In late February, Donald trump proposed to increase the country’s military budget is 54 billion dollars by reducing costs of other Federal agencies. First it was about reducing aid to other countries. Trump stated that the US spent six trillion dollars on the middle East, but was unable to patch holes on American roads within their own country. The increase in the budget pleases the military, but many in the States are wondering how this is justified and what exactly is the meaning of the new military costs.
Justification, of course, the Americans in the discussions a lot. The growing threat from Russia, China, North Korea, delayed the modernization of nuclear weapons, the necessary rearmament of the army after long military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideally, the military budget needs to reflect the debate on these issues, to meet the genuine threats to national security and methods to counter those threats.
In fact, as noted by The New York Times, the administration trump can’t clearly articulate what will increase military spending. If previous major military reforms, for example under presidents John Kennedy and George Bush was clear on what exactly the money is going to (the rejection of the emphasis on nuclear weapons in Kennedy and focus on information technology under Bush), that trump talks a lot about patriotism and produces a lot often controversial slogans.
“Islamic state” is a major threat, but relations with a potential ally in the region, Iran, deteriorate. North Korea is a danger, but with China and with allies in the region the relationship is also not add optimism, and in addition the US withdraws from the TRANS-Pacific partnership. Russian ambitions, such as cause fear, but friends of NATO in Europe claims.
Most of the newspaper worries that the growth of the military budget would come at the expense of spending cuts to the Department of State, economic support to other countries and help in the reconstruction and rehabilitation. The New York Times notes that war is the last and most expensive instrument of foreign policy while diplomatic and economic levers capable of preventing military conflicts, and it will be much cheaper for US.
On the pages of Defense One is also trying to figure out who today is the main enemy of the United States: radical Islamic terrorism or Russian authoritarianism? According to American experts and politicians, the Islamists want to destroy Judeo-Christian values, and Russia — to destroy Western liberal democracy. The first resorted to terror, Russia is conducting cyber attacks, interfere in political processes and generally gives the aura of romance of an authoritarian system of government on the global stage, confusing the hearts and minds of ordinary people around the world. The enemies of the United States are considered not only from the standpoint of their military capabilities, but as ideological opponents. One of them is more dangerous — this is a big issue among the American political elite, and the answer to it depends how it will be structured military budget of the country, and whether in the struggle of ideologies, namely the tanks and nuclear missiles, or the battle for hearts and minds must be waged by other means.
In another material to One Defense also stressed that the concentration on military power at the expense of economic and diplomatic influence is a path to failure. The fight against terrorism threatens to become a never-ending struggle with the flies with the fly swatter, when the United States will carry out one operation after another is much more intense than it already is today, eliminating individual terrorists, but again and again not solving any problems. Republican Senator Marco Rubio said that the economic assistance to other countries is not a donation, it is a tool of national security.
It understands and the head of US command in the middle East, General Joseph Votel, who co-authored the recent analytical work of the “Virtual Caliphate”. Votel is aware that the physical destruction of Islamic terrorists is not enough that their ideology will flourish in the virtual space, while in addition to the American army in the changing countries will not participate non-governmental organizations, the private sector, regional partners, until you have addressed the issues of economy and education.
Trump increases its military budget, plans to reduce non-military US influence in the world and declares that he will begin to start establishing business in the country. Experts question whether he will be able to begin to engage in internal Affairs, not external determined, whether he understands that today’s relative calm in the world is the fruit not only of military victories the US, but longstanding economic and diplomatic efforts, large financial costs. And not the fact that if the United States will focus only on themselves and their military power, the situation in the world will not become a big threat to national security for the administration of the trump.
The situation with the US military budget and an equal reduction of other expenses compared to the fire fighting: is it worth it to get rid of the smoke detectors, to buy new fire trucks?
Interestingly, in 2013, the current Pentagon chief James Mattis, then head of U.S. Central command, said: “If you won’t Fund the State Department fully, then I will have to buy more ammunition. The more you invest in the diplomatic work of the State Department, so, hopefully, the less we spend on the military budget.”
The media today often remember the words of the current Minister of internal security of the United States John Kelly, who in 2014 (when he served as head of U.S. southern command) said: “If you think this war against our way of life is over because some self-proclaimed person who allegedly forming public opinion, and the whole class talkers “tired of war” because they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, you are wrong. The enemy aimed at our destruction. He will fight with us from generation to generation, and conflict will go through different phases, as is the case with 9/11″.
Trump has recently complained to Congress that America no longer wins wars. He plans to start to win again — so far no one is unclear.
