Opposing points


In2015, the United States government spent 54 percent of the budget ondefense and international security. This budget translated to $598.5billion, paid for the safety related issues (Olsonetal.273).This bulk spending reflects the high underlying cost of securityoperations. Why does the United States government spend such kind ofbulk money on military? Is it worth to spend this much in the defensefield?

Accordingto research done by Olson 2015, military spending is governed byperception rather than reality. Facts will always be facts, but ifthey are not critically analyzed, then you do not understand thewhole story. There is no problem of the United States governmentinvesting in the military, but why must they spend such a whole lot?The military spending is larger than the next eight countries. Itgoes without saying that this is an issue we must talk about.Unfortunately, out of $598.5 billion military spending, only 10percent goes into fighting international terrorism(Hartleyetal. 122).Sorry to say, but much of the budget goes into fighting the old coldwar with the Soviet Union. This calls for very critical amendments inthe defense department. The United States expenditure in the militaryoutweighs all other nations. The liberal critique is that the UnitedStates government spends extraordinarily high rates. The expenditureis much higher than that encountered during the cold war. In realterms, it is much higher than the Regan build up. This funding ismuch higher than the expenditure encountered in the World War II. Thedefense budget on research, personnel, operations, new weapons, andconstruction, is expected to rise to $684.57 billion by 2017 (Olsonetal.274).Also, the ruling government five-year defense plan aim at spending$98.7 billion a year for war in Afghanistan. This expenditure is toohigh, and it should be regulated.

Thishigh investment by the United States government in the military willmake it more difficult for the American government to accomplish itsglobal responsibilities. Some of our military needs should be ignoredand cut off. On top of this, the data from the quarterly spendingshow that the department spent $43.6 billion less than the allocatedby the government (Panetta&amp Leon 322).This implies that the defense officials are corrupt, and they canmanage military operations with fewer funds. The high expenditure bythe government cannot be conceived by the United States citizen. Thisis a vice that should be eliminated in the contemporary Americansociety.

Themilitary should not demand much in its operations. The members of theCongress determine how superfluous the military gets (Olsonetal.269).The congress is chosen by the citizens of American, and they shouldlisten to their cries of slashing the military budget. Democracy isbeautiful features because it enables citizens to choose a governmentof their choice. The ruling government should disseminate the best tothe citizens.

TheAmerican military may be considered demanding because it carries morethan half of the total government expenditure. The spending iswasteful and overkill. One does not require much power to overcome anadversary. Research has also revealed common absurd ways the militarywaste taxpayer’s dollars. This has been clearly explained below toaid in opposing United States expenditure on the military. Thedifferent ranks in the military contribute to the high militarybudget. Titles such as general reflect an exclusive post suitableonly for the best of the best(Panetta &amp Leon 328).This flashy title aids in misusing tax payer’s dollars. Ourmilitary “geniuses” receive royal treatment, including highsalaries that translate to the high military budget. Such titlesshould be scooped off from the military arena. Most, if not allgenerals, have entourages that would make a Hollywood star jealous.According to the Pentagon report of 2013, there are 1043 generals inthe United States armed forces (Panetta&amp Leon 348).Ideally, this is one cause that made the Pentagon budget to balloonby more than 50 percent. Jack Jacobs, a military analyst at MSNBC,says that a third of this population would be more than enough.

Accordingto Washington post investigation, the Department of Defense spends$476 million annually on marching bands (Panetta&amp Leon 322).All branches of the American defense forces maintain their ownmilitary bands and also produce their own newsletters. The defenseforce extravagantly spends such massive amounts onnon-defense-related expenditure due to the huge support by thegovernment.

Inconclusion, from the above well-discussed context, we can affirm thatthere is need to slash the military expenditure. From this accountingon government expenditure, the American citizens at general seek tooppose it.

Counter-Argumentsand Concession

Thegovernment of the United States of America spends more money ondefense than any other country. If the government spends too little,the adversaries will be emboldened to exploit weaknesses which willcost the Americans treasure and blood. Spending too much also on themilitary will lead to misallocation of resources and accumulation ofdebts which will be a burden to future generations. The country’smilitary should be strengthened. This is because the survey which hadbeen carried out showed that global threat level has elevated and theability of America to defend itself is marginal (McNabb,etal356).The spending on defense forces should be increased so as to assurethe American citizens their safety.

Spendingin defending of the country has to come at a cost. The data collectedshows that the U.S. spending on defense was more than sevencountries. Now the same data shows that the spending has shot andgone higher that the spending on the military is now more thanthirteen countries combined. Realistically, robust defense fundinghas a reason and an important purpose. When the military is wellequipped, it helps the U.S. to preempt any security threats beforethey start at the shores. With this strength in the military camp ofthe United States of America, no country can be able to protect theirinterests like the U.S. This shows that to build a military forcewhich can be able to project power worldwide comes at a cost. Thisexemplary spending in which the United States allocates an enormousbudget to the U.S military tends to have positive results in tryingto tame any insecurity issue which may arise ( Hadji-Janev,etal967).

Sincethe year 2009 and 2011 terror attacks, the defense spending has growndrastically but not as fast the remaining federal government. Of allfederal spending, the defense department now accounts for fifteenpercent. This is a less figure compared to its allocation in 2009 and2011. When compared to the total public spending, the nationalsecurity is only allocated ten percent. The national security fundinghas been falling slowly from five percent in the year 2010 to threepercent in 2015. The continuous reduction in the amount of moneyspent on security forces will finally hinder the working of themilitary personnel (McNabb,etal356). This may lead to threats of external attacks to the United States’shores.

Debtis a serious predicament affecting the defense forces of the UnitedStates of America. These debts are not threats to the nationalsecurity and should not make us cut the funding for defense. When acountry accumulates debts, it creates a burden for the futuregenerations and will make their life worse. These high debts will notmake the country to launch missiles or suicide attacks on othernations. By directing spending away from the national security,threats which are imposed by countries such as China, North Korea,Iran and Russia will not be tackled effectively. Reducing securityspending will not help the country to fix the problem of debt.Because spending in the national security had immensely reduced, itis now projected that the spending percentage will reduce fromfifteen percent to eleven percent by the year 2020. This will lead toreduction of the working efficiency of the military(Trautman,etal634)

Thetask which the United States has is to deter potential adversariesand fight terrorists. The invasions into Georgia and Crimea made byMoscow show how dangerous Russia is till now. The illegal expansionof North Korea’s nuclear plant and ballistic missile advancement ofIran are some of the security challenges the U.S is facing. Thecountry needs to stop the advancement of these countries whilemonitoring the terrorists’ situations. According to HenryKissinger, the former secretary of state said that the U.S is yet toface a complex and diverse array of crises since the end of world wartwo. When carrying out a closer inspection of the country’sspending on the military enforcement, the arguments seem not to makesense. The United States government should build its’ securitybudget while setting sights on a coherent strategy that addresses thesecurity threats to the country and interests abroad.

Manynonmilitary people think that when spending big on militaryenforcement is a waste of funds. This is because many think that themilitia does not need a lot of money to overcome an adversary. Insome cases this type of assumptions makes sense but when oneconsiders a number of women and men’s lives at stake makes theassumption to start faltering. An example is the case of SaddamHussein who commanded the fourth most powerful militia in the world.Given Saddam’s insane strength in the military, it took the U.S.military less than a month in defeating his army (Carter,232). Hussein’s regime was brought to an abrupt halt because his armiesbetween twenty thousand and thirty-five thousand were killed comparedto the one hundred and ninety U.S armies. This shows that the budgetof the military should be enough to certify the needs of the nationin keeping itself safe.


Hartley,Thomas, and Bruce Russett. &quotPublic opinion and the commondefense: who governs military spending in the United States?.&quotAmericanpolitical science review86.04 (2015): 118-125.

Olson,Mancur, and Richard Zeckhauser. &quotAn economic theory of militaryalliances.&quot TheReview of Economics and Statistics on the defence forces(2016): 266-279.

Panetta,Leon. &quotSustaining US global leadership: priorities for 21stcentury defense.&quot Washington,DC: US Department of Defense(2012): 315-347

McNabb,Duncan J. Wemeasure success through the eyes of the war fighter.AIR AND SPACE POWER JOURNAL MAXWELL AFB AL, (2011):356-367

Hadji-Janev,Metodi. &quotInternational Legal Aspects of Protecting Civilians andTheir Property in the Future Cyber Conflict.&quot (2016): 967-970

Carter,Phillip, et al. &quotPASSING THE BATON.&quot (2014): 227-232

Trautman,Lawrence J. &quotIs Cyberthreat the Next Pearl Harbor?.&quotAvailableat SSRN(2016): 634-643