On January 19th, the Department of Defense published a summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy; the first National Defense Strategy published in a decade. This document determines how the Department of Defense will contribute to Trump’s National Security Strategy. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis remarked on National Defense Strategy. Mattis’s speech discussed the objectives of National Defense Strategy which include building a more lethal force by modernizing key capabilities, strengthening the alliances, attracting new partnerships to the other nations and reforming the department’s business practices.
In an interview with Government Matters, Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center of Strategic and International Studies, said that that was one of three documents that were going to guide the Department of Defense. The unclassified summary of the strategy failed to mention how it plans to fund its objectives. Mark said that some of the highest priority investments to look up for on a budget are missile defense and modernization. Is military spending enough? Or should it be increased?
Gallup conducted polls to determine views on Military and national Defense. When discussing whether one thinks the amount of money the government in Washington is spending for national defense and military purpose is too little, about the right amount, or too much, 34% chose for the spending to be too little, 33% chose for it to be too much, and 31% chose for it to be just about right. The people who chose that the spending to be too little encourage to increase the spending as they believe the world is becoming more dangerous daily and it is important to increase the spending on defense and cut in the areas of health, welfare and education. One can’t expect success fighting tomorrow’s conflicts with yesterday’s weapons or equipments. They must invest in modernization of key capabilities through sustained budgets and investments would focus on layered missile defense as well as restoring warfighting readiness and fielding a lethal force. People who decided the spending was too much believed the The United States was spending way too much money on the military and not enough on education. They believed spendings should increase on social welfare, health and education as it would give the country lasting benefits that would help achieve a brighter future.
1 comment:
I am responding to the blog post "Military Spendings and Investments" by Lilas Al-Hakim. While the points made were accurate and well referenced, there was no strong argument as to whether we should increase or decrease the military spending. Instead of providing statistics and information regarding how the military is being funded, whether that money could be utilized differently, and why the military is so costly, Al-Hakim delves into great detail on one particular Gallup Poll concerning the American public opinion on the Military Budget. At one point in the third paragraph, there are two sentences that begin to express an opinion that the United States should indeed increase military spending due to a need in "missile defense" and "warfighting readiness," however, earlier in the post, Al-Hakim mentions that there is no outline for how the United States plans to fund its objectives. Overall, the blog post is vaguely neutral and provides excessive information that is hardly relevant to the core issue of the topic.
Post a Comment