Donald Trump’s military budget plan is less impressive than he claims

[tommyjo]

Donald Trump makes a claim...the rest of the world laughs as it is shown to be false...how many times do we need to read this story???

THE budget proposal that Donald Trump will send to Congress, proposing to boost the Pentagon’s spending by $54bn next year, is less transformative than the president appears to believe. As Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate armed services committee, swiftly pointed out, the 10% increase is only $19bn more than that forecast by the outgoing Obama administration (out of a total annual spend of close to $600bn).

Mr Trump’s conviction that this will ensure America wins its future wars, in contrast to the unsatisfactory outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggests a limited understanding of those conflicts. Few would argue that a lack of aircraft and ships were the problem. Moreover, in seeking ways to pay for a 350-ship navy, additional fighter planes and more troops for both the army and the marines, Mr Trump wants to slash spending on soft power. Cuts to the State Department’s budget and foreign-aid programmes would probably reduce America’s influence in the world and undermine attempts to make the world stable. The defence secretary, Jim Mattis, while giving testimony to Congress in 2013, warned: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”

Mr Trump is also in danger of undermining his goal of stronger military forces by what looks like a willingness to trigger a new nuclear arms race with Russia. It has emerged that in his hour-long telephone call with Vladimir Putin on January 28th, the Russian president suggested extending the New START strategic arms reduction treaty by five years after its expiry in 2021. Mr Putin no doubt saw this as something relatively uncontroversial that could help unfreeze relations between the two countries—something Mr Trump frequently says he wants. It seems that Mr Trump may not have known what his opposite number was referring to. But, after pausing the conversation for advice, he resumed it with a tirade against the nuclear deal, describing it as a typical example of a bad Obama-era negotiation.

In an interview with Reuters on February 23rd, Mr Trump doubled down on the nuclear treaty: “It’s a one-sided deal. It gave them things that we should have never allowed...whether it’s START, whether it’s the Iran deal...We’re going to start making good deals.” Mr Trump added that while he would love to see a world without “nukes”, America had “fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity” and that he would ensure it would return to “the top of the pack”.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...nance-new-nuclear-arms-race-president-says-he

Donald Trump...what a buffoon...

 

[SamSpade]

Anyone knows this increase - - isn't enough.

What's hysterical is that libs are claiming BOTH - that it's not enough and that he's some kind of buffoon (your words) and we're spending TOO MUCH and that other countries spend less (your words).

Thus demonstrating you'll just parrot any criticism, because you don't actually know how to take an actual position on the matter.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't suppose it would do to point out how good an arms race would be for the economy?