5 ms·

> It's rare that anyone pitches the government as competent outside of military spending Genuine question - do people see military as competent when it comes t

• inkeddeveloper 5y ago
  The $2000 leather chair and multiple $3000 tvs my commander ordered for his office to be delivered to Kabul during a war would say no.
• lumost 5y ago
  Nope, but the military gets a pass in most years as at least being competent. Most Americans believe that most government agencies are both incompetent and profligate.
  • lupire 5y ago
    The US military hasn't won a war in about 20 years.
    • rdevsrex 5y ago
      That's too broad a brush. I'm against militarism, but what engagement against conventional forces has the US military lost in the last 20 years? I can't speak to dealing with insurgencies but it's clear to me that a mix of various administrations policies was to blame more than military effectiveness. I mean was it the military or Paul Bremmer and co who disbanded the Iraqi military and unleashed a lot of chaos?
• xwdv 5y ago
  Given that it’s the most powerful military in the world I would say it’s probably the one place where we have at least gotten our money’s worth.
• schrodinger 5y ago
  I don't want to say yes but damn if we don't have a lot of military might, and as much as an American I want to say stop spending it who will fill the void? We're probably the least bad of all possibilities, and if you disagree, please teach me because I'm legitimately open minded!
  • lupire 5y ago
    Perhaps the void would be democratically elected governments who don't sell their countries to US corporations. Since WWII, USA has a poor record.
  • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    There are two straightforward answers to this. The first is that other Western countries could pick up the slack instead of having it fall disproportionately on the US. It only got the way it is because the others were mostly bombed out after WWII and that's no longer the case. The second is that if the US spent less and did less military interventionism, adversarial countries might not feel the need to spend as much either, and then the balance of power stays the same while everyone spends less money on bombs and warships. The US is the only one who can initiate this because they're the only ones who can reduce military spending without being threatened even if others don't.
• tcmart14 5y ago
  No, but there is a method to the madness. Military units are often given an allowance for the year. One of the responsibilities of a commissioned officer is to often manage the unit's finances. Being in the Navy, my Bosun manage my aviation fuel division's finances. The captain of the ship manages the ships finances. Or at least, they sign it all off. If units do not use their budget, their budget get slashed last year. Essentially money mismanagement comes down in many way to some rules implemented awhile back (80s I believe during the Reagan admin). If a government agency or group does not use the full amount allotted, then they are at risk of loosing some next time they are allotted money. What this has done is create a system that encourages government agencies and military units to use up the budget no matter the cost. You don't wanna be the guy who had money left over last year, so your budget got cut, not it is this year and you had 4 major equipment casualties and because your shortened budget, can't afford for the unit to buy parts. Then, this makes you looked incompetent and hurts your career. This is why the fuels division I was in, we often bought new desk chairs every year and $500 pocket knives and parts we would never need. Literally had to throw parts away to make room for the new parts.