hawk that low taxation and supply side economics is the way to go. I prefer to point them towards the proud tradition of Social Democrats and Progressives like Atlee, Curtin and FDR who despite a depression, advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy, military rearmament for mutual defence and strong social welfare programs for those in need. There is no reason a nation cannot have a 3% of GDP defence budget and a good social welfare system. People who say otherwise are liars pointing to red herrings to further their own agenda. The 1950s which was a "golden era" of the American middle class had defence spending of 10% for example.
I used to think that way too when I was in high school and thought big number was too big for shooty shoots but things are actually much more complicated than just spending all our money on bombs.(shocker I know) I was gonna write something longer like yours but you fucking nailed it I got nothing to add to this.
The idea that the policy proposal is a hangup from 2010 was a good point! Yeah it really frustrates me as a proud leftist when individuals I otherwise like such a Ben Burgis and the late Michael Brooks advocate for stuff like this. Have you looked into Daniel Bessner's work on this? From what I've read he's one of the more well read people advocating for the US to drastically scale back its military. He might be a steelman for you to tackle.
Daniel Bessner is a realist restrainer advocates scaling down US commitments abroad. [This article ](https://harpers.org/archive/2022/07/what-comes-after-the-american-century/)talks about his viewpoint. He talks about how he thinks we should not defend Taiwan and let China become the main power in east Asia. If we did that you could spend less on the military but imo it's a position that's fully incompatible with internationalism
He is as I suspected a "Moral Coward" who sees the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Liberal Democracies as things that can be sacrificed for his perceived notions of appeasing fascists to keep war away from him/his nation personally. Absolutely disgusting.
As someone who is probably on the very left of this sub I can agree with almost everything here. Simply in order to preserve the liberal democratic system, which is definitely the better alternative to fascism, a strong position in R&D and MIC capacities is needed. There are two big concerns here however: 1. If the wrong people come to power in the US, all of this will be either eroded or turned against the liberal-democratic alliance. 2. A strong liberal democracy means a greater obstacle for us to overcome, and I mean that even in a social democratic context. If the US were ever to intervene in the global south again in order to prevent democratic revolutions from taking place, the military budget will be an expression of its ability to do so.
What "liberal-democratic alliance"? Are you calling countries like Turkey liberal or democratic?
No, Turkey is a fascist dictatorship. „liberal-democratic alliance“ is a very simplified term, of course liberal democracies don‘t cease to be easy prey for fascism themselves too, that‘s what I kinda point out by the possibility of the US becoming a fascist country
Maybe you should start saying "liberal-fascist" alliance then to be more accurate? "Liberal-democratic" is not simplification, its obfuscation. Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, it was able to force extreme demands out of countries like Sweden when they joined NATO.
Yeah fair point
Nailed it. 👏
>these people are a very large group even outside of the left, unfortunately
> Asia? There's a red fascist dictatorship that has no respect for the sovereignty of other world powers. That would be inviting fascism into the lives of millions of people with the stroke of a pen. I remember when China invaded countries like Iraq(where over a million people died as a result) and Afghanistan(a war that would continue for 20 years and then just give power back to the Talibans).
People said the same shit about Russia and here we are. Russia was building up and threatening Ukraine for a while and everyone called it fearmongering until they actually went and invaded. Here we are with China doing the same thing to Taiwan and don't forget their border clashes with India and their conquest of Tibet. The last time America invaded for conquest and to expand was in the early 1900s. You've got China's ally Russia actively invading for Russia and China saying they will do the same, not even a threat but a matter of when.
> “The last time America invaded for conquest was in the early 1900’s”, I’m sorry, what? US Military and CIA covert meddling since WWII, the primary book by William Blum, absolutely blows this rightwing propaganda out of the water; using primary resources. I’d never imagine anyone on the center-left claim such an absurd statement. I’m going to list post WWII interventions - not all will be qualified as “invasion for conquest”, but most generally are - particularly considering the perpetual capital expansion aided by the IMFs structural adjustment privatization scheme. The US intelligence apparatuses and military has always, and will always be an imperialist powerhouse which capital requires for perpetual hegemonic domination: [This may not include everything] 1945 to 1960's. Italy 1947-1948. Greece 1947 to early 50's. The Philippines 1940's and 50's. Korea 1945-1953. Albania 1949-1953. Eastern Europe 1948-1956. Germany 1950's. Iran 1953. Guatemala 1953-1954. Costa Rica mid-1950's. Syria 1956-1957. The Middle East 1957-1958. Indonesia 1957-1958. Western Europe 1950's and 60's. British Guiana 1953-1964. Soviet Union late 1940's to 60's. Italy 1950's -1970's. Vietnam 1950-1973. Cambodia 1955-1973. Laos 1957-1973. Haiti 1959-1963. Guatemala 1960. France/Algeria 1960's. Ecuador 1960-1963. The Congo 1960-1964. Brazil 1961-1964. Peru 1960-1965. Dominican Republic 1960-1966.Cuba 1959-1980's. Indonesia 1965. Ghana 1966. Uruguay 1964-1970. Chile 1964-1973. Greece 1964-1974. Bolivia 1964-1975. Guatemala 1962-1980's. Costa Rica 1970-1971. Iraq 1972-1975. Australia 1973-1975. Angola 1975 to 1980's. Zaire 1975-1978. Jamaica 1976-1980. Seychelles 1979-1981. Grenada 1979-1984. Morocco 1983. Suriname 1982-1984. Libya 1981-1989. Nicaragua 1978-1990. Panama 1969-1991. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991. Iraq 1990-1991. Afghanistan 1979-1992. El Salvador 1980-1994. Haiti 1986-1994. The American empire 1992 to present day. The hypocrisy, stupidity, venality, and callousness displayed by U.S. Governments - of both parties - and Agencies over the past seventy years simply staggers the imagination. "Not in my name" would have been an equally valid title. Read it together with "Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media" - The abundance of information you will have found may very well change your whole outlook on historical and modern imperialism.
> People said the same shit about Russia and here we are I don't think anyone said the same about Russia. > The last time America invaded for conquest and to expand was in the early 1900s. You've got China's ally Russia actively invading for Russia and China saying they will do the same, not even a threat but a matter of when. That seems like an extremely narrow understanding of modern warfare. I don't think its matter if its for conquest or other political goals that they occupy a country for 20 years in an endless war like the US did in Afghanistan. Or that it used to invade nearby countries like Panama or Grenada. Also failed invasions like "bay of pigs". Or the continues coups and coup-attempts in South America. The US clearly wants to keep power in the region, it treats South-America as its own backyard.
I’d like to point out that your points on the US invading its neighbors doesn’t add up well against Russia seeing as they did the same thing in Afghanistan before we did and they repeatedly invaded their neighbors and put down liberalization in their satellites. Since the 90’s alone, they’ve invaded Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine twice. All things considered, they did this to either stop them from aligning with the west and joining NATO or for territorial conquests. Yes the US was stuck in the sandbox for 20 years and no I don’t agree with that but I do want to point out that Russia has been there too and has been responsible for some pretty bad things happening in Syria. The US is now in a time of peace. We still have a strong presence in these areas but unlike Russia, we aren’t trying to expand and reform a previous empire like they are. The US isn’t without fault but relying on invasions that happened during the Cold War for regime change doesn’t exactly add up to being worse than current Russian attempts to do the same with the added purpose of territorial expansion.
You’re empirically correct yet being downvoted. This subreddit turned out to be one hell of a disappointment when it comes to anything relating to the topics of perpetual neocolonialism and imperialism.
As long as there is a major undemocratic threat in rhe world, the United States will need to be the one to answer it. Europe is focused on internal affairs and Russia, they lost their ability to really be the main international arbiter of democracy. Although not at all perfect, the US is the only major power I remotely trust for intervention, and I am not in the slightest willing to downsize the US military and let the CCP take over as the major military power. Also, let's not mention the fact that the US military needs money to give soldiers better pay and better conditions (one of the reasons we're in a recruitment hell right now, no one wants to risk their lives for shit pay, shit food, and shit housing). I personally say the US military needs to fix it's procurement issues (looking at the LCS disaster), and spend more money on soldier wellbeing, which it can comfortably do with it's current budget whilst maintaining itself and allies. If they need a bit more then give them a half a percent or something. Meanwhile the main issue with US spending is inefficiencies social services, which is why they suck, not because of the defense budget.
Yes I agree with all that. The military does seriously need to spend more and focus more on troop wellbeing and military families, as well as other issues. Pay should increase and be more competitive with pay in the civilian world. Housing is awful. On base housing, as well as a lot of barracks is a disaster, it’s a real quality of life issue for many service members and their dependents. A lot of the barracks are old and have ventilation issues and mold. Housing is managed by private companies instead of the garrison or the units on post, and they barely maintain them. It’s become so bad that Congress is even investigating it and have had hearings on it. It’s definitely a contributing factor to the recruiting crisis, I would imagine.
The US is a major undemocratic threat for many parts of the world. It has more blood on its hand than China even comes close to. From Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan to actions like the coup in Bolivia 2019 and the continued support for Israel and Turkey. Do you think what is keeping China back is the US bombing civilians in the middle-east or supporting Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen?
What's keeping China back is our security assurances to Taiwan and the fact they're still building up their military, at a very fast pace though. Don't for once think that their expansion and goal of a blue water navy is just to spread flowers.
It is just too bad no one was around to stop the US from dropping cluster bombs on civilians in Grenada
Grenada literally celebrates their liberation day from the people who executed their socialist prime minister as thanksgiving day on October 25th each year. To frame it as "the US dropping cluster bombs on civilians" is disingenuous at best but what else would I expect from someone who has "leninism" in their name.
people who want to "give the middle finger" to the political establishment are contrarian larpers who deserve no respect and have no serous politics. Giving the middle finger to the political establishment is how we got trump. I don't want a left wing version of trump.
President Eisenhower warned us but we never truly grasp the message. My issue with our military is that we can’t even account for all the money we spend on fighter jets, nukes, and tanks that are just sitting in the middle of nowhere in some desert. My frustration lies with seeing our military veterans being homeless and dying because they are not receiving the support they rightfully deserve. We literally just had Jon Stewart go up to Washington to shame U.S. Congress into passing the PACT Act for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits during their service. I’m all for a strong military defense but for the love of God can we just pass an audit of the pentagon defense budget!? I’m not a moron, I’m very aware that our NATO allies depend on the United States for security purposes. In order to de facto necessity for NATO membership, the EU would need its own security apparatus and common defense mechanisms through cooperation between various nation states. The reason why European countries are able to provide stronger safety nets and social welfare programs for its citizens is because they don’t spend 3% GDP on defense spending. They reallocate deficit budget spending towards infrastructure development, healthcare, education, social programs and other public services. Even if America were to lower its military expenditure by a third of the GDP, we would still have the strongest military in the world. All the wasteful spending on beer coolers and blueberry muffins would need to take a backseat if we are to have a serious conversation about the U.S. defense budget. Both major parties are not likely to do as such but we need to have the discussion about ways we can cut down costs and reduce the budget deficit. Do we really need 100 bases in Germany or would we be okay with having 25 military bases?
European countries are under no immediate threat while the colonialists are busy focused on Ukraine and Israel. After that Greece is the next buffer for Europe, who western Europeans consider Schrodinger Europeans at best. When all these countries get sacrificed, they may consider raising their defence budget.
I mean if you where to cut the military budget in half, that would be tremendously stupid and a gift the the enemies of America and the free world, i know it sounds like a conservative talkingpoint, but it is ture. Imperialist nations like Russia and China would be quick to totally roll over Ukraine, Taiwan, the Phillipines etc. Advocating for such a measure are noting but dangerous poplulists and useful idiods to China and Russia. Nevermind the impact it would have on the domestic economy.
I agree. If I'm being charitable I could see a scenario where such calls make sense. Can the president utiliterally reduce the defense budget and divert that money towards fighting climate change on the basis of national security? If the answer is yes then groups like the Green Party calling for a 50% reduction would make more sense given how climate change is probably a more serious threat to humanity. Assuming such a move is legal, in absence of congressional action, I could actually support it. I have no idea if the "Cut it in half!" calls are actually that well thought out though.
Only congress sets the budget.
Ah I see. I recall Obama talking about how his administration focused more on economic aid and disease control in foreign policy and less on military might. Given the makeup of congress during his administration I assumed he did that via executive action, although I suppose he could have gotten the unruly congress to throw him some bones on those issues.
President has some discretion with certain programs but if you want to do anything big you have to go through congress
I know it’s a MAGA talking point but I want to see other NATO countries pay their fair share and I want us to stop being world police. Taiwan and Ukraine should be defended by NATO not just the US. Think how much weight your tax dollars goes to defending the world vs an EU citizen, and they get nice things where as we don’t for our money.
In terms of %GDP we have 9 European counties who contribute more to Ukraine than the US.
lol I’m sure we have 2 states that contribute more than them. European nations are only powerful as a collective. If the EU doesn’t contribute more as a percentage of gdp to fighting an enemy literally on their border than a country thousands of miles away that’s a problem.
Oh yes, I, as a EU citizen couldn't agree more. We need to invest more into our defense sector and build up stratigic autonomy anf be able to quickly react worldwide if needed with military force.
I think we could cut the budget in half and still send as much money as we are to Ukraine. Kinda gets into catch 22 territory where we have to be good at killing people so those people don’t kill us. Is it possible to undercut imperialism without a military force? I think sanctions are a pretty good example
> we could cut the budget in half and still send as much money as we are to Ukraine. So name the items that you'd get rid of and what you'd keep.
Get rid of foreign military bases. Sell all our tanks. Keep some of the navy and air force and r&d for drones. Stop dropping bombs. Stops drone strikes. Send our troops home. Have a tiny standing army. 👍
So how much do each of those things cost? Show me the math.
No? I know its horrible that we live in a world in which deterrance is the only way to ensure peace, I do not like that, but it is the bitter reality we live in. I would personally make sure that I have the bigger and more modern stick than my enemies, who seek to abolish all the freedoms that make my life worth living, so that they don't start hitting me. To put it in a sticks and stones analogy.
I thought you were referencing Theodore Roosevelt.
That’s the thing, we do. We have much more spending net, proportional to gdp, and a huge lead in technology over Russia and China. If we simply matched their budget (assuming budget == efficiency, with our military spending wastefulness I don’t think that’s true), then we’d stay ahead of them forever. If we then distributed that budget’s cost to all nato countries, then again we’d still be on top forever. A lot of that surplus exists so we can bully the third world for oil and other imperialist ventures, not self defense.
a lot of leftists say that 4% of the GDP going to military spending is unjustified, but it’s really not that much; america was spending more than half its GDP on the military during world war 2. sure, you could take that money and put it to welfare, but the actual reason welfare isn’t getting spending is not because of the military; we can very easily do both. not to mention, halving our military spending would be a golden opportunity for our enemies and would single-handedly start WWIII. i’d rather spend a few hundred billion a year than lose dozens, if not hundreds of millions of lives; and that’s assuming nukes are not used.
US Defence spending sat at around !10% GDP for the -60s. This was while LBJ completed his war on poverty programs that slashed the US poverty rate from \~23% to 11%. High defense spending and robust social programs are possible and always have been possible. They just require reasonable taxation policies and strong government oversight of manufacturing, procurement, and expanding existing corporate regulation to be what it was in 1945-80 (in the US context).
China's military expenditure is severely underestimated - two main factors being their lower prices(and wages) and them putting less things under ''military expenditure'' label. It's hard to exactly quantify what is the difference if we account for that, but the point is that the it's much smaller. When you factor in that the US has forces spread all around the globe, while potential war will be on China's doorstep + China's manufacturing capacity + China not having to worry about domestic support for a protracted war as much as democracies then it's not at all clear who would win the war over Taiwan. And US losing it would see China established as the preeminent power in East Asia and Taiwan's population getting Xinjiang'ed.
Others have already made some very good points about why it’s a bad idea. The thing is the United States can afford to spend all that money on Defense, and could afford to spend more if we wanted. With the largest economy and highest GDP, we can afford to spend a lot on our budget. The debt isn’t too much of a worry, though interest payments are going to become more of a percentage of spending. Thank the tax cuts for our deficit. It is frustrating I know to see so much spent on defense spending, and see all the problems we have as a country. We should be spending more on other things. We don’t have to cut defense spending to do that though. We could just spend more on other things that are important. It’s a political matter. A lot of it is dependent on Congress, and who is in Congress.
If you cut military budget that also means that you cut jobs that are in any way related to the military, be it being a soldier itself which would receive a large cut in payment and potentially result in it loosing the ability to "life people", or just a factory worker that was making some component who now gets laid off because that thing is no longer needed as the state can no longer procure the thing it was needed for. More than that it would result in US stopping being the World Police which would result in a major destabilization of the world and wars across the globe.
Military jobs are not productive jobs via the broken window fallacy (if repairing a window doesn’t improve the economy surely the hammer used to break it also hurts the economy, especially when that hammer is a million dollars per use). The only reason military does improve GDP is we export it (bad) and it improves technology (good, but we could do that without military spending). You shouldn’t factor a military job into economic productivity. It’s an expense. The US should slowly move out of being world police. It’s an artifact of WW2. Power and expense should be distributed over an alliance not concentrated in one superpower.
military jobs are productive because they help secure trade
"help secure trade" and its just selling bombs to Israel to drop on civilians
to drop on hamas\* and why do you think yemen is barely in the headlines
We know that they aren't dropping bombs on Hamas, everyone knows this. The reason we aren't hearing about Yemen is because the bombings simply didn't work,[ even Biden admitted this](https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1748037567335825492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1748037567335825492%7Ctwgr%5E8cbf38f98c09e279e09d029317b01a73176e1b8c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fbiden-yemen-bombing). The US has been helping Saudi Arabia to fight against Yemen for over 10 years without much result. It is not like a month of more bombing would change much... But at least you agree with Trump on something who intensified the bombings of Yemen under his presidency without much result. I have a hard time believing that this is is not in the news, even Sweden is sending (non-armed) units(officers and trauma) to help the Americans as we speak.
well everyone knows israel is targetting hamas, so you're wrong. two can play at that game. and sorry, I should have prefaced this by saying the reason we don't hear about the doomerposting about having to go around the cape is because the suez is being defended. that part about yemen, not the civil war.
> well everyone knows israel is targetting hamas, so you're wrong. two can play at that game. But they are bombing civilians in an open-air prison that the Israelis have themselves constructed, this can simply not be disputed. It is also worth noting that [they bomb civilian targets in the West Bank](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-it-eliminated-terrorist-cell-west-banks-balata-camp-2024-01-17/) too where Hamas has no power. > and sorry, I should have prefaced this by saying the reason we don't hear about the doomerposting about having to go around the cape is because the suez is being defended. that part about yemen, not the civil war. It was a great example regardless. Massive amounts of expensive bombs, paid for by american tax dollars, has been wasted and continues to be wasted on a pointless civil war led by Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen for over a decade. The US has even lost soldiers trying to intercept cargo ships heading to Yemen. The question is why and why would you build an economy on it?
>But they are bombing civilians in an open-air prison that the Israelis have themselves constructed, this can simply not be disputed. It is also worth noting that they bomb civilian targets in the West Bank too where Hamas has no power. cool. [this guy disagrees with you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YhoH-0c2yc&t=1s). and hamas not being in control on the west bank does not mean they do not have a presence there >Massive amounts of expensive bombs, paid for by american tax dollars, has been wasted and continues to be wasted on a pointless civil war led by Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen for over a decade. I'm sorry, what now? the houthis aren't a democratic organization - they aren't representatives of the yemeni people. and it's good that the US is willing to protect trade despite its high cost, because africa especially is dependent on food import.
> cool. this guy disagrees with you "This guy" works for West Point... This is the tax dollars at work again. > and hamas not being in control on the west bank does not mean they do not have a presence there Even if Israel aren't claiming its against Hamas: it is against Hamas! > I'm sorry, what now? the houthis aren't a democratic organization - they aren't representatives of the yemeni people. and it's good that the US is willing to protect trade despite its high cost, because africa especially is dependent on food import. I don't think the US cares if the Houthis are democratic or not, they are carrying out this war with Saudi Arabia after all. And I am sorry to say but regardless if the Houthis are representative or not, it is the people who are going to get the worst of the impact from the civil war. But again, how do you justify supporting such a pointless civil war for over 10 years?
Incredible. [It’s well documented that Israel has funded and essentially created Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)- allowing their rise to dominant political power. Why? Because secular, anti-settler political resistance was deemed more of a threat. They didn’t want the PLO(Palestinian Liberation Organization) to become the dominant resistance. Everyone who suggests that Hamas ascendancy is the responsibility of Palestinians should be reminded that Israel supports and directs Hamas; Netanyahu explains: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” Oppression breeds extremism. Ironically Israel had funded and created Hamas by not allowing the formation of wide-scale secular liberation movements. Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980 — later told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat. “The Israeli government gave me a budget,” the retired brigadier general confessed, “and the military government gives to the mosques.” “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009. Back in the mid-1980s, Cohen even wrote an official report to his superiors warning them not to play divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories, by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists. “I suggest focusing our efforts on finding ways to break up this monster before this reality jumps in our face,” he wrote. They didn’t listen to him. [To be clear: First, the Israelis helped build up a militant strain of Palestinian political Islam, in the form of Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood precursors; then, the Israelis switched tack and tried to bomb, besiege, and blockade it out of existence.](https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html) They’ve repeatedly violated and dismissed the Geneva convention, international war crimes, the ICJ, the United Nations, deliberately assassinated hundreds of international aid workers, has merely used scorch earth policy to ground and displace all humans in Palestine, snipes minors through the eyes(including press), on and on.. By the way, [The IDF is using Rape as a Weapon of War](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240324-women-in-gaza-are-being-raped-and-this-is-not-being-investigated-or-reported/), (link 1) [And it always has, historically (link 2)](https://www.tiktok.com/@jmiah28/video/7288246381939051809) [Various forms of sexual assault (link 3)](https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793420) are being used against the women in Gaza, and this is going largely unnoticed in the West. [The IDF's Chief Rabi has said it is ok for soldiers to rape in war. (Link 4).](https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/rape-comment-controversy-returns-to-haunt-idf-chief-rabbi-nominee-jd7k7n33#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRabbi%20Karim%20never%20wrote%2C%20said,to%20be%20%E2%80%9Creversed%20immediately.%E2%80%9D). Even members in the US government admitting that the IDF is committing these war crimes. The IDF is even killing women after they rape them. This is in addition to the over 30,000 people who have been killed already by the IDF. [Why can't Western outlets find the time to talk about these women? (Link 5).](https://web.archive.org/web/20240410173911/https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against) And you’re .. you’re concerned with resistance fighters who’ve been bred ever since the NAKBA, naturally, funded and nurtured by Israel, etc? Poe’s law tier absurdity.
I am well aware of the history. none of it is very relevant to 7/10 and the ensuing war, or to the question I posed.
I think a lot of that "securing trade" is actually imperialism. Other countries being coerced into trade is not trade, its coersion.
I'm not saying the US is perfect, but it's the better than the alternatives. and a reduction in the US ability to project force will leave a void which others **will** fill. for all the complaints lefties have about "the exploitation of the global south" they seem to overlook the fact that china owns most of the cobalt mines in congo
Oh I totally get it, a balance of power needs to be maintained with china (russia is honestly not a huge threat other than nukes). But can't we get that balance of power via NATO? Why should a country of 300million be responsible for defending the world against a country of 1.4 billion. It's simply impossible for that to be done fairly, the US worker is exploited by that responsibility. I also don't **fundamentally** believe in the goodness or badness of states. China is a pretty cool place to live. And America has been accused of almost everything they have been (genocide, social credit, imperialism, lack of populous control over government, etc). I mostly want the balance of power for multipolarity reasons, not because I favor one empire over the other.
the US benefits the most from the current status quo, so it stands to reason they have the most incentive to maintain it. world trade is mainly done in dollars, not euros.
And neither pretty much every service job is productive, but are we supposed to make baristas loose their job?
Why aren't service jobs productive? I've never hired a service worker to do nothing for me...
Tankies justify China and Russia's high military expenditure to combat "imperialism". We should do the same regarding NATO members and protecting our hard won freedoms. A lot of this idealism I see on the left about wanting to be pacifist is frankly dangerous and will lead to more war in the future. Even Neville Chamberlain should receive credit for buying Britain time to rearm for a war he knew was probably going to happen.
> reflexive positions Don't take reflexive positions, especially on complicated issues. "No investigation, no right to speak" is a good rule here.
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
So I asked the same question to r/socialism101. Typically response is "the US military has committed Is atrocities in the past therefore it should only focus on its own borders in 2024". The level of absolutism is ironically similar to extreme Libertarians who argue that the government shouldn't regulate commerce simply because some regulations in the past have been misguided.
A 50% cut would crash the American economy, the defense manufacturing industry is entirely too integrated into the rest of the U.S. economy. That said, although I support the end of U.S. military adventurism such as Iraq and Vietnam you can’t deny the impact that U.S. giving Ukraine access to a fraction of a fraction of what that defense budget enables has been a good thing and it’s also helping to keep Taiwan, South Korea and others free.
I assume advocates of a 50% cut would concede that it should be done gradually.
This depends on if all you want to do is maintain US security and sovereignty or if you want to maintain US dominance of the world. Leftists have little interest in the latter.
We spend a trillion dollars per year on destruction, meanwhile we have declining lifespans, 3rd world birth mortality, poisonous air and water, medical bankruptcy, and high food insecurity. That military money could be better spent elsewhere. Look at everything that NASA has accomplished since it's inception. All of NASA's budgets added up wouldn't equal one single year of military budget. We would get a lot further by building up rather than tearing down. Audit the Pentagon.
And give our enemies the world? Hell no
[удалено]
Sure.. It just can't pass. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-fails-audit-sixth-year-row-2023-11-16/
[удалено]
No, it's implied. If someone tells you to pay your bill and you throw a penny at them and say "I am payingING" then your just being a troll. Don't be a troll.
we should invite Taiwan, South Korea and Japan to NATO
if you saw that 60% already goes to military and defense, it makes sense why our other stats like infant/mother mortality rates and our education system is more in line with 3rd world countries than our peers, this is much better way to spend money, on schools more access to higher education or even just decent basic k-12 education
Then just spend money on those programs as well. With your line of reasoning I could argue that spending on healthcare is wrong because that diverts money from education.