The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Can We Really Cut Half of the Military Budget? You Bet!
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
List of Bookmarks

The wailing sound you heard last Thursday was the chorus of the Beltway warmongers shrieking in despair at President Trump’s suggestion that there was no reason for the United States to be spending one trillion dollars on “defense.”

“…[O]ne of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that,” the President told reporters.

With this statement, President Trump blew up one of the biggest myths of our time, particularly among Republicans, that spending more on the military is essential to keeping us safe. There is a vast and well-funded network of political and industrial interests that depend on maintaining that myth, from the weapons manufacturers to the mainstream media to the think tanks and beyond. Why? Because most of what is called “defense spending” has little to do with defending this country and a lot to do with enriching the politically well-connected.

Maintaining that global military empire has bankrupted the United States while making us less safe and less free. President Trump seems to understand this. But the military-industrial complex and its cheerleaders have for decades pushed the idea that we could not survive without continuously increasing their budgets.

Thanks to the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency” we are learning that much of what has been sold as “essential spending” is nothing of the sort. Take USAID, for example. We were led to believe that this agency was feeding the poor while promoting the best kind of American values overseas. Thanks to DOGE, we learned that the money was going to absurdities like funding transgender puppet shows in Peru.

We are also learning that a great deal of USAID money was going to actually overthrow democratic governments overseas – as well as manipulate foreign media and promote censorship of “dissident” voices at home and abroad. Not only was USAID not helping countries overseas – it was actually harming them!

Just as with USAID, when we are able to see just where that one trillion military budget is going Americans are going to fully realize that they have been lied to for decades. That is why we need a full audit of the Pentagon and full transparency of the results.

We also need a change in policy. Americans are beginning to understand the economic costs of maintaining a global military empire. US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabers at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defense? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defense of rich Europeans? Haven’t we had enough of this?

I very much hope that President Trump follows through with his plan to drastically reduce our bloated military budget. We can start by closing the hundreds of military bases overseas, bringing back our troops from foreign countries, and eliminating our massive commitments to NATO and other international organizations.

We will be richer, safer, and happier.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Hinz says:

    Victoria warmonger Nuland – “Fuck the EU”

    We also need a change in policy. Americans are beginning to understand the economic costs of maintaining a global military empire. US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabers at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defense? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defense of rich Europeans? Haven’t we had enough of this?

    With all due respect Sir.
    You are a lying p. of s..

    • Disagree: Rich, Piglet
    • Thanks: Cloud Posternuke
    • Troll: Rurik, Mike Conrad
  2. Anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    You will have zero control over budgets as long as CIA can make stuff fall off the truck. CIA gun-running for covert ops is the underlying reason why DoD is an unauditable mess. And CIA’s looting license has been formalized in FASAB Std. 56.

    https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas_56_nr.pdf

    So the answer is, You can’t cut shit until you shut down CIA.

  3. Voltarde says:

    “. . . With this statement, President Trump blew up one of the biggest myths of our time, particularly among Republicans, that spending more on the military is essential to keeping us safe. There is a vast and well-funded network of political and industrial interests that depend on maintaining that myth, from the weapons manufacturers to the mainstream media to the think tanks and beyond. Why? Because most of what is called “defense spending” has little to do with defending this country and a lot to do with enriching the politically well-connected. . . .”

    Let’s face it: “enriching the politically well-connected” is “Occam’s Raison d’être” for government entities, here in America and everywhere else.

    That fact is why America’s founders believed in limited government.

    • Agree: Rich
  4. HT says:

    Not sure why we spend much of anything on the military. It sure isn’t used to protect Americans and is just for the benefit of other countries, mostly Israel. We’ve had at least 40 million illegals enter our country and the government allowed that to happen even with the most powerful and expensive military in the world at its disposal. What exactly are we paying for?

  5. The USA could cut military spending by 95%. It has only two small and weak neighbors. It is moated by oceans from both Asia and Europe. With a sane foreign policy it would have no enemies in the world.

    But the military industrial complex and certain ethnic groups do not want this.

    • Agree: Emslander, Mike Conrad
  6. @HT

    Where were all the military airplanes on 9/11? How come the US air force could not shoot down even one of the hijacked planes?

    • Replies: @Rich
  7. Between Hegseth and the Revenge of the Nerds doge, an easy 60% could
    be clipped without loss of efficiency – most of the cost is personnel, and firing
    most of the personnel is a net improvement;
    however this is not going to solve the problem. The Perfidious Empire´s
    turning point (loss of asabiyyah/mandate of Heaven) was the battle of
    Majuba Hill 1881, and it was bankrupt by 1908 (never mind they still don´t believe it);
    the Great Satan´s turning point was Cuba/Vietnam, and the “closing of the gold window”
    was the declaration of bankruptcy (never mind that Bretton Woods already was a racket).
    So for half a century GS has been living high on the Ponzi hog, backed by the military
    and nothing else, and able to dump most of the bills (heh) on the World.
    The situation is grossly overleveraged – industry is hollowed out, schools are dumbed down,
    the dollar and the military are propping each other up … the Day of Reckoning has come:
    There is no longer a single point that can be singled out and repaired.
    Orange Man´s gamble has a remote chance of working for a few years more –
    but only for the (((donors))).

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  8. Anon[329] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you Dr. Paul. 2 data points:

    $1,000 billion Pentagon military Budget
    $100 billion Russian military budget

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  9. @Anon

    You forget Russia is a sideshow 😁

  10. @nokangaroos

    – It is said Jefferson wrote in “pursuit of happiness an sheet” because he felt
    that “property” was too in-your-face; the quashing of Shays´Rebellion
    (Washington mobilized more men against them than at any one time against the
    Brutish) cast in concrete that only property can have rights, humans can not,
    and the protection of said (“investors”) rights has been the mission of the armed
    forces ever since (this is the deeper reason behind the desecration of Captain Jack´s
    body – the war had cost them 25 times more than his land was worth – and what
    Smedley Butler somewhat belatedly found out).
    The system was unsurpassed as long as there was something to expand into –
    it now becomes obvious why the US military´s reach must be global, and that is
    not enough; profitable investment opportunities are running out, and profit rates
    are tendentially falling.
    Whatever is coming, it won´t be pretty.

  11. Rich says:
    @anonymouseperson

    They shot down the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. The story about the hostages who stood up to the hijackers was made up. It was felt at the time that the American people might react angrily to the fact that its military had killed 40 civilians to save a few congressmen.

  12. TG says:

    I think we should get rid of the military entirely.

    What’s the worst that could happen? Like maybe foreigners could invade us, like they’ve been doing for the last four years? And where was our oh-so-expensive military when we needed them to actually defend our actual borders? Frickin’ useless.

    Smedly Butler was right.

    • Agree: Piglet, anonymouseperson
  13. bobbyg68 says:

    After the Soviet Union collapsed, was it just a coincidence that all of a sudden it became necessary to go to war in the Middle East.

    Or did the United States go to war to justify continued exorbitant expenditures on defense.

    In the 70s the United States military was in a state of chaos as a result of the Vietnam War, but the Soviets did not invade Western Europe.

    In his book “It Doesn’t Take a Hero,” General Norman Schwartzkopf writes how while attending the Army War College an instructor conveyed that if the Soviets invaded Europe, they would be able to conquer Western Europe all the way to the border of Spain. Page 188 in the book.

    The instructor then explained how the United States would counterattack by flying troops and equipment to Spain.

    An Air Force officer student then explained how there weren’t runways in the area of Spain from which the counterattack would take place that could bear the weight of heavy transport planes.

    Another officer than observed that the needed troops were nonexistent and as well as the combat equipment.

    The instructor made no attempt to explain how they were wrong.

    If the United States realistically looked at the threats facing the country, I believe defense spending could be cut back by two-thirds.

    Anyway, as the national debt keeps increasing exponentially there may not be a choice.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Piglet
  14. Palmm says:

    Government spending is out of control in general, it’s at 12.8 trillion for 2025. My only pet peeve is shitlibs always use the excuse of “military spending” to increase other spending. Shitlibs are lying about the composition of total government spending.
    For example, under the 1.37 trillion 2025 (for 2026) Military spending outlays, NON-military aid of 51 billion is included. But yes, the US can maintain the Monroe Doctrine for about 800 billion.

    But NOTE TOTAL spending!

  15. Piglet says:
    @HT

    Not sure why we spend much of anything on the military. It sure isn’t used to protect Americans and is just for the benefit of other countries, mostly Israel. We’ve had at least 40 million illegals enter our country and the government allowed that to happen even with the most powerful and expensive military in the world at its disposal. What exactly are we paying for?

    I lived in Germany for many years and had numerous friends in the Bundeswehr, and when Merkel opened the borders to allow in millions of invaders, I wondered what was the use of Germany having a military when the country’s “leadership” gives a green light to invasion? Of what use was the German military while so many thousands of German citizens were being beaten, robbed, raped and murdered, and all while the taxpayers of the country had to foot the enormous bill to support the invaders and be prohibited from speaking up?

    Then our own country (USA) did the same thing.

    • Thanks: anonymouseperson, HT
  16. Yes. We could even end the deficit. How?

    1/ Audit the fed, give the job to Ron Paul as suggested by Musk
    2/ Realize the fed is the problem
    3/ End the fed

    Start to print free interest money backed by silver, gold and anihilate the debt and the bankster mafia behind it.

  17. It will be next to impossible sadly to cut the military spending.Does anyone really believe these well connected wealthy MIC’s are going to lay down and die and try to compete in the private sector for a buck, it’s never going to happen until we go bankrupt. I don’t even want to imagine what false flag attacks would happen if they figured they have to make a living in the private sector making cars or something competing with the Chinese for customers.

  18. AxeGryndr says:

    We could do a lot of things, but nothing can be done without eliminating the the Ashkenazi mafia that has a chokehold on government, education, industry, banking and media. That’s a tall order. Failure of citizenry to universally recognize and acknowledge=status quo until implosion.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Thanks: anonymouseperson
  19. Piglet says:
    @bobbyg68

    In the 70s the United States military was in a state of chaos as a result of the Vietnam War, but the Soviets did not invade Western Europe.

    I joined the Army right as the Vietnam War came to an end and yes, the Army was a mess. At the time there were self-serving articles in such internal publications as Soldiers magazine in which we were told we were the best Army ever, although I don’t think anyone believed it. Years later generals looked back on that time and described it as the era of “the hollow Army.”

    I suspect the Soviets had their own problems with the Soviet Army, plus they had to know it wouldn’t make much sense to initiate a war that would cost everyone far more than they could hope to gain. They had been invaded twice in the 20th century, to say nothing of Napoleon’s invasion in the early 1800s, and saw their occupation of Eastern Europe as a buffer zone to keep it from happening again.

    I was in Germany in the mid-70s and back in the 1980s and yes indeed, there were plans on how to counter a Soviet attack but few thought we’d hold out long. We could not realistically count on controlling the seas or the air between the US and Europe so reinforcements and supplies would likely never arrive, and we would quickly be overrun and annihilated. I also knew no shortage of military people who openly said that, in case of an attack, they’d pack their families in their cars and head west to France — as if the roads wouldn’t already be jammed with German civilians fleeing, as if France would really be a safe haven from attack. Sure, they could take part in exercises and pretend to do what needed to be done to fight back, but I figured if war actually broke out, there would be a lot fewer of us actually sticking around.

    The military also practiced something called NEO — the Non-Combatant Evacuation Order. As it was explained to me, the only reason the military was allowed to have family members accompany them on assignments to Germany was if the military could show it had a plan to evacuate family members before war could break out, or even right after it had started. Everyone knew it was a joke. There was no way on Earth to get all of those people out of the country and back to the States in time, assuming you could round them all up. But Congress said we had to have a plan, so there was a “plan,” which no one really took seriously. If war had started, the family members would have been SOL like the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  20. Jokem says:
    @Piglet

    I suspect the Soviets had their own problems with the Soviet Army, plus they had to know it wouldn’t make much sense to initiate a war that would cost everyone far more than they could hope to gain

    Many of the Soviets were Doctrinaire Communists. Expanding the influence of Marx was worth what it would cost.

    I was in Germany in the mid-70s and back in the 1980s and yes indeed, there were plans on how to counter a Soviet attack but few thought we’d hold out long.

    After Vietnam, the military led with the most pessimistic forecast on any encounter. The fact of the matter was, although the Soviets had numbers and a ruthless attitude, they were behind NATO in terms of technology.

  21. bjondo says:

    Pentagon’s 5 wings reduced to one, 4 civilian.

    The 4 now-civilian wings used for autistic kids
    to be nearly 100% if vaxxines not eliminated.

    With one wing, budget still more than next ten.

    5ds

  22. 10/9/2001 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for two point three TRILLION dollars of its budget from the previous ten years, an average of 230 BILLION per year, but likely more year in the later years.

    Basically unauditable. luckily for the politicians and DC apparatchiks, an ‘airliner’ destroyed the audit office the next day.

    1990 $409.7
    1991 358.1
    1992 379.5
    1993 358.6
    1994 338.6
    1995 321.6
    1996 307.4
    1997 305.3
    1998 296.7
    1999 298.4
    2000 311.7

    Three point seven Trillion, so 60% potential theft and fraud.

    source Infoplease

  23. @Henry Ford

    See what happened with Obungler’s NDAA and all the fakery and hoaxes since 2012.

    They murdered the journalist and author Michael Hastings in 2013 to cover up something.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS