REDUCTION OF THE MILITARY
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE MILITARY
Recently the administration voiced its desire to reduce military size to save money. The argument is that it will reduce our deficit and still allow us to maintain a more flexible force. This is based upon the premise that new technology will make a smaller modern military more responsive to crisis.
While we can argue the merits of this viewpoint as it concerns our military preparedness that is not the focus of this, particular, address. I would rather discuss the idea of reducing the deficit and saving money by reducing force size.
First, I think we are all experienced enough to recognize that any savings in the defense budget will immediately be reallocated to other programs. Therefore, there will be NO long term deficit reduction because of this policy.
Second, we need to consider if this is really an intelligent move or merely a political ploy to gain support and broaden a partisan base. Partly because of the “feel good” effect of appearing to be less militant and partly because of the perceived use of the funds to “help the poor”; many will laud and support this policy.
Sadly, exactly the opposite of what people perceive the effect to be will occur.
Let’s say we reduce our military by 400,000 members. That is 400K individuals and families that will be placed on the employment rolls seeking work. That in itself is a detriment to economic growth but hold a much more insidious threat. Many of these will draw unemployment and some will fall into the welfare, food stamps, Medicare pit. So, in effect, we will be transferring money from government subsidized careers in the disciplined military with professional training and educational benefits for dependence upon the largesse of the welfare state.
Who will this effect most? It will have a long range and devastating effect on the poor and minority youth. Young adults who want to achieve middle income status will be denied the opportunity to serve their country while receiving training and educational opportunities. Instead, those same young adults will be forced to accept whatever their community may have available. Unfortunately, in the urban communities this often leaves them trapped in the cycle of poverty, crime, and hopelessness.
The discussion of “income inequality” rears its ugly head as the poor young adult could previously seek almost immediate elevation to middle class by joining the military and now will be forced to seek their fortunes on the streets of the inner city or live in rural poverty. So, you ask, why would anyone wish this on our youth? Because, it will mean a generation of government dependency that will cede political power to the select elite of our nation. More and more the elitist segment will gain increased control as the poor and impoverished are doomed to serf like domination.
Agree or disagree these subjects need to be discussed.
SO SAYS GRUMPY.