Introduction
The world is in such relations that any country needs to ensure its defense. Despite the general stability of martial law, states must be interested in maintaining military strength and in the training and education of the military. Nevertheless, America has seen a decline in its defense budget over the past few years. According to the 2021 report, the budget for 2022 will be increased, but due to rising inflation, the actual increase remains 0.4% (The Department of Defense 7). The reduction in the defense budget may have a favorable effect on health care and other services. However, it results in a significant impact on the military’s overall readiness and significantly hurts military personnel.
Thesis statement: Defense budget cuts significantly harm the military as a social institution, the personnel and jeopardize economic stability and attitudes toward the state.
Arguments
Budget cuts result in a reduction in the overall training and strength of the Army
The supply of modernized technological equipment and military hardware to the force is an acute problem. Cuts in defense programs lead to low turnover in technical inspections and maintenance and affect overall unit endowments (Copp). The presence of malfunctions, failures, and software errors leads to an undermining of security.
There is also the issue of personnel training: both military and civilian. The lack of personnel allocated to military training (training, practice with military equipment) leads to their low qualifications (Overholt 38). It is fraught with consequences when dangerous situations arise in hot spots.
Failure to provide technical equipment and skills training leads to a reduction in personnel units. People are no longer paid for dangerous work, and the Army has no places to train military personnel (Green). In such a case, the Army’s numbers will steadily decline, posing a threat in the conduct of hostilities. Insufficient personnel will not be able to conduct combat operations and help people effectively.
Cuts harm the stability of the military and hurt the military’s attitude
Society is still under Covid-19, and while many areas have received support, most military cuts have not been offset. Support programs are not widespread among military service members, which significantly affect the attitudes of the military itself. With the pandemic, people in military units have been subjected to even more significant restrictions, which have affected job performance (Thompson). In addition, it has undermined the military’s confidence in the state: there has been virtually no show of support.
The budget cuts raise questions among departmental representatives and the “top brass,” and those involved in military operations. The military is concerned about financing and is not sure that it will be possible to maintain stability in the internal structure of the army (Inhofe). There is a high probability that young soldiers will not be treated with respect. It will force those who served to continue doing again, but probably no one will want to take more responsibility.
With military budget cuts, civilian jobs suffer as well because of its involvement in the military process. It forces the military to engage in civilian affairs rather than direct duties. Maintenance of internal complexes will fall into the military’s area of responsibility, again negatively affecting their attitudes (Shane III). None of the young fighters want to sit on civilian affairs when they must defend the homeland.
A characteristic negative economic change always accompanies military budget cuts
As noted earlier, the army employs civilian forces for personnel training, maintenance, and internal purposes. The lack of a budget will reduce jobs, which will keep the army functioning and affect the civilian population. Unemployment will undoubtedly rise, which means these people will lose their jobs (Hicks). The availability of goods and services will be significantly reduced, so some states and counties will experience significant economic losses.
The Army is considered the most lucrative business: wage levels are high enough that there is no need to resort to significant work in civilian settings. However, the cuts will lead to a disruption of this stability. Moreover, unemployment will increase even more: many military personnel has not received special education, making it difficult to find high-paying jobs (Cronk). Former service members will likely have to continue serving at a low salary or migrate and look for a job, spending money on education.
Inflation, unfortunately, grows from year to year; it is reflected in pricing, availability of goods and services of prime necessity, lack of financing of many spheres. The same situation is observed in the army, but it will manifest itself without recoupment of budgetary funds (O’Hanlon 103). The allocated funds will be insignificant in the growth of prices for equipment and weapons, and the military will likely decide to withhold funds. Unused funds can be redirected to other departments, which will cause the military segment to suffer again.
Conclusion
Thus, defense budget cuts lead to significant internal changes in the military (reduction in overall combat training), are reflected in attitudes toward the military (undermining stability), and manifest economic hardship (unemployment). Likely, most opponents of maintaining the army look favorably on the cuts. Still, the real stories of the military suggest that it significantly hurts their comrades and the system as a whole. Changes in military services and a revision of budgetary control legislation are needed. Funding the military will keep the defense of the state stable despite overall world stability. The effort and money spent on military training and support would strengthen the army as a social institution.
Works Cited
Copp, Tara. “The Death Toll For Rising Aviation Accidents: 133 Troops Killed In Five Years.” Military Times. 2018. Web.
Cronk, Terry Moon. “Defense Secretary Mattis Urges Congress To Provide Predictable Funding For Military.” Army Mill.. 2018. Web.
Green, Mark. “Continuing Resolutions Are A Crutch That Hurts Military Readiness | Opinion.” Tennessean. 2021. Web.
Hicks, Kathleen. “Getting to Less: The Truth about Defense Spending.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 99, no. 2, 2020. Web.
Inhofe, Jim. “Biden Defense Budget Harms Military Readiness, Weakens Our Defense Strategy and Fails Our Troops.” Inhofe gov. 2021. Web.
O’Hanlon, Michael. The Art of War in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and Resolute Restraint. Yale University Press, 2021.
Overholt, William H. “China and America: A New Game in a New Era.” PRISM, vol. 9, no. 2, Institute for National Strategic Security, National Defense University, 2021, pp. 34–45. Web.
Shane III, Leo. “Personnel Spending Cuts Won’t Help Military Readiness, Key Lawmaker Warns.” Military Times. 2021. Web.
The Department of Defense. The President’s Fiscal Year 2022 Defense Budget, 2021.
Thompson, Loren. “Five Progressive Reasons Why President Biden Shouldn’t Cut The Pentagon Budget.” Forbes. 2021. Web.