[drugstore]

It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar.

Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part.

Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security?

For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools.

What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems.

One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe

The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods.

You've got a point....at least the beginning of a point.

Military strength isn't worth much if is used inappropriately. It's like having a basement full of new, shiny tools but still using a ratchet handle to pound nails. Also, diplomacy IS an important part of conflict resolution although one often gets more favorable results when that diplomacy is conducted from a position of strength.

Our military was grown to address the threat of war in Europe and that priority held through the 80's. We then began a draw down because the world was "safer" with the fall of the Soviet Union. "Safer", as it turned out, was relative. Recently our primary threat hasn't been from one large opponent but, rather, several smaller opponents who are dispersed around the globe. To deal with that threat we scaled back troop strength but ramped up technology - very expensive technology. Today we are finding that we not only need the technology but that we also need the troop strength.

I also want you to think about what this money spent primarily on military technology has purchased. WWII saw over 1,000,000 US dead and wounded. Korea saw nearly 150,000 and Vietnam saw more than 200,000. Compare that to Iraq where we have had less than 40,000 dead and wounded with less than 4000 of that total actually being combat deaths. In Afghanistan we have had less than 10,000 dead and wounded. Isn't the reduction in casualties worth anything?