When talking about military adventurism, many individuals think immediately of luxuries which soldiers have access to while in combat zones. There are however various aspects to it, together with diverse causes and effects of this topic. Each is proving worthwhile for discussion with many politicians plus presidents disagreeing on the matter.
Nonetheless, the topic is generally affecting society and occasioning various concerns with non-politicians. No matter the branch concerned, money from the taxpayer proves to be a challenging subject of deliberation among leaders who are in public office. Almost 20 billion dollars was used in 2012 for buying plus maintaining luxuries among them air conditioning for Iraq and Afghanistan operations of troops.
Nearly twenty billion dollars got spent in the year 2012, for buying and maintaining luxury items like proper air conditioning for the soldiers at war in the Nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The figures were noted as an irrational way of using cash from taxpayers. Advantages of this is that troops end up keeping cool, alive as well as being more motivated. In contrast, the obvious challenge arising with such expenditure is the increased domestic debt the country faces.
Some argue that soldiers only should intervene for the purpose of preserving life and need not participate in any other matter, whether this is rebuilding or transformation. The policy even so has been greatly ignored right from 1945. Still, government officials do not look keen to change the situation. Once ordered into any specific front-line, soldiers become charged with performing their charge until complete.
At present, mission objectives have kept changing time and again. Soldiers now are viewed as charged with government rebuilding tasks, in place of deterring enemy advances. Changes in budget are another important factor affecting this topic. If more troops are sent into combat zones or funding for such action runs low, such event triggers more injection of cash to cover the difference.
As a result, taxpayers end up experiencing trouble, which is same for soldiers on inactive duty. In any governance system the individuals who sign up for training and eventually ends up fighting has to be funded publicly. Some of these policies affecting soldiers at war could seem irrational, but they do secure reputations of high ranking government officials.
About 63 billion dollars has so far been spent on military affairs and it is critical to consider where further funding will originate. It is difficult to imagine where such huge amount of financing could be sourced. There is need therefore to carefully examine what expenditure is essential to sustaining military operations locally and overseas without compromising national security.
Support is sometimes provided by interests other than those of United States and thus generating greater debt by government to the internal economy. Everyone who is executing war policy should be informed about the factors surrounding adoption of military adventurism as a policy. It has been observed so many times however that governments worldwide are slow to embrace radical transformation on matters of securing national interests. Even then too much rigidity on the subject might later on compromise overall security status of such countries.
Nonetheless, the topic is generally affecting society and occasioning various concerns with non-politicians. No matter the branch concerned, money from the taxpayer proves to be a challenging subject of deliberation among leaders who are in public office. Almost 20 billion dollars was used in 2012 for buying plus maintaining luxuries among them air conditioning for Iraq and Afghanistan operations of troops.
Nearly twenty billion dollars got spent in the year 2012, for buying and maintaining luxury items like proper air conditioning for the soldiers at war in the Nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The figures were noted as an irrational way of using cash from taxpayers. Advantages of this is that troops end up keeping cool, alive as well as being more motivated. In contrast, the obvious challenge arising with such expenditure is the increased domestic debt the country faces.
Some argue that soldiers only should intervene for the purpose of preserving life and need not participate in any other matter, whether this is rebuilding or transformation. The policy even so has been greatly ignored right from 1945. Still, government officials do not look keen to change the situation. Once ordered into any specific front-line, soldiers become charged with performing their charge until complete.
At present, mission objectives have kept changing time and again. Soldiers now are viewed as charged with government rebuilding tasks, in place of deterring enemy advances. Changes in budget are another important factor affecting this topic. If more troops are sent into combat zones or funding for such action runs low, such event triggers more injection of cash to cover the difference.
As a result, taxpayers end up experiencing trouble, which is same for soldiers on inactive duty. In any governance system the individuals who sign up for training and eventually ends up fighting has to be funded publicly. Some of these policies affecting soldiers at war could seem irrational, but they do secure reputations of high ranking government officials.
About 63 billion dollars has so far been spent on military affairs and it is critical to consider where further funding will originate. It is difficult to imagine where such huge amount of financing could be sourced. There is need therefore to carefully examine what expenditure is essential to sustaining military operations locally and overseas without compromising national security.
Support is sometimes provided by interests other than those of United States and thus generating greater debt by government to the internal economy. Everyone who is executing war policy should be informed about the factors surrounding adoption of military adventurism as a policy. It has been observed so many times however that governments worldwide are slow to embrace radical transformation on matters of securing national interests. Even then too much rigidity on the subject might later on compromise overall security status of such countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment