What should the Democratic position on military and military spending be?

[Squatch]

If you could determine what the official Democratic positions on the military (size, composition, strategy) and military spending (funding levels, future programs, modernization, etc) are, how would you categorize them:

1) Strong standing federal military with large operational reserves (USNR, USAR, ARNG, etc). Expeditionary in nature. Spending geared towards fully equipping forces and paying servicemembers (with incremental pay increases to keep pace with inflation). Fully-funded retirement pension for qualified retirees. Future programs being developed to assert absolute dominance against any conceivable opposing military force in any conceivable theater. (This would be the current posture of the military)

2) Small standing federal military with massive operational reserves. Federal forces expeditionary in nature for employment in small scale, limited engagements. Reserve forces primarily defensive in nature, though trained to fall in on prepositioned stocks to conduct unlimited conventional warfare. Spending geared toward fully equipping prepositioned stocks, minimally equipping reserve forces (for training, defensive use), and paying servicemembers with the potential for periodic increases in pay. Defined-contribution retirement system (military 401k). Future programs geared toward maintaining or expanding capabilities but at lower operational and maintenance costs.

3) Purely operational reserves with only a tiny, administrative full-time federal military (embassy duty, etc). Forces purely defensive in nature. Spending geared toward maintaining existing equipment and procurement of replacement items. Future programs not typical, but can be authorized by congress for significant leaps in technology (when fiscally sound).

4) Individual ready reserves that are only called up in times of national emergencies. Forces purely defensive in nature. Spending geared toward maintaining existing equipment. No future programs.

5) Complete abolishment of any standing federal military force. Military forces are only individual ready reserves maintained by the states and serving at the pleasure of the governors, according to each state's respective constitution. No federal spending on military or military programs.

6) Other?

[Hobarticus]

1. Very well thought-out, Squatch...

Have you considered the Joint Chiefs?

[Squatch]

2. LOL...one of these days, my friend. One of these days.

[Squatch]

3. Hopefully this thread generates some discussion

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. What the founders thought.

James Madison

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Patrick Henry

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Commonwealth of Virginia 1788

... that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[mainegreen]

5. Can't we blend one and two?

Military 401k? Should we really expose their retirement to the market? Is that the way it works now? I hope not.
Outside of Korea, do we really need a large standing army? Of course, I oppose the foolishness of trying to occupy countries, so I'd think we'd be better off pursuing a policy of no occupation, smaller army, and shifting to having a well trained, and large reserve pool to draw upon, serving a primarily defensive purpose.
However, we definitely should have a Navy and Air Force that are large and primarily offensive in nature. Most of the time I think American policy is best served by rapid deployment of firepower to specific target for a short period of time.

But that's just my 2 cents.

:shrug:

[Squatch]

6. I see where you're going with that.

That's very interesting.

[defendandprotect]

7. Other . . . I think it's time to put the whole military situation back to more

realistic levels ---

I think we have to bring our spending on military much more in line with what other nations are spending --- in other words, big reductions!

We should also bring ALL of our troops home ---

AND, call off the phony drug war as well which is simply a way to invite ourselves into other
countries to push their governments around and to raise more money for those who profit from the Drug War!! That includes corrupt government officials, of course --- and corrupt police enforcement.

As I understand it the Dems are investigating our huge investments in some naval equipment which
doesn't quite fit into anything we are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[defendandprotect]

8. Push and recommend!

[Initech]

9. Plain and simple: If Exxon wants to start wars for profit, they get to pay for it.