The proposal to shrink our military

There is a new proposal which has surfaced this week to drastically reduce the size of our military to levels which by some reports have indicated would be at pre-World War II levels. There is no comparison between the pre-World War II era and the world as we know it today. There are individuals and organizations who want to do us and our military harm all around the world. The proposal to reduce the size of our military is raising some questions about the level of security we would have with a reduced force.

I am not ignoring the fact that there is waste in most if not all programs which are funded each year or every two years dependent upon the appropriations. The problem comes in recognizing where the waste is located within our military organization in conjunction with this proposal. Granted the world today and the technology we now enjoy have impacted our military organization now and into the future. One of the technology improvements is the use of drones but drones can aid our troops but not replace them. The impact needs to be carefully recognized and addressed without hurting the security not only of our country but the security of those who put their lives on the line each day to keep us safe. The technology of today and tomorrow should be used to assist our troops around the world not replace them.

It has been stated many times in news reports that our military is stretched thin around the world and some say we should not be in many of the places we now find ourselves but we publicly do not always know the purpose for our presence though it may be justified. The enemies we have and our allies have around the world are not holding back on their efforts to do us harm. Technology today has increased their ability to communicate with each other and we need to have the personnel in place to counteract and prevent their plans to come to fruition.

Additionally we have interests around the world and in some instance our presence along with our allies are needed to protect our interests. We have embassies all over the world and while it is the host country who is responsible for protecting our embassies and our personnel we need to have the protection of our own troops in place. A good example of this need is the incident of Bengasi where we had citizens killed including our Ambassador. The event in Bengasi raises some questions about the security of these individuals and it is unclear how the proposal would address these security needs with a reduced force.

There are some moves to turn back to an isolationist policy where we would bring most if not all our troops back within our borders. This kind of action did not keep us safe in the past and it will not keep us safe in the future. An example of this kind of policy resulted in 9/11. The policy in many administrations of the past was to have a strong defense with a solid military organization with the resources to be ready to defend our security whenever the need arises. Reducing the level of our military organizations across the country to pre-World War II levels needs to be strongly rejected by Congress. Congress must approve these changes and it is hoped there is enough support and concern for the security of our country that this proposal will be dead on arrival.

While there may be some sound evidence where some programs as suggested need to be cancelled but any changes in the structure of our military organizations must ensure that the tools to keep our troops safe are there. Other aspects related to costs also bring some concerns or should. Some of the information which has surfaced in the reports indicates that those now serving us will be required to contribute more to their health insurance and other benefits. One thing I do not understand to some extent is why our military should be required to pay for their health insurance. These individuals put their lives on the line every day for us and we should not force them to pay more for their health insurance if at all. We have a network of VA hospitals and doctors who already have a salary so why should our troops be required to pay anything for their healthcare needs. They are making sacrifices each day and in addition so are their families. The families of our servicemen and women should be provided the healthcare they need. Our troops should not have to worry whether their families will be taken care of in their hour of need.

Last the details of the proposal need to be closely examined to ensure the reason for the changes in the number of troops across all services are being done for the right reasons and not budgetary constraints. Congress must support our military to the fullest extent of their authority and make sure we always have a strong defense with the resources required to address issues affecting the security of our country. Our military has equipment which is old and needs to be replaced some of which are outdated and do not provide the safety protection our troops deserve. It is hoped this proposal will be examined closely and accept the changes which make sense if there are any and soundly reject those which defy logic for the decisions being made. Policy in the past has been that negotiating from a position of strength is the best defense. Congress needs to make sure we will always have a strong military organization across all services.

More by this Author


6 comments

Justin Earick profile image

Justin Earick 2 years ago from Tacoma, WA

Sure - except our military spending equals the next 12-16 countries combined (depending how you count the depts of energy and homeland security).

Are you serious right now?


Justin Earick profile image

Justin Earick 2 years ago from Tacoma, WA

Are you seriously worried about being invaded? Does the cutting of a single dollar (while ending two land wars) represent imminent invasion?

You need to grow up (and a pair), seriously.

How low an opinion do you have of our active duty and special forces?


Justin Earick profile image

Justin Earick 2 years ago from Tacoma, WA

Are you seriously worried about being invaded? Does the cutting of a single dollar (while ending two land wars) represent imminent invasion?

You need to grow up (and a pair), seriously.

How low an opinion do you have of our active duty and special forces?

Why do we need to arm against Hilter's Panzer tanks? WWII is over! Why do we need amphibious landing vehicles? Are we invading Normandy again?


Dennis AuBuchon profile image

Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago Author

Justin,

I appreciate all opinions. I have every confidence in the quality and experience of our military but shrinking our military in the world we have today is the wrong thing to do at this time. I am concerned about having the size of military we need to provide the security we deserve.


Justin Earick profile image

Justin Earick 2 years ago from Tacoma, WA

We spend more than the next 12 countries combined. We have more troops than anyone but China and India. Our f-35 program costs more than any other country's entire military budget.

Again, who is going to invade us?

That is the problem with chicken hawks - even in times of peace they just push for more wars and more spending.

And as Eisenhower said - every dollar spent on a bomb is stolen from the mouths of poor children.


Dennis AuBuchon profile image

Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago Author

Justin,

I am not worried about an invasion but having the necessary resources to protect us from those who plan to take action such against us. There was a statement which said we need to negotiate from a position of strength not weakness. Shrinking our military would reduce our strength in the eyes of our enemies.

Submitting comments has been temporarily disabled.

Click to Rate This Article
working