The U.S. Government Should Increase Funding to Their Military

Many thanks to my opponent for this debate!Pro claims that the U.S. spends a small portion of its GDP on the military, thus the gargantuan amount we spend is warranted. In fact we spend about 20% of our entire budget on the military [1]. I have said that security is of paramount importance regarding our military and Pro agrees. Yet he suggests going on the offensive is also important and I disagree. This country was founded on the premise of non-interventionism and avoiding foreign entanglements for a reason. Pro argues that the U.S. has an obligation to protect our allies, but to what extent? It's one thing to establish strategic and beneficial alliances; it's another to take on the responsibility of defending the entire world with little to no significant benefits. My opponent has not specified what benefits weigh this in our favor on a cost-benefit analysis. Regarding interventionism - not only is it arguably none of our business what other countries are doing (except in the case of significant crimes against humanity, i.e. the Holocaust) but arguably immoral as well. For the U.S. tax payers are not responsible for being saddled with the cost of excessive and unnecessary military engagements. Not only does it not help the U.S., but I've argued that it HURTS the U.S. to have our military involved in so many foreign affairs and violent conflicts. I've cited military intelligence saying that it makes the U.S. less safe. We are NOT supporting our troops when we send them into unnecessary war, and we are hurting citizens when we jeopardize our safety (by facilitating terrorist recruitment) and making us pay in indefensible amount on the military when we are not any more secure as a result of that spending. Pro writes, "The world will ever give up arms for food, and if the U.S. lays down their arms first, others will take advantage." This straw mans my argument entirely. I never once suggested giving up or laying down arms. What I said was that we already spend a SIGNIFICANT amount on our military, making us the most powerful military in the world which my opponent did not contest. Therefore, we do not need to spend any MORE on our military. I've argued that we spend too much as it is, and that money could go toward other useful things such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless, among a plethora of other possibilities. But I've never suggested disarming our military. In order to win this debate, I don't have to prove that the U.S. should spend less on the military (even though I believe they should). I only have to prove that we currently spend enough in order to win this debate. My opponent has not proven that we definitely need to spend more money than we already do. Pro completely agrees that our military is known for excessive wasteful spending. That means we don't necessarily need to increase funding -- it means we need to *better direct* the funding that we already have. For example, "According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror — and polishing the boots of senior military personnel — became Washington’s No. 1 priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.) Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number" [2].There are innumerable other ways the military could better allocate its funding, such as minimizing scandals (like when four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions) or spending it on golf retreats. The military wastes tax payer money on frivolous things as well as misguided weapons that are not worth the investment, as I pointed out last round. So if we simply appropriated the funds better, we would NOT need to increase military funds. The greatest threat to our security, in addition to guerilla terrorism as I've outlined in the last round, is an EMP: having our electrical grid destroyed by an enemy with a low-cost, short range, ship-launched missile armed with a nuclear warhead. The consequences would be far-reaching, with long-lasting, continent-wide crippling effects to our electricity-dependant infrastructure. Investing in military expansion won't help combat this threat.We have troops in more than 150 countries around the world. Rather than focus on man power, we should be focusing on cyber-terrorism. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. In an age where cyber security is our biggest threat, increasing our brain power that government's can invest in is more important than having such a massive military. We don't need more spending. We need SMARTER spending.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...