Platform Discussion: National Defense

By Justin

The concept of national defense is tricky.  There is the notion of 'homeland defense' and the traditional concept of 'defending freedom'.  For this posting, we will tackle the traditional defending freedom.  I think we should start with a few facts.  As best that can be determined with little true research I turned to wikipedia.  The USA spent 687 billion dollars in 2010 in 'military expenditures'.  China is the next closes in expenditures at 114 billion.

So for 2010, the USA spent 6 times as much as the next 'superpower' in the world.  In fact, it takes the top 20 countries in the world to equal the spending by the USA on 'military expenditures'.  The fact is that the true cost of national defense is much, much higher.  If you add in defense organizations such as the FBI, veteran affairs, portions of the State Department, etc.  You easily get to a trillion dollars.

So the question of national defense is well warranted. So the Platform...

1. The Members of the Armed Forces deserve our admiration, respect and unwavering support.  The line from a Few Good Men by Jack Nicholson is so very true: 

"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way"

It is easy for us to sit in our homes and complain about defense spending, conflicts and wars.  While worthwhile discussions and rightfully apart of the conversation, we must not forget the individuals who are carrying out their duties.  Spending on veterans should be examined, refined and reviewed. The Veterans Administration should be reviewed from top to bottom.  The methodologies and support functions for our veterans should be modern and cutting edge whether that be GI Bills, home loans or medical care.

2. The United States should continue to be a recognized international force for stabilizing otherwise unstable situations.  It is easy to say our role should not be a police force.  But saying so is like saying that homeless person should just get a job.  It isn't that easy.  An international force to address and respond to crisis is necessary and the reality is our country has the wealth and influence to be that nation.  It should be done with care, openness and always with the interests of the oppressed in mind.

3. The Armed Forces should be equipped to fight the newest threats with the more advanced technologies.  Evaluation of the methodologies of training and types of equipment should reflect the threats we face.  While all threats cannot be known, preparing for Icelandic space war should not top our spending priorities.

4. The monitoring, control, and (where needed) prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons is essential to domestic and international security.  I realize it is easy to sit behind our nuclear arsenal and say you can't have one.  I realize we are the only country in the history of time to use a nuclear weapon in an act of war.  However, I believe our values as a people would not stand for us to be 'rouge' in another use of a nuclear weapon.  Using our arsenal as an international veil of protection is warranted.  Preventing rogue nations, tribes or groups from acquiring nuclear weapons should be mission one.

Overall Discussion:  The talking of national defense could go on forever.  The truth is the 687 billion dollars is a major driver of the USA economy.  I am not a proponent of cutting defense spending, however, ensuring the spending is addressing current threats, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, deployed in ways to assist those living under repressive regimes and ultimately providing the very best for the Men and Women in and out of uniform is key.  

If I was President, that 687 billion would be evaluated and some priorities would be shifted favoring Veteran spending, modernization and nuclear threats.

Current theaters of war, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya need to be evaluated.  I am not going to evoke President G.W. Bush's saying of 'Generals in the field will determine troop levels', but I will say that I have no vested trust that the Congress of the United States has the ability to not play politics with the US Military.  To that end, the Joints Chiefs of Staff should be advising the President on the ends that meet the means.  I will say I am confused on what exactly our ends, means or goals are in Libya.  So in effect I am 'punting' on the current theater questions.  Take that CNN!