Enter Name of Student
Enter Name of School
Introduction
Throughout this discussion, we will review the various aspects of military downsizing and its overall effects on the service members. This paper will go into greater detail about two various perspectives about the issue at hand and the first one will be that military downsizing is really dangerous and pernicious policy for the army to pursue. While the second perspective consists of certain advantages of military downsizing that could be proven to be beneficial to the military members and the country as a whole.
Statistics
In order to understand the military downsizing, we must first realize that budget cuts are one of the primary responsibilities behind it. The spending for the military budget and national security increased between the years of 2010 and 2011, but then it dropped every year thereafter. It is important to understand that the national security budget consisted of over 20 percent in 2010, but by the year 2015, it dropped to 15.9 percent (Sherman, 2015). Later in the same year, “the spending fell 4.6 percent of the gross domestic product to 3.3 percent” (Sherman, 2015). The spending decreases were influenced by President Obama’s decision to remove the troops from the countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reason to Downsize the Military
The current reason for downsizing the military is partly due to a political process called the sequestration. This process refers to the framework for the automatic financial cuts that would apply to both non-militant and military spending which was purposely and originally designed to force the bipartisan negotiators within Congress to create a deal in the year of 2011, but the deal did not go through. Therefore, the spending cuts took effect immediately. However, the bipartisan aspect of the sequestration provision meant that both Congress and other negotiators were to blame and not just on the President. The United States military is downsizing to reduce the defensive forces of the country, and in case of a serious military threat, it will be the most decisive factor in the United States vulnerability.
Historical Examples
In this section of our discussion, we will analyze four examples of the federal government downsizing its national security and military strategies. First, in the hollow force years of the 1970’s during the end of the Vietnam War, it was considered to be a significant period in history which was demoralized (Davis, 2016). The demoralization was especially witnessed throughout the Army because civilian leadership that helped micromanage the war, actually broke the military at this time. It alienated and lost thousands of career officers due to poor, inadequate training and overextending the armed forces beyond capacity.
The second example would take place on August 2, 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Three days after the invasion, President Bush sent the United States troops out to go to war. But just a few weeks later, the national security team was divided about the strategy of going to Kuwait in the first place.
It was argued that the President should depend upon containment and economic sanctions against the dictator Saddam, not by jeopardizing the lives of the troops (Davis, 2016). There were various strategies presented to the forefront for this war, but it also created a great deal of tension amongst the ethnic groups based in Iraq and a distrust of the American population.
The third example we will use as an analogy for military downsizing is during the year of 1992 when the United State Marines arrived in Somalia for humanitarian efforts of the victims who were suffering from hunger, war and famine. “The number of troops were significantly reduced to a number of 3,000 for peacekeeping operations and policing” (Davis, 2016).
Historical examples of ‘blitz wars’ explains the righteousness of the previous other wars the United States had faced, or will deal with in the future. The final example of the Prussian military tradition which tends to exploit its enemies’ weaknesses that resulted from the latter’s inabilities to assess the situation and maintain a sustainable military contingent. Later, the same strategy which was adopted by other great conquerors controlled everything within their means to persuade the enemy that war is not imminent and thus, they encouraged the enemy to downsize his army. (Koch, 1978).
history having to experience significant cuts to its military force, whether if it was due to finances, lack of training, outnumbered soldiers, etc. the country has at times found itself not appropriately prepared in the hour of danger. “The initiative that the enemy seizes in the first days of war usually predetermines its course for the entire duration of the war and the heaviest losses for the downsized army are guaranteed” (Dupuy, 1990).
Disadvantages of Downsizing the Military
The downsizing of the United States military poses a great risk to the National Security team. Many of these domestic programs and budget cuts are implemented at the expense of National Security. By the end of this year 2016, the United States Army would be at its smallest size since World War II (Alexander, 2014). While the Marine’s manpower would be reduced down between 8-10 percent, all of the Air Force A-10 jets would be completely eliminated, the Navy’s aircraft carriers would no longer be in operation and the USS George Washington would also be retiring for good (Cooper, 2014).
These reductions alone are greatly jeopardizing millions upon millions of Americans from not being properly protected against terrorist attacks, nuclear attacks and other national disasters. It is obvious that these dangerous changes to the United States National Security system may not be apparent until the next several years, which will be around the same time, a third of the American population will personally feel it in their neighborhoods because it is making us extremely vulnerable.
The negative tendency of downsizing the army lies within the fact that the remaining military force has become burdened with the responsibilities to consider any possibility of strategic improvement in training or services provided. In other words, it can be surmised that the remaining military members are the result of the army’s downsizing because they did not do their work properly, or because they cannot continue carrying the tasks out the way it ought to be done due to a lack of resources. This creates a really precarious situation for our country because it is practically left without much of a solid and powerful military system.
Another disadvantage that cannot be overlooked is the military’s trust in the government is undermined. The public starts looking at the army contemptuously, since it has failed to carry out its basic functions to provide the adequate amount of national security for the country’s population. As a result, the growing sense of uncertainty is becoming higher, both on an external and internal scale.
Throughout these conditions, the army may become radicalized. With the recently laid off military officers worldwide due to budget cuts, it may present a real threat to the existing political institutions. Additionally, the growing number of unemployment is another aspect of the army’s downsizing and it will be an incredible amount of economic pressure on the whole governmental structure.
In my opinion, I believe that it may also be the cause of many former military men’s falling victim to numerous mental disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, among other illnesses. It would not be surprising at all if these militant men and women resorted to committing crimes and abusing drugs due to desperation or disparity. (Braswell & Kushner, 2012)
Conclusion
One might argue that maintaining a big army in the time of peace exerts tremendous financial burden on the society. However, this argument may be parried by the previously stated concepts which proves that, after all, it is downsizing the army and that is economically ineffective and not viable. However, there is one opposing viewpoint to the issue at hand. According to research, “one of the major advantages for downsizing the military is the tremendous savings it would create for the economy” (Alexander, 2014).
Some analysts believe that the United States would be in a better position financially if they decided to take a wait and see approach to threats in the near future, while at the same time, allowing the neighboring and friendly countries handle their own costs of defense; instead of the United States helping to pay for these attributes. Although there would always be a dysfunction going on in some country around the country, that does not always mean that it might be a threat to the United States. The commitments have to be limited, in order to defend new ones to plan for fewer wars which would save money.
Therefore, downsizing the military could be a huge advantage, but only under the conditions of eliminating the need for unnecessary missions which would reduce the force structure and lower the number of military personnel. For instance, lowering the number of “active duty Army troops from the current legislative number of 547,400 to 360,000 would save the United States a total of $200 billion over the course of the next ten years” (Alexander, 2014). As a final result, the United States military would be less strained, less expensive and more elite, instead of eliminating crucial combat equipment or training programs.
References
Alexander, D. (2014). Budget cuts to slash U.S. Army too smallest since before World War Two. Reuters. Retrieved 3 August 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-budget-idUSBREA1N1IO20140224
Braswell, H; Kushner, H. I. (2012). Suicide, social integration, and masculinity in the U.S. Military. Social Science & Medicine 74 (4): 530–6.
Cooper, E. (2014). Articles: Military Downsizing = National Security Danger. Americanthinker.com. Retrieved 3 August 2016, from http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/military_downsizing__national_security_danger.html
Davis, H. (2016). Timeline - The Military's Struggles & Evolution | Rumsfeld's War | FRONTLINE | PBS. Pbs.org. Retrieved 3 August 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronagon.html
Dupuy, T.N. 1990. Understanding war: History and Theory of combat. London: Leo Cooper.
Friedman Benjamin H., Christopher Preble. 2010. A plan to cut military spending. Web. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense/plan-cut-military-spending
Koch, H. W. 1978. A History of Prussia. New York: Barnes & Noble Books
Sherman, A. (2015). Military Spending under Obama and Congress. PolitiFact. Retrieved 3 August 2016, from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/14/politifact-sheet-our-guide-to-military-spending-/
