To suggest that there can be a debate on military spending increases with a progressive liberal is non-sense on it's face. First of all, there can be no debate on anything other then what the progressive social liberals want to spend money on, and your input is not required, needed or wanted. It's not about you, it's about them and only them.
This isn't about logic or common sense or anything that has to do national security as the bad actors increase their destruction across the world. This is about an ideology of transformation from individual freedom to chose, and it's force in our civil society to become a third world nation that believes we must all be more inclusive, tolerant and responsive to other cultures and religions.
Standing down our military is a great way for the progressives to prove to the larger world we are serious in our actions to change our past history of intervention where it wasn't needed or wanted.
It's beyond comprehension to believe one can debate the Syrian problem that has resulted in 500,000 dead and millions of refugees fleeing the conflict and the destruction of the entire country could have been prevented if we would have intervened at the outset as many said we should have.
But to discuss Mr Ogbjma's Iran deal which is assuring a middle east nuclear war and a middle east completely controlled by a terrorist nation let along the rise in Chinese aggression in the south China sea and North Korea moving to produce a missile that strike western nations, has nothing to do with a discussion or debate in a common sense way with facts boarders on the insane.
Progressive liberal democrats don't debate or discuss, they demand.
How to Talk About Defense Spending and ‘Rebuilding the Military’
Beverly Hallberg / @bevhallberg /
Hardly a day passes without one (or seven) news reports highlighting conflicts abroad. What this reality means for America and our safety under the current budget isn’t great.
As violence has increased, defense spending has decreased by about 25 percent since 2011. And now there is a legitimate question about whether slashing the budget has weakened our military as outlined in The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength. Most signs point to yes, just in time for a changing of the guard in the District of Columbia. This will be a major topic of discussion in the coming months as it involves our safety, the safety of our men and women in uniform, and a (potential) increase in cash money as a line item in an already bloated budget.
Here’s how to talk defense spending with someone who thinks the current level is more than sufficient.
Common Ground
Good news, the common ground is pretty easy to find. We can all agree that keeping America safe is priority No. 1. But also, it’d be great to equip our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to get the job done. Doing so will only better ensure our protection at home and theirs in combat. Sure, we can have a discussion about the rightness or wrongness of our involvement overseas, but that’s for another time. Once the decision has been made to deploy our men and women, it’s important they are properly trained and equipped.
Also, most people realize that the growing threats abroad are a problem. Mention Russia, North Korea, China, and most countries in the Middle East that are struggling with terrorism, and you’ll find agreement that these are scary times. Mission accomplished.
Examples
Though it’s important to establish common ground, the examples and statistics you provide will make or break your point. The naysayers will argue for a stripped-down military that reflects an isolationist perspective or that more funds be spent at home (domestic spending). The examples you choose should combat (pun intended) both perspectives.
To speak against the “we should be spending more on domestic issues” argument, first acknowledge that it’s a reasonable discussion to have. But then consider that the men and women who defend us every day shouldn’t be ill-equipped either. The unpreparedness of our military as a result of cuts to the budget are neatly outlined in this Daily Signal article. All five points are worth citing when making your case for an increase in defense spending, but here’s a preview:
And what about the Army? This Daily Signal article covers it, but one shocking statistic to remember: “Years of budget cuts have rapidly shrunk the Army to a size unseen since before World War II.”
There is an inverse relationship between the rise in violence and the readiness of our military. Someone might try to argue that America is involved in wars it shouldn’t be, that “we can’t be the world’s policeman.” But again, pivot back to safety as our No. 1 concern. With increased violence, it seems foolish to continue weakening our defenses. We just want to be ready. We just want to be safe.
Words
The obvious choice is to drop “safety” throughout your conversation. It’s hard to deny anyone’s wish to be kept safe and it brings you back to that common ground established at the outset. And rather than an “increase in defense spending,” talk about “rebuilding our military” for the reasons outlined above. Money is a sensitive topic, and you’ll cite great examples and statistics to make your case for an increase in money spent, but refrain from explicitly talking about spending more money.
The bottom line? You can’t put a price on safety.
Defense spending is a tricky topic, but you’re not unprepared to address it. Have this discussion knowing that common ground will disarm, your examples will illustrate, and the words you use will help seal the deal.
This isn't about logic or common sense or anything that has to do national security as the bad actors increase their destruction across the world. This is about an ideology of transformation from individual freedom to chose, and it's force in our civil society to become a third world nation that believes we must all be more inclusive, tolerant and responsive to other cultures and religions.
Standing down our military is a great way for the progressives to prove to the larger world we are serious in our actions to change our past history of intervention where it wasn't needed or wanted.
It's beyond comprehension to believe one can debate the Syrian problem that has resulted in 500,000 dead and millions of refugees fleeing the conflict and the destruction of the entire country could have been prevented if we would have intervened at the outset as many said we should have.
But to discuss Mr Ogbjma's Iran deal which is assuring a middle east nuclear war and a middle east completely controlled by a terrorist nation let along the rise in Chinese aggression in the south China sea and North Korea moving to produce a missile that strike western nations, has nothing to do with a discussion or debate in a common sense way with facts boarders on the insane.
Progressive liberal democrats don't debate or discuss, they demand.
How to Talk About Defense Spending and ‘Rebuilding the Military’
Beverly Hallberg / @bevhallberg /
Hardly a day passes without one (or seven) news reports highlighting conflicts abroad. What this reality means for America and our safety under the current budget isn’t great.
As violence has increased, defense spending has decreased by about 25 percent since 2011. And now there is a legitimate question about whether slashing the budget has weakened our military as outlined in The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength. Most signs point to yes, just in time for a changing of the guard in the District of Columbia. This will be a major topic of discussion in the coming months as it involves our safety, the safety of our men and women in uniform, and a (potential) increase in cash money as a line item in an already bloated budget.
Here’s how to talk defense spending with someone who thinks the current level is more than sufficient.
Good news, the common ground is pretty easy to find. We can all agree that keeping America safe is priority No. 1. But also, it’d be great to equip our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to get the job done. Doing so will only better ensure our protection at home and theirs in combat. Sure, we can have a discussion about the rightness or wrongness of our involvement overseas, but that’s for another time. Once the decision has been made to deploy our men and women, it’s important they are properly trained and equipped.
Also, most people realize that the growing threats abroad are a problem. Mention Russia, North Korea, China, and most countries in the Middle East that are struggling with terrorism, and you’ll find agreement that these are scary times. Mission accomplished.
Examples
Though it’s important to establish common ground, the examples and statistics you provide will make or break your point. The naysayers will argue for a stripped-down military that reflects an isolationist perspective or that more funds be spent at home (domestic spending). The examples you choose should combat (pun intended) both perspectives.
To speak against the “we should be spending more on domestic issues” argument, first acknowledge that it’s a reasonable discussion to have. But then consider that the men and women who defend us every day shouldn’t be ill-equipped either. The unpreparedness of our military as a result of cuts to the budget are neatly outlined in this Daily Signal article. All five points are worth citing when making your case for an increase in defense spending, but here’s a preview:
1. “The Air Force is short 4,000 maintainers and more than 700 pilots today.” It doesn’t matter how many planes the Air Force has, or how modern they may be, if they can’t fly. Without qualified mechanics to maintain the aircraft and properly train pilots to fly them, the Air Force will struggle to accomplish its mission.
2. “In 2015 the Navy had a backlog of 11 planes in depot, next year in [20]17 they are going to have a backlog of 278.” Readiness levels for the entire fleet have fallen as the Navy’s maintenance crews are being asked to work longer hours with less funding. More planes in maintenance mean fewer are available to meet mission requirements.
3. “Marine Corps aviation requires on average 10 hours of flight time a month and they are getting about four.” Like any skill, practice is essential. Pilots without practice make more mistakes, which become deadly when flying complex aircraft, especially when in combat. The lives of Marines are at greater risk because of these funding cuts.
And what about the Army? This Daily Signal article covers it, but one shocking statistic to remember: “Years of budget cuts have rapidly shrunk the Army to a size unseen since before World War II.”
There is an inverse relationship between the rise in violence and the readiness of our military. Someone might try to argue that America is involved in wars it shouldn’t be, that “we can’t be the world’s policeman.” But again, pivot back to safety as our No. 1 concern. With increased violence, it seems foolish to continue weakening our defenses. We just want to be ready. We just want to be safe.
Words
The obvious choice is to drop “safety” throughout your conversation. It’s hard to deny anyone’s wish to be kept safe and it brings you back to that common ground established at the outset. And rather than an “increase in defense spending,” talk about “rebuilding our military” for the reasons outlined above. Money is a sensitive topic, and you’ll cite great examples and statistics to make your case for an increase in money spent, but refrain from explicitly talking about spending more money.
The bottom line? You can’t put a price on safety.
Defense spending is a tricky topic, but you’re not unprepared to address it. Have this discussion knowing that common ground will disarm, your examples will illustrate, and the words you use will help seal the deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment