4 ms·

End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over t

End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more. Once you realize that the military is not a collection of armed forces so much as it is the US's largest social welfare program, these policies and figures start to make more sense. Put it this way: We're paying our troops there so we don't have to pay them here. Don't look for this to change anytime soon.

araes 15y ago
True, and numerous families across the US depend on the active and guard pay of the armed forces. However, by bringing troops home, there are a number of secondary costs that can be reduced, or eliminated. For example, one of the more famous recently has been the discussion of AC in Afghanistan. Per the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w... We are spending 20 billion a year to truck energy supplies across some of the worst terrain in the world so that we can provide AC to thousands of horridly inefficient tents for our soldiers in the field. For comparison, that's more than the entire yearly budget of NASA. And its only one of numerous logistics and support costs we incur in our active warzones.
- kens 15y ago
  The 20 billion a year air conditioning cost is marketing nonsense. Specifically, this number comes from someone selling energy-efficient tents to the Pentagon, and it's pretty clear they made up this number. At the very bottom of the article, the Pentagon states it spends $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world (i.e. everything, not just air conditioning). This might be a good time to read Paul Graham's article on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html (I don't mean this as an attack on araes or the suggestion to reduce military spending.)
  - araes 15y ago
    Not taken that way. I expect the real number is somewhere between the 20 billion from this article, and the 1.5 billion the Pentagon responded with in their reply. 1.5 billion is probably the line item in the budget that says "tent AC", while different calculations assuming sundry costs can reach higher, and some of it probably is PR inflation. The main point not being the specific final total, but rather that the cost, and other logistical costs like it, would be reduced or possibly eliminated if troops weren't in the field.
notatoad 15y ago
i see this point made every time the discussion about military spending comes up, and i hate it so so much. what this argument boils down to, for me, is "we need to keep killing foreigners so that our economy doesn't suffer", and this is a morally reprehensible position.
- CamperBob 15y ago
  Yes, it is. I hate it, too. But that doesn't affect the truth of the matter.
- orijing 15y ago
  It sounds less defensible to pay young able-bodied men to kill foreigners than to pay the same to study or plant trees here. Plus, how much of the money that we funnel to Iraq actually goes back to the US economy, compared to if we spent it in the US directly?

araes 15y ago

True, and numerous families across the US depend on the active and guard pay of the armed forces. However, by bringing troops home, there are a number of secondary costs that can be reduced, or eliminated. For example, one of the more famous recently has been the discussion of AC in Afghanistan. Per the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w... We are spending 20 billion a year to truck energy supplies across some of the worst terrain in the world so that we can provide AC to thousands of horridly inefficient tents for our soldiers in the field. For comparison, that's more than the entire yearly budget of NASA. And its only one of numerous logistics and support costs we incur in our active warzones.

kens 15y ago
The 20 billion a year air conditioning cost is marketing nonsense. Specifically, this number comes from someone selling energy-efficient tents to the Pentagon, and it's pretty clear they made up this number. At the very bottom of the article, the Pentagon states it spends $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world (i.e. everything, not just air conditioning). This might be a good time to read Paul Graham's article on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html (I don't mean this as an attack on araes or the suggestion to reduce military spending.)
- araes 15y ago
  Not taken that way. I expect the real number is somewhere between the 20 billion from this article, and the 1.5 billion the Pentagon responded with in their reply. 1.5 billion is probably the line item in the budget that says "tent AC", while different calculations assuming sundry costs can reach higher, and some of it probably is PR inflation. The main point not being the specific final total, but rather that the cost, and other logistical costs like it, would be reduced or possibly eliminated if troops weren't in the field.

notatoad 15y ago

i see this point made every time the discussion about military spending comes up, and i hate it so so much. what this argument boils down to, for me, is "we need to keep killing foreigners so that our economy doesn't suffer", and this is a morally reprehensible position.

CamperBob 15y ago
Yes, it is. I hate it, too. But that doesn't affect the truth of the matter.
orijing 15y ago
It sounds less defensible to pay young able-bodied men to kill foreigners than to pay the same to study or plant trees here. Plus, how much of the money that we funnel to Iraq actually goes back to the US economy, compared to if we spent it in the US directly?