Profound Incoherence: DJT aims to retract US military round the world, yet increase DoD budget (1 Viewer)

[Xelor]

Donald Trump has ordered the US' withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan and has proposed material cutbacks in our presence in the ROC and Germany...And yet he also authorized a massive increase in the DoD's budget, and wants even more next year. Mind you, Trump also portrays stunts such as these as catalysts to crafting a US military that "does more with less." Less what? Less coherent comprehensive cogent cogitation?

Read the content linked-to below and you'll see that what Trump is actually proposing is to do less and spend a lot more doing it.

Think about that.

• The US already has what is far and away the world's most powerful military.
  • How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?
  • Comparisons of World Military Power
• The US already spends more on its military than the seven next most militarily "spendy" nations COMBINED
• Trump wants to reduce the nature and extent of our military involvement and deployments overseas.
  • Trump orders Pentagon to consider reducing U.S. troops in South Korea
  • Trump says the US should spend less on NATO -- Nevermind that "spending less in/on NATO" isn't remotely a factually or contextually accurate depiction of how the US' or any other nation's so-called NATO spending works.
  • Trump instructs Pentagon to consider removing troops from Germany
• Yet he thinks we need to purchase...
  • 15,000 more units
  • 93 new F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters,
  • 142 Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and
  • 13 Navy battle force ships.

... blithely treading over the Budget Control Act to the tune of ~$85 billion.​

However...

• Social security has to, in his mind, be cut and he wants billions to build a wall that won't work.

Why have I presented the above line? Because I haven't forgotten that Ronald Reagan essentially "forced" the USSR into economic ruin by "daring" it to keep up with the US' capitalism-enabled spending when the USSR's command economy simply couldn't allocate resources adequately enough to sustain its doing so. (The USIC didn't contemporarily see and glean the nature and extent, thus germanity, of the economics of the matter, but hindsight is 2020 and the professionals in the military and intel communities, if nothing else, learn from their mistakes.)

• The economic consequences of the arms race—military spending is harmful for growth

What we're witnessing now is Trump over-allocating increasing shares of the US' economy, both current earnings (tax dollars and GDP) and future ones (future GDP, tax dollars plus the interest on the debt we incur to fund budget increases), thus threatening to do to the US economy what Reagan did to the Soviet Union's.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Donald Trump has ordered the US' withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan and has proposed material cutbacks in our presence in the ROC and Germany...And yet he also authorized a massive increase in the DoD's budget, and wants even more next year. Mind you, Trump also portrays stunts such as these as catalysts to crafting a US military that "does more with less." Less what? Less coherent comprehensive cogent cogitation?

Read the content linked-to below and you'll see that what Trump is actually proposing is to do less and spend a lot more doing it.

Think about that.

• The US already has what is far and away the world's most powerful military.
  • How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?
  • Comparisons of World Military Power
• The US already spends more on its military than the seven next most militarily "spendy" nations COMBINED
• Trump wants to reduce the nature and extent of our military involvement and deployments overseas.
  • Trump orders Pentagon to consider reducing U.S. troops in South Korea
  • Trump says the US should spend less on NATO -- Nevermind that "spending less in/on NATO" isn't remotely a factually or contextually accurate depiction of how the US' or any other nation's so-called NATO spending works.
  • Trump instructs Pentagon to consider removing troops from Germany
• Yet he thinks we need to purchase...
  • 15,000 more units
  • 93 new F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters,
  • 142 Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and
  • 13 Navy battle force ships.

... blithely treading over the Budget Control Act to the tune of ~$85 billion.​

However...

• Social security has to, in his mind, be cut and he wants billions to build a wall that won't work.

Why have I presented the above line? Because I haven't forgotten that Ronald Reagan essentially "forced" the USSR into economic ruin by "daring" it to keep up with the US' capitalism-enabled spending when the USSR's command economy simply couldn't allocate resources adequately enough to sustain its doing so. (The USIC didn't contemporarily see and glean the nature and extent, thus germanity, of the economics of the matter, but hindsight is 2020 and the professionals in the military and intel communities, if nothing else, learn from their mistakes.)

• The economic consequences of the arms race—military spending is harmful for growth

What we're witnessing now is Trump over-allocating increasing shares of the US' economy, both current earnings (tax dollars and GDP) and future ones (future GDP, tax dollars plus the interest on the debt we incur to fund budget increases), thus threatening to do to the US economy what Reagan did to the Soviet Union's.

Filed under:The New Chinese Empire is coming for us and we have long been incapable of building military gear at a reasonable cost...so......you know....

 

[jnug]

Is Trump actually doing anything with our Foreign Policy and Military assets? The State Dept has been stripped bare and Pompeo certainly hasn't the time to repair it. He spends all his time traveling the globe trying to explain to the world why all this makes sense.

The reporting is that Erdogan informed Trump that he IS going to cross the border with Syria and attack our allies the Kurds. Donald's response? "Here let me open the door for you as I hit the road". Courageous of you Donald. Turkey, telling America what to do? "Get out of our way!" Saudi guiding our Middle East Policy? At the same time Donald takes the legs out from under our negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan announcing that we would leave. Didn't Donald complain about Obama doing very much the same thing to our Military assets fighting on foreign soil? N Korea immediately announces that they are withdrawing from any of the commitments made as meaningless as they were coming out of Singapore. That surely should have been expected.

Frankly the forum discussions about Donald's dumb Wall now simply fad to near irrelevance. This government will have a difficult time now not going into a shutdown that makes the lack of funding shutdown look like a Sunday walk in the park. This is no longer an administration of government if it ever was.

I fully expect we are going to be tested in real time and soon somewhere around the globe.

 

[jnug]

At one point yesterday, we had the WH referring questions regarding the Syrian withdrawal to DoD and DoD referring the same questions back to the WH! It is high time we stopped just growing numb to Trumpian nonsense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hmm... the (logical?) alternative is to spend less on the US military and to deploy them everywhere (anywhere?) that local governments are unable (or unwilling?) to handle insurgents or terrorists on their own.

After 17 years of military deployment in Afghanistan (the world's leading opium supplier?) we are now said to be (somewhat?) beyond a stalemate and may be able to reduce our military forces deployed there within a few decades. US military 'involvement" in Iraq is going on 15 years and shows similar progress. It is a bit too soon to tell in Syria (under 5 years?) but that seems to be going quite well too. Meanwhile, Africa shows some signs that our military could be helpful in various whack-a-mole campaigns to fight global insurgency and terror.

 

[jnug]

Hmm... the (logical?) alternative is to spend less on the US military and to deploy them everywhere (anywhere?) that local governments are unable (or unwilling?) to handle insurgents or terrorists on their own.

After 17 years of military deployment in Afghanistan (the world's leading opium supplier?) we are now said to be (somewhat?) beyond a stalemate and may be able to reduce our military forces deployed there within a few decades. US military 'involvement" in Iraq is going on 15 years and shows similar progress. It is a bit too soon to tell in Syria (under 5 years?) but that seems to be going quite well too. Meanwhile, Africa shows some signs that our military could be helpful in various whack-a-mole campaigns to fight global insurgency and terror.

Should have stayed in Syria and drawn down some troopers from Afghanistan. Should not have announced our turtling anywhere at this point in time which is what the Syrian announcement did. If Trump wanted to send 2,200 troopers home he could have just pulled 2,200 from Afghanistan. Should have left those in Syria in Syria and should have told Erdogan to go take a long walk off a short pier.

Trump makes Neville Chamberlin look like a Hawk!

Come on folks...lets have more of those "Trump owns Pelosi" threads. Jackasses!!!

 

[Xelor]

Hmm... the (logical?) alternative is to spend less on the US military and to deploy them everywhere (anywhere?) that local governments are unable (or unwilling?) to handle insurgents or terrorists on their own.

After 17 years of military deployment in Afghanistan (the world's leading opium supplier?) we are now said to be (somewhat?) beyond a stalemate and may be able to reduce our military forces deployed there within a few decades. US military 'involvement" in Iraq is going on 15 years and shows similar progress. It is a bit too soon to tell in Syria (under 5 years?) but that seems to be going quite well too. Meanwhile, Africa shows some signs that our military could be helpful in various whack-a-mole campaigns to fight global insurgency and terror.

Red:
How droll....

 

[Captain Adverse]

Profound Incoherence? :roll:

So some can't understand the merit in Trump's effort to "Retract US military round the world, yet increase DoD budget?"

1. Let's take the military budget increase issue first.

Much as I dislike the "Military-Industrial Complex" I am aware enough to recognize that it is a mainstay of the American economy.

Money spent on defense contracts goes to American businesses, who hire American workers to produce American-made guns, tanks, ships, airplanes, munitions, clothing, preserved foods, and other support materials. The military budget also goes to wages for military personnel and civilian support services. Then there are all the military facilities which provide economic support for surrounding civilian communities. This doesn't even touch on research and development investments, or all the various G.I. education bill programs.

One of the things we have come to expect from our government is jobs programs, and the US Military is one major jobs program as I have described above. That's where the increase in military spending is validated.

2. Now as to the decreased military presence overseas?

Just because we pull out of places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria does not mean we would no longer need the same level of regular military active-duty forces for other possible military response purposes. What it does mean is we can stop depending on National Guard call-ups which disrupt home life and place part-time soldiers at constant risk of death or injury...at least until the next time we NEED to call them up for a real war.

The thing I find most strange about this negative reaction? Both Hawks and Doves are decrying this pull-out. Yet is seems most of those doing it are content with risking other people's lives for their political view points.

I am not an isolationist, but I do not support overseas adventurism. Nor do I support the idea that it is the USA's responsibility to be the policeman off the world.

 

[jnug]

Much as I dislike the "Military-Industrial Complex" I am aware enough to recognize that it is a mainstay of the American economy.

Money spent on defense contracts goes to American businesses, who hire American workers to produce American-made guns, tanks, ships, airplanes, munitions, clothing, preserved foods, and other support materials. The military budget also goes to wages for military personnel and civilian support services. Then there are all the military facilities which provide economic support for surrounding civilian communities. This doesn't even touch on research and development investments, or all the various G.I. education bill programs.

One of the things we have come to expect from our government is jobs programs, and the US Military is one major jobs program as I have described above. That's where the increase in military spending is validated.

Meanwhile, just because we pull out of places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria does not mean we would no longer need the same level of active-duty forces for other possible military response purposes. What it does mean is we can stop depending on national guard call-ups which disrupt home life and place part-time soldiers at constant risk of death or injury...at least until the next time we NEED to call them up for a real war.

The thing I find most strange about this negative reaction? Both Hawks and Doves are decrying this pull-out. Yet is seems most of those doing it are content with risking other people's lives for their political view points.

I am not an isolationist, but I do not support overseas adventurism. Nor do I support the idea that it is the USA's responsibility to be the policeman off the world.

Neither did Jim Mattis and neither does anybody else I know including me. You are peddling another False Narrative. STILL....You don't think that its high time to stop peddling nonsense or are you going to prove to be part of that half of the Trump base that simply wants to see the country burned to the ground?

We just abandoned our allies in Syria the Kurds who have fought side by side with us to destruction by Erdogan. If you think that makes us more safe, you are out of your mind.

 

[Helix]

i support ending the wars and increasing our commitment to veterans while maintaining a scalable, peacetime level military. if the US needs to participate in another war, congress should declare it and fully fund it with significant wartime taxes. these taxes should remain in place until the war concludes. they should be financially inconvenient for the average citizen and exceptionally high for the wealthy. dodging them in any way should result in jail time.

if we stuck to a policy like this, we'd have a much better chance at avoiding war, IMO.

 

[Lovebug]

Donald Trump has ordered the US' withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan and has proposed material cutbacks in our presence in the ROC and Germany...And yet he also authorized a massive increase in the DoD's budget, and wants even more next year. Mind you, Trump also portrays stunts such as these as catalysts to crafting a US military that "does more with less." Less what? Less coherent comprehensive cogent cogitation?

Read the content linked-to below and you'll see that what Trump is actually proposing is to do less and spend a lot more doing it.

Think about that.

• The US already has what is far and away the world's most powerful military.
  • How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?
  • Comparisons of World Military Power
• The US already spends more on its military than the seven next most militarily "spendy" nations COMBINEDhttps://tinyurl.com/y74c77ke
• Trump wants to reduce the nature and extent of our military involvement and deployments overseas.
  • Trump orders Pentagon to consider reducing U.S. troops in South Korea
  • Trump says the US should spend less on NATO -- Nevermind that "spending less in/on NATO" isn't remotely a factually or contextually accurate depiction of how the US' or any other nation's so-called NATO spending works.
  • Trump instructs Pentagon to consider removing troops from Germany
• Yet he thinks we need to purchase...
  • 15,000 more units
  • 93 new F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters,
  • 142 Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and
  • 13 Navy battle force ships.

... blithely treading over the Budget Control Act to the tune of ~$85 billion.​

However...

• Social security has to, in his mind, be cut and he wants billions to build a wall that won't work.

Why have I presented the above line? Because I haven't forgotten that Ronald Reagan essentially "forced" the USSR into economic ruin by "daring" it to keep up with the US' capitalism-enabled spending when the USSR's command economy simply couldn't allocate resources adequately enough to sustain its doing so. (The USIC didn't contemporarily see and glean the nature and extent, thus germanity, of the economics of the matter, but hindsight is 2020 and the professionals in the military and intel communities, if nothing else, learn from their mistakes.)

• The economic consequences of the arms race—military spending is harmful for growth

What we're witnessing now is Trump over-allocating increasing shares of the US' economy, both current earnings (tax dollars and GDP) and future ones (future GDP, tax dollars plus the interest on the debt we incur to fund budget increases), thus threatening to do to the US economy what Reagan did to the Soviet Union's.

Red
how much do other "spenders" invest to "secure" other nations? Does our policing the world come at a higher cost?

 

[Kobie]

Profound Incoherence? :roll:

So some can't understand the merit in Trump's effort to "Retract US military round the world, yet increase DoD budget?"

1. Let's take the military budget increase issue first.

Much as I dislike the "Military-Industrial Complex" I am aware enough to recognize that it is a mainstay of the American economy.

Money spent on defense contracts goes to American businesses, who hire American workers to produce American-made guns, tanks, ships, airplanes, munitions, clothing, preserved foods, and other support materials. The military budget also goes to wages for military personnel and civilian support services. Then there are all the military facilities which provide economic support for surrounding civilian communities. This doesn't even touch on research and development investments, or all the various G.I. education bill programs.

One of the things we have come to expect from our government is jobs programs, and the US Military is one major jobs program as I have described above. That's where the increase in military spending is validated.

2. Now as to the decreased military presence overseas?

Just because we pull out of places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria does not mean we would no longer need the same level of regular military active-duty forces for other possible military response purposes. What it does mean is we can stop depending on National Guard call-ups which disrupt home life and place part-time soldiers at constant risk of death or injury...at least until the next time we NEED to call them up for a real war.

The thing I find most strange about this negative reaction? Both Hawks and Doves are decrying this pull-out. Yet is seems most of those doing it are content with risking other people's lives for their political view points.

I am not an isolationist, but I do not support overseas adventurism. Nor do I support the idea that it is the USA's responsibility to be the policeman off the world.

There is literally nothing you won’t invent excuses for when it comes to Trump.

 

[Grokmaster]

Donald Trump has ordered the US' withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan and has proposed material cutbacks in our presence in the ROC and Germany...And yet he also authorized a massive increase in the DoD's budget, and wants even more next year. Mind you, Trump also portrays stunts such as these as catalysts to crafting a US military that "does more with less." Less what? Less coherent comprehensive cogent cogitation?

Read the content linked-to below and you'll see that what Trump is actually proposing is to do less and spend a lot more doing it.

Think about that.

• The US already has what is far and away the world's most powerful military.
  • How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?
  • Comparisons of World Military Power
• The US already spends more on its military than the seven next most militarily "spendy" nations COMBINED
• Trump wants to reduce the nature and extent of our military involvement and deployments overseas.
  • Trump orders Pentagon to consider reducing U.S. troops in South Korea
  • Trump says the US should spend less on NATO -- Nevermind that "spending less in/on NATO" isn't remotely a factually or contextually accurate depiction of how the US' or any other nation's so-called NATO spending works.
  • Trump instructs Pentagon to consider removing troops from Germany
• Yet he thinks we need to purchase...
  • 15,000 more units
  • 93 new F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters,
  • 142 Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and
  • 13 Navy battle force ships.

... blithely treading over the Budget Control Act to the tune of ~$85 billion.​

However...

• Social security has to, in his mind, be cut and he wants billions to build a wall that won't work.

Why have I presented the above line? Because I haven't forgotten that Ronald Reagan essentially "forced" the USSR into economic ruin by "daring" it to keep up with the US' capitalism-enabled spending when the USSR's command economy simply couldn't allocate resources adequately enough to sustain its doing so. (The USIC didn't contemporarily see and glean the nature and extent, thus germanity, of the economics of the matter, but hindsight is 2020 and the professionals in the military and intel communities, if nothing else, learn from their mistakes.)

• The economic consequences of the arms race—military spending is harmful for growth

What we're witnessing now is Trump over-allocating increasing shares of the US' economy, both current earnings (tax dollars and GDP) and future ones (future GDP, tax dollars plus the interest on the debt we incur to fund budget increases), thus threatening to do to the US economy what Reagan did to the Soviet Union's.

Yeah....speaking softly, while carrying a Big Stick.


Hilarious watching the nonstop **** TALKING LEFT suddenly become HAWKS.....

 

[RetiredUSN]

I see that the internet Generals are out in force.

It must be easy for those with no skin in the game.

 

[jnug]

Yeah....speaking softly, while carrying a Big Stick.


Hilarious watching the nonstop **** TALKING LEFT suddenly become HAWKS.....

What???? Are you serious?

How perfect is this for Putin? Once Erdogan eventually crosses the border to destroy the Kurds (and he will if we are gone and Syria is left to Assad/Iran/Russia we will be left with the choice of abandoning the Kurds COMPLETELY who fought side by side with us against ISIS in Syria or defending them against a NATO ally.

Do you think Putin will declare a national holiday and hold an orgy at one of his Dacha's or just get on RT and show us that wry cheshire cat grin of his? Either option is pretty detestable. But what the heck....MAGA!!!!

 

[Barnacle]

What???? Are you serious?

How perfect is this for Putin? Once Erdogan eventually crosses the border to destroy the Kurds (and he will if we are gone and Syria is left to Assad/Iran/Russia we will be left with the choice of abandoning the Kurds COMPLETELY who fought side by side with us against ISIS in Syria or defending them against a NATO ally.

Do you think Putin will declare a national holiday and hold an orgy at one of his Dacha's or just get on RT and show us that wry cheshire cat grin of his? Either option is pretty detestable. But what the heck....MAGA!!!!

Erdogan announced last week that Turkey's invasion of Syria is imminent, and he will cross exactly at the point where 2,000 US soldiers are stationed.

Turkey, a NATO member, has forged an alliance with Russia and Iran.


Question:

- Are we ready to fight a NATO member?

And subsequently: Are we ready to send hundreds of thousands US troop to Syria to fight a NATO member, Russia and Iran?!?

Which NATO members will support us in fighting another NATO member?