speech bit

[Sir_Die_alot]

These are the statements you made, yes?

Yes.

They are false, yes? They are contradicted by other statements you have made, which you have now asked me to consider, so clearly they must be.

No.

Keep in mind where the original topic was at.

Your original argument was in counter to the notion that the US spends too much money on its military. You said it was a low figure *in proportion to GDP*. That is a precise figure. You weren't talking about "value" as vaguely defined.

Baloney. Remember this line? "The more valueable your country is, the more modivation there is for another to take it away." Maybe you don't because you cut it out when you first quoted it in your reply, but you should since this is the second time I've quoted it back to you. If I'm going to validate a number for spending, I'm going to need a number that both shows what we have to protect and how much we can use to that effect. Hey I know, how about GDP!

Your whole argument is based on the nuance that it's not just GDP, you're right and I haven't tried to state otherwise. I'm sure I could have worded "I would argue a country's "need" is based precisely on it's GDP." better. Putting an "almost" beside "precisely" may have solved that, but then we would be in the same discussion about "Oh yeah! What what do you mean by 'almost' then?" <_< The fact I did qualify in the same paragraph and next sentance "value", should have given you the idea I wasn't trying to make the point it's all just GDP.

When it comes to figuring how much should be spent in realitive peacetime, either by that nation or an ally, I still say GDP plays the key role. I see the military as a kind of tax for having a country. Well what do you tax a country on, maybe a percentage of it's GDP? ;) An average "tax rate" isn't something I think people should get excited about.

All you said was that spending as a portion of GDP was not high, and that this justifies further spending (or counters arguments against spending so much).

I said that justifies the money we do spend, not adding to that. What justifies adding to that is we have deployed our troops which takes more money. I also stated this point.

You further went on to make two qualifications to your statement, both of which I take issue with. First, is that GDP was not roughly correlated, but that it was precisely correlated. I would disagree even with the weaker version, but the strong version is simply absurd. Clearly, you knew that, because you've contradicted it since. Second, you made clear your point was obvious from thousands of years of history. Invoking that kind of authority, to me, means you're pretty friggin' sure of your point.

I'm not even sure what you are talking about here. I made one post that was to qualify the GDP thing. Unless you are referring to the rebuttal post that got you started as the qualification, in which case you are ignoring my second post. If I'm right, you are getting all hung up on single lines and ignoring the rest of the paragraph that qualifies those lines. (Hell, it's probably just the one line I pointed out above)

So, yeah. I read the earlier posts. You were defending spending relative to productivity. I said spending should be relative to threat (accepting Occhi's criticism that this might not be just a direct or immediate threat). Now, what are you saying to that? Do you still accept your original argument that a "low" (relative to China and North Korea...) defense budget relative to GDP is a good reason not to cut back on military spending?

We don't even compair to North Korea percent wise. China isn't particularly fair because we have responsibilities in the UN and NATO. To my knowledge China has little military involvement with the former and (obviously) none with the latter.

Or does one actually need to consider what one's enemies are spending, not merely what percentage of their budgets go towards the army? I wouldn't, for instance, be very threatened by Andorra, even if they spend 100% of their GDP on the army. I would, however, be quite threatened by the US, even if they only spent half a percent of their GDP.

That's because you are paranoid. You and I live in the countries with the longest peaceful border in the world and history. If you forsee any future where the US is invading Canada, it's going to be so long after our grandchildren are dead that any spending done now won't matter. Unless you know of secret Canadian plans that I don't. :ph34r: :P

As for small countries building up militarys I am threatend by them. Not because I think they can conqure the US, or any other 1st world nation, but because they often have anti-US and/or anti-western sentiments. Look at those countries that have overly high GDP defense spending, how many have high populations of people who would like nothing better than to see a big chunk taken out of America or the western world in general? I want countries like that to think the hammer will drop if they "accidentally" lose a bomb that ends up on a boat headed for the US.

The way I see it, you've contradicted yourself. I think it's because those statements above reach much farther, and are far more precise than you intended. Unfortunately, they were also the justification for your earlier argument. So I'm not even sure which you mean. That's what I'm arguing about.

Aside from the magic taken out of context now doubly explained line, I don't see where you think I have contradicted myself. The %GDP was the measuring stick for how much is a "reasonable" amount to take out of an economy and spend. The goodies one country has can modivate another country take them. The attacking country may be modivated to use a third country as a means to get to the first. Troops in combat cost more. I don't see the contradiction.

I pick apart individual phrases because I presume you mean them. Is that a presumption I should stop making?

How about presuming I mean them, the paragraph, the whole post they are contained in, and any corrections/clarifications I subsequently might make? You don't seem to be very fond of the "sound bite" campaigns that come out of most politicians, but here you are doing it yourself. :rolleyes:

[Jester]

"If I'm going to validate a number for spending, I'm going to need a number that both shows what we have to protect and how much we can use to that effect."

And this is the exact point I disagree with. Both of those things, how much you have to protect and how much you have to use, are much less relevant than another factor: how much your enemies can bring to bear against you. You could be the richest country in the world (you are), but if no power has any chance whatsoever of conquering you (they don't), you don't need any more power than what is needed to generously counter those threats.

"Your whole argument is based on the nuance that it's not just GDP, you're right and I haven't tried to state otherwise."

Any wording of that sentence (Military need is proportional to value) is wrong, no matter how weak. Military need is not even *related* to your GDP, at least in the case of the US. Your GDP could be a trillion dollars, 10 trillion (pretty close to what it actually is, according to the CIA factbook), or it could be 10 octillion. All that matters is that nobody has the power to take it from you, except at the cost of their very existence. That's the relevant measure: you vs. your enemies, as Chaerophon originally said. Not spending vs. GDP, or even spending vs. "value" in any sense.

Are you no longer disagreeing with Minionman and Chaerophon? Or is there some nuance to your argument I'm missing?

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, every Senator's voting record reflects a mix of his own principles, his constituents' wants and needs, the deals cut supporting one bill to get one you reallly want passed, some based on the national interest, and some the ability or inability to influence others to vote a particular way versus party loyalty.

That last bit is all about leadership: getting other people to what it takes to make your vision of the future a reality.

Leadership as a President is difficult.

Leadership in the Senate, "among peers" is difficult.

The degrees of difficulty are separated by at least one order of magnitude. One can get away with a lot of back room deals as Senators that one cannot pull off as President. Presidents have a different series of authorities and tools to draw from than Senators.

Who is the last Senator who made an outstanding President?

Pres Kennedy was on his way to doing well, he'd had some hiccups, when he died.
Pres Johnson was not particularly good, though he was a very effective Senator.

You start going back, and you start to find that perhaps being a Senator is not an optimal training ground for being President, or maybe the combination of persons and conditionaing as a legislator can make for awkward Oval Office behaviour: particularly post Civil War when the US started to emerge on the international stage and the President had to look both out and in.

Which brings us to the "constituency" bit. Just who is the constituency of the average Senator? Who does he or she really look out for? Is it the voter, the "party and the backers who got them there" is it the donors to the campaign?

This puts into stark relief the real dilemma of American politics. Are serving legislators at the Federal level merely front men and women for particulary cliques or power blocks, or are there some real leaders out there? That is what America needs to decide before it pulls the lever and hangs the Chad this November.

Teddy Roosevelt, where are you?

Occhi

[Ajax]

First off, I'd like to say thanks for the input regarding this debate. Everybody has made some very good points.

Many have taken issue with the BMW phrase. I will address this at the end of this post.

Here I will try to say as plainly as I can my previous points, because I do not feel I have communicated them clearly. I DEFINATELY do not feel that they have been adequately countered in debate, perhaps due to my own communication errors.

1) America's spending on its military is not that large. There seems to be a common agreement to use %GDP as a measure of how much of society's effort is invested in its military. My link to the CIA World Factbook provides a comparison for such numbers; such a comparison shows that America's investment in its military is not exceptional. Exceptional military spending is better illustrated by the examples of China and North Korea. In these cases you do see a phenomenon of military spending negatively influencing the standard of living in a profound way. However, America's relative affluence is a counter to the idea that such a phenomenon is at work in that nation.

2) America's mediocre military spending is all the more impressive given the greater role of its military. I challenge anyone to point to another state's military which is as active around the world as America's. From Bosnia to Somalia to Haiti to Liberia, America plays the role of global policeman. There may be argument over whether or not this is out of noble intent or simple self-interst, but that is a side issue; and the global enforcer role of the US military cannot be doubted. There is no military more active than America's, and the world has come to depend on it for stability. Even when not acting unilaterally, the majority of troops, equipment, or logistical support of most regional or UN interventions can be traced back to US support. For an example of what happens when the US withholds its resources, look at Rwanda. Again, all this is accomplished with a modest investment in its military; so the idea of America's military "may or may not be used" is absurd.

3) Because America is out there (usually--see Rwanda, above as an example of the consequences of American isolationism) to promote stability and forestall regional aggression, other states can spend less money on defense. Japan is the classic example of this--for about half a century, Japan has relied almost entirely on American protection and was therefore able to build a powerful economy. The world relies on the United States as a global policeman.

A few more words on the relationship between America's military spending and its spending on social programs. I have maintained that cutting back America's military not only will have a negative effect on other nations as well as world stability; but the social benefits from the reallocation of funds would not be profound. This link is to the summary of the budget for 2005. Table S-14 represents "Current Services Baseline Summary by Category," and offers a comparison between spending on Defense and spending on such social programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and SCHIP (State Childrens' Health Insurance Program).

Compare the value of the DoD spending with the sum of the social programs listed. In 2004, the year with the greatest DoD spending listed, the budget alotted $433 billion on defense. That same year the social sevices listed above aggregated $940 billon. So it would seem that the preoccupation with spending so much on defense vis a vis social services is not realistic.

Additionally, there were comments on the ineffeciency of the military's use of funds. My response would be to refer to the global role the US military fulfills, and the relatively modest funding they recieve. As a counterpoint, I have referenced how social programs recieve significantly greater funds, and yet critics of the military seem to believe we need better social programs. There is a paradox in these positions; and the evident solutions to the paradox is that either 1) the military isn't as big of a drain as it is made out to be, or 2) American social programs aren't as lousy as they are made out to be. I personally believe a little of both is true.

*********
BMWs--


Yes, you called me out on the whole BMW thing. I personally think they are great cars--very well made, very well- supported; and I have nothing against those well enough to buy them. However, the fact that they are a status symbol cannot be denied. Of course, its less of a status symbol than a Mercedes perhaps; but more of one than my poor abused example of Ford. In my book, if you can afford to spend money on a nice car, go right ahead. I have nothing against people making an honest living and accumulating wealth (barring TR era monopolistic abuses, but those aren't at issue here). I one day hope to personally accumulate more wealth than I now possess. It is the fact that they are status symbols that led me to sue them in my claim that we really do have it good in America, if you look on an international scale. Again, I do not hold the desire for wealth or personal betterment against anyone.

Extra money does not just go for BMW's, it goes for extra employment, education, health, better living conditions in general, which get thrown out when being sarcastic about "BMW"s.

This is your claim. If we increase funds to social programs, by your own estimations, the standard of living goes up. And when that happens, people who were driving Fords will perhaps be driving better cars. This is my point. The average American already owns a car, even if it is a junky one like mine. The average citizen in other countries does not. Thus, we have it pretty good in America, do we not?

I.e. my point was to use a metaphor to illustrate the relative affluence of America vis a vis other nations. I apologize if anyone was offended by this.

[eppie]

such a comparison shows that America's investment in its military is not exceptional. Exceptional military spending is better illustrated by the examples of China and North Korea. In these cases you do see a phenomenon of military spending negatively influencing the standard of living in a profound way. However, America's relative affluence is a counter to the idea that such a phenomenon is at work in that nation.

Well you are more or less right on this, but I would like to make some nuances.
Try changing this number to amount spend per person, instead using de %GDP. Let's say we have a country X with 1000 people who all happened to be miljonair and teh economy is great. Next to X there is Y also with 1000 people but these are all very poor. If X and Y would go to war it does not make sense for Y to spend the same %GDP as X because that would mean a lot smaller army. It is for that reason not very strange that a poor country "has" to spend more %GDP than a richer country to get the same kind of army. If north korea would spend the sames % as the US they might as well not have an army.

So this is not a very useful point to prove things with.

There is no military more active than America's, and the world has come to depend on it for stability.

Here you wrote down again another pount of debate. Is the world so much more stable because the US has military everywhere?. I don't think so.

I think more important for spending on military is the power of the weapon industry. If the US would end up in a real war again (one country against the other) I think they won't hesitate to use atomic bombs. Well they are already available so the rest is just for fun. :D :angry:

[Occhidiangela]

"If I'm going to validate a number for spending, I'm going to need a number that both shows what we have to protect and how much we can use to that effect."

And this is the exact point I disagree with. Both of those things, how much you have to protect and how much you have to use, are much less relevant than another factor: how much your enemies can bring to bear against you.

Your position is founded on a flawed basis, Jester, though I am not so sure I agree with the simplicity of SIr Dies A Lot. Enemies and allies change, and the calculus of your ability to deal with prospective threats as a team, versus solo, factors into security resource allocation. The setting is never constant, the chess board changes shape daily. No one makes security decisions in isolation of his neighbors, friend and foe, with the possible exception of North Korea.

That said, if your own economic engine won't sustain a particular level of forces, see the US drawdown in the early 1990's, you can break your nation by playing a sloppy security game. Dies' indexing to GDP is a guideline used by many nations, to enforce a coherent and manageable resourcing process. The money has to come from somewhere, or the inflationary spiral when the government just prints more induces a double whammy: higher debt service and weakened economy/tax base.

By defining a window of affordability, you combine risk taking with prioritization to come up with "what can I afford without breaking the economy" force structure. You now do forecasting, prioritize threats, to include "worst case analysis" and put your resources to work. There are never enough, and when you laugh at that when looking at the US, our security posture is built for GLOBAL not national security. That puts our budgeting model in the proper perspective. (Which is not to say that we could not be a bit smarter in how we spend our defense dollar. We could.)

That budgeting bit is what is such a nightmare for most Third World countries, for example, since the conventional arms race comes with a hell of a price tag. Buying too much capability either puts your nation into massive debt or it incurs significant security compromises with bond and debt holders (or "favor holders") which one way or another, impinge on the sovereignty of the nation in question.

The risk to resource to capability circle is an iterative process, endlessly so, but has to be based on what you can afford before your economy starts to break. Both Roosevelt in WW II, with his bond drives, and Eisenhower in the fifties, with his significant force structure cuts, undrstood that. If you break the engine, you can begin a spiral downward that hurts everything. USSR is of course the cliche example.

But the reason your assertion is on cracked ice is that you have once again posited a threat based model.

Perhaps you, and many laymen, look at security policy and posture as purely "reactive." That is a losing ball game. Ceding your most likely enemy the initiative creates the need to spend more, not less, on defense. You have to have enough to absorb a first blow or you use with the opening throw of the dice when he attacks at a time and place of his choosing. If the enemy picks the terms of an engagement, you are not in a good situation, tactically or strategically. The terrorist, to a certain extent, has that kind of edge.

Defense policy is often incorrectly understood by the layman as "I will defend but won't attack." That position sets you up for surprise attack, so if you economize on military expenditures, you have to spend more on intelligence and warning so that you are not surprised. The battle of the first salvo is THE model to consider at this point in history, given the lethality of modern weapons. Economic warfare takes longer, though it may in the end be a more effective approach to any number of nations at odds with one's own: unless it all starts blowing up.

What your economic engine can produce and sustain is the deciding factor in your security posture. (Peasants in a revolt could not field mounted, armored knights, for example.) If you can't afford "X" defense posture or element, see Canada and the EH-101 Naval helicopter as a perfect example, or the Australian trials with the Collins class submarine, then you have a limited set of options and capabilities that you can afford, and prioritize. You still end up taking risk.

You could be the richest country in the world (you are), but if no power has any chance whatsoever of conquering you (they don't), you don't need any more power than what is needed to generously counter those threats.

Ever heard of an alliance? Get out of the bipolar mindset and look at an 8 man Free For All Starcraft game. Look at the FFA that is the game "Diplomacy."

Your model is outdated and impractical, and shows that you do not understand US security policy, at all. I wonder if you understand Canadian Security policy? I understand it vaguely, but only because I have worked with Canadians, and my understanding is a good 6 years old. There is an unclassified version of the US version on the web, which changes every few years, "security policy light" which takes a grain or two of salt to read, but if you want to converse on this topic, read it.

I think that the root of the flawed position is in being misled by "defense" as the core concept. Security is what you are after. You can achieve a collective security arrangement that saves you money by making your likely foes face a much harder risk decision of their own. (This sort of calculation can in fact lead, again, to a nuclear option as both affordable and scary to opponents.) It still takes effort, but of a different sort, and not necessarily linear in its relationship to resource outlay as a "stand alone" nation.

As to the value issue, military value is something you create, not buy, in a military.

You can have good equipment, as the French did in 1940, but if your military is incohesive and poorly led, not to mention undisciplined, it has has little value no matter how much is spent on it. I offer you the Italian Navy of WW II. Good equipment, crappy effectiveness. The best tank on either side in 1940 was a French medium tank, which Charles DeGaulle had a hand in fielding as a field grade officer. BFD, crappy training, crappy doctrine, lousy leadership.

How do you add value to a military? Partly through a robust economy that allows a wider budget window, and partly through a culture that takes being a warrior seriously. That requires a habit of honest self criticism and reform, discipline, and being serious about the fact that war is "for all the marbles, there is no reboot button," etc.

The "threat" can change any day, your own capability is something you control. Failing to set a guideline for long term fiscal planning incurs an economic risk that cannot be divorced from security resourcing. The GDP index is a reasonable point of departure.

Occhi

[Sir_Die_alot]

Or is there some nuance to your argument I'm missing?

The nuance you are missing is you are confusing your opinions with facts. When what I say something counter to your opinion you misconstrude it as a statement against a fact. Then you nitpick individual sentances that aren''t representitive of the whole post or the topic at hand.

You think a "threat" is the only basis for spending. I think at a minimum it should corolate with the GDP or other similar number. This is a difference of our opinions, not me contradicting myself. I don't think either of us are wrong, but I think you are more wrong because you insist GDP has nothing to do with how much should be spent.

[Occhidiangela]

With the caveat that the publicly disclosed and discussed numbers have a bunch of imbedded strings tied to various things oc Congressional interest . . .

relatively good information on how the military is doing

How is the military doing?

Here is a thought. In 1999, IIRC, budget was 260 billion for all four armed services and the great beached whale of DoD civilian departmental stuff and such. Much of that money was tied into CONTRACTS that, if cancelled, had hefty penalty clauses.

I saw some numbers on the AFN News the other day that this year's budget is around 400 billion. I do not know how much of that is for the current Operations/War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much is otherwise. There are any number of unhappy conservatives about who decry the shell game in re the declaration of the costs of the Iraq Ops.

How otherwise is "it" doing?

That is a hell of a good question. It is also too vague to answer concisely.

The Air Force is still incredibly good at flying planes and blowing stuff up. Great at hauling beans, bodies, and bullets. Outstanding at "doing that Space Thing." Short on leadership.

The Army is pretty damned good at breaking things and blowing things up. Rather proficient at a variety of nation building tasks. Not so hot at the whole Information Campaign stuff. Excellent at training. Excellent at disciplined fires. They even took one for the team and cancelled the Comanche, multi billion helicopter program.

The Navy is doing just fine at maintaining and operating its ships, reducing manning to be more "cost effective," and at firing those who are weak commanders. In the past 2 years, over 20 Commanding Officers have been relieved, to include recently the CO of the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). Small problem with hitting another ship. Accountability. Still good at that bit, holding to standards that have stood the test of time. Good at flying planes, at blowing things up, at fixing things, at doing humanitarian operations, embargoes, and surveillance.

The Marines. Doing well, and doing good. A Few Good Men (and Women) doing extraordinary things. Finest combat force on the planet earth. 'Nuff said.

The various acquisition agencies? The usual, trying to find ways to buy a Corvette with a Buick budget.

Basically, they are doing just fine.

[Jester]

"Then you nitpick individual sentances that aren''t representitive of the whole post or the topic at hand."

GAH! I'm just trying to argue with terms that have some precision! Do you mean GDP? Or do you mean something else? How about "economic value"? Or "value", not restricted to economics? Do you mean "precisely"? Do you mean "corellated"? Do you mean "need"? Do you mean any of those things? If not, how am I supposed to find out what your argument is?

Is the measurement %GDP meaningful? If that's what you're saying, I disagree, for reasons I've stated pretty clearly above. If it isn't what you're saying, what do you mean?

Jester

[Jester]

"Your model is outdated and impractical, and shows that you do not understand US security policy, at all."

Obviously, or else I'd see the wisdom of the sages in it.

Jester

[Minionman]

This is your claim. If we increase funds to social programs, by your own estimations, the standard of living goes up.

I didn't actually say social p[roblems, although that might be a quick assumption. When talking about "the economy", I'm also thinking of debt payoff, tax cuts, possibly other programs I can't think of right now. Otherwise, you did get my7 point and we just don't seem to agree on how important increasing living stards increasing is. As for how good social programs are, after my first sentence for a better explaination, that is another argument.

However, America's relative affluence is a counter to the idea that such a phenomenon is at work in that nation.

Maybe right now that's true, but thinking in terms of "the U.S. has so much money, we can spend more" is asking for extra spending that could put a hurt on the economy. Since the military is fine from what I hear right now, I wouldn't be fooling around with it.

Also, the economy will also take work to keep it going strong. Rightn ow the economy is doing good, but say people start working less well over time (say, with worse education) and some important industries loose out in the U.S. If people aren't ready for these changes, there goes a lot of the U.S. economy. Obviously this is an extreme example, and the U.S. is almost sure to still be good for the next several decades, but who really knows how economies will compare 30 or so years from now? Arguing that because the economy is going pretty good now doesn't mean it will always be that way just out of thin air, it actually needs people to keep it happening. I'm saying this because you seem to have a background assumption that the U.S. will always have a good economy just because it does now. If you don't have that in the back of your mind, oops, and don't worry about this paragraph.

[eppie]

I know you don't care about this, but I would still like to post it.

A poll conducted by Globescan together with the university of Maryland among almost 35 thousand people in 35 countries shows that most of the people in this world would vote for Kerry. Only the philipines, nigeria and poland are proBush, with India and Thailand at a 50/50 vote.
In germany 83 % of the people started having a bad opinion of the US because of Bush, in Holland and six other countries 70 % of the people thought so while in another 30 of the countries more than 50 % shared these ideas.

In the US Bush is most popular for his foreign politics. :o

[Occhidiangela]

I understand it, and still have reservations about elements of it.

You don't understand it, and you have reservations about, or objections to it.

See the difference?

I am willing to bet that if you read the National Security Strategy, unclassified version, you'd probably still have a few grains of salt left in between your teeth by the time you got done. You'd also understand it a bit better.

That does not mean you have to disagree or agree with it. Plenty of folks in this country understand the posture and disagree with it, in part or in whole.

Occhi