Trump Growing Weary of the Generals Domineering Control of Foreign Policy

[goldenequity]

As long as dollar is world’s reserve currency, US can continue to print money falsely & spend on military – ex-CIA officer
https://www.rt.com/usa/418660-us-budget-military-wall/

Phillip Giraldi: I think that everyone expected that Trump’s budget would increase the money to the military. But I think people were surprised by how much he is increasing the money for the military because the US honestly is not threatened anywhere in the world. And the thought of the military having more money doesn’t make sense. And also the social programs would be cut to pay for the military, which will cause some political problems for Mr. Trump.

RT: Trump says the US military is “depleted” but the US already spends far more on defense than any other country in the world. How can that be?

PG: That is one of the mysteries. The US spends more than the next eight countries on the military and it spends far more than any other — far more than Russia, or China, or any other country. So, it is a bit of a mystery why Mr. Trump believes that the military is weak. It seems to me that he is getting bad advice from his generals, most particularly General Mattis at the defense department and I think that is causing the problem.

I think Trump has been convinced by the generals that are in his administration that this money is needed by the military to keep America safe. That is an opinion that I think is false. And I think that Donald Trump can probably not be unconvinced on this, unless there is an economic crash like there was in 2008 which will mean that there won’t be any money to give to the military.

RT: At the beginning of his presidency Trump promised Mexico would pay for the border wall and now it’s got a larger chunk of the budget than is being spent to fight the opioid crisis. Can Trump live up to his campaign promises?

PG: It is clear that Trump cannot live up to his campaign promises. Because he did promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. And he did promise that there would be money for health issues like the opioid crisis. In fact, he has promised that quite recently. So the fact is that even though the US unlike other countries can print all the money it wants, there is still a limit in terms of how much money is in the system to support these things. And paying so much for the military means that other things will not be supported.

RT: The plan would add trillions to the budget deficit. How long can the US continue running up such huge debts?

PG: The fact that America can print money means that it is luckier than most countries, which can’t print money. So, as long as the dollar is the reserve currency for the world, they could continue to print money. But many countries in the world are now tired of using dollars and are talking of shifting to other currencies. That would be the end of the US running a big deficit.

When Trump ran for president, he was talking about the debt and the deficit. But now he seems to have been convinced by the speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who is someone who believes that deficits don’t matter. Somehow he has been convinced by these people that the deficit doesn’t matter. I think that is a mistake and we will see how that plays out but Paul Ryan obviously is giving the president bad advice.

RT: How will the decrease in money spent at home go down with the voting public, especially with mid-term congressional elections coming up later this year? Could this hurt the Republicans?

PG: I think it will definitely hurt the Republicans. People like me, my age, who are dependent on social security and Medicare, do not get a lot of money from these things. But these are sums of money so that people have some healthcare and they have the ability to live and not be poor. When you take away these things, people like me would be voting for someone else other than the Republicans, I think there will be a lot of people voting for not necessarily Democrats, but for candidates who are talking about this and are angry about it.

[Schifference]

I am not knowledgeable in regards to how to run a countries military/defense.

In another thread there is a discussion regarding computers and AI. One person's commented that the first country to achieve a level will forever be the world leader.

I would have to think that technology and weapons has to keep up with sex robots, self driving vehicles, automated burger machines robotic cashiers and tellers.....the list goes on and on including doctors, lawyers......

With that in mind I would have no idea how much should be spent on the military. It is possible that in order to remain safe from some future super predator nation, we might need advanced leading edge weapon technology.

[Anti Globalist]

Trump being relegated to a figurehead? Gee how shocking.

[Raginfridus]

With that in mind I would have no idea how much should be spent on the military. It is possible that in order to remain safe from some future super predator nation, we might need advanced leading edge weapon technology.

Oh, absolutely.

[timosman]

With that in mind I would have no idea how much should be spent on the military. It is possible that in order to remain safe from some future super predator nation, we might need advanced leading edge weapon technology.

Something to fight camels with.

[goldenequity]

[nikcers]

If we get rid of the air conditioning they'll come home real soon. My best friend grew up in Vegas where 117' isn't out of the normal and he said Iraq made him miss Vegas summers.

[nikcers]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ion-too-large/

by SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY)15 Feb 201821

EXCLUSIVE–Rand Paul: Is Our Military Budget too Small, or Is Our Mission too Large?

Since 2001, the U.S. military budget has more than doubled in nominal terms and grown by more than 37 percent, accounting for inflation. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next eight countries combined.

This prompts the question: Is our military budget too small, or is our mission too large?

It’s hard to argue that our military is underfunded. Our mission, on the other hand, includes our involvement in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Niger, Libya, and Yemen. We have troops in over 50 out of 54 African countries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over a trillion dollars and lasted more than 15 years.

Unfortunately, none of these wars has been authorized by Congress, and Afghanistan and Iraq have gone far beyond their original authorizations. And when all combined, they are draining our treasury. A country can only remain strong as long as it remains solvent.

In Afghanistan, we spend about $50 billion each year. Where does the money go? For troops and weapons, of course, but billions have also been spent on roads, bridges, and schools for Afghanistan. Seems a shame that bridges, roads, and schools crumble here while we persist in nation-building abroad. Maybe it’s time to do some nation-building at home.

Don’t get me wrong. I supported going after the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. But that mission ended when we killed the plotters and their supporters. The question we need to ask is, “When will the Afghanis be able to defend themselves?”

Most conservatives believe welfare should be temporary, and that ultimately the able-bodied must stand on their own. Foreign assistance is no different. If the U.S. coddles and comforts and does all the fighting, Afghanistan will never become self-sufficient.

People argue that the Taliban will take over Afghanistan, but it won’t if the Afghanis stand and fight. We’ve given them 15 years of training and billions of dollars’ worth of the most sophisticated weapons known to man. Surely, the time for them to step up and fight is now.

Is it worth one more American life to try to build a nation for people unwilling to fight for their own country?

The recent 21 percent increase in the military budget will buy a lot of weapons, but it won’t win the war in Afghanistan. President Obama already tried that. Obama increased our troop levels to around 100,000, and, sure enough, the Taliban ran and bided their time for the inevitable troop withdrawals.

The Taliban now controls a sizeable area of Afghanistan. I cannot, in good conscience, ask our soldiers to go back to Afghanistan to take back the same villages they’ve taken twice, first in 2002 and then again in 2010.

Candidate Trump wisely ran on a platform that the Iraq War was a mistake. But President Trump is surrounded by generals who have never seen a war that they believe cannot be won. And so the wars continue.

My hope is that President Trump will remember candidate Trump, and tell the generals who surround him: “Enough is enough. I’m bringing the boys home.”

[acptulsa]

My hope is that President Trump will remember candidate Trump, and tell the generals who surround him: “Enough is enough. I’m bringing the boys home.”

[nikcers]

by SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY)15 Feb 201821

EXCLUSIVE–Rand Paul: Is Our Military Budget too Small, or Is Our Mission too Large?

Since 2001, the U.S. military budget has more than doubled in nominal terms and grown by more than 37 percent, accounting for inflation. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next eight countries combined.

This prompts the question: Is our military budget too small, or is our mission too large?

It’s hard to argue that our military is underfunded. Our mission, on the other hand, includes our involvement in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Niger, Libya, and Yemen. We have troops in over 50 out of 54 African countries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over a trillion dollars and lasted more than 15 years.

Unfortunately, none of these wars has been authorized by Congress, and Afghanistan and Iraq have gone far beyond their original authorizations. And when all combined, they are draining our treasury. A country can only remain strong as long as it remains solvent.

In Afghanistan, we spend about $50 billion each year. Where does the money go? For troops and weapons, of course, but billions have also been spent on roads, bridges, and schools for Afghanistan. Seems a shame that bridges, roads, and schools crumble here while we persist in nation-building abroad. Maybe it’s time to do some nation-building at home.

Don’t get me wrong. I supported going after the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11. But that mission ended when we killed the plotters and their supporters. The question we need to ask is, “When will the Afghanis be able to defend themselves?”

Most conservatives believe welfare should be temporary, and that ultimately the able-bodied must stand on their own. Foreign assistance is no different. If the U.S. coddles and comforts and does all the fighting, Afghanistan will never become self-sufficient.

People argue that the Taliban will take over Afghanistan, but it won’t if the Afghanis stand and fight. We’ve given them 15 years of training and billions of dollars’ worth of the most sophisticated weapons known to man. Surely, the time for them to step up and fight is now.

Is it worth one more American life to try to build a nation for people unwilling to fight for their own country?

The recent 21 percent increase in the military budget will buy a lot of weapons, but it won’t win the war in Afghanistan. President Obama already tried that. Obama increased our troop levels to around 100,000, and, sure enough, the Taliban ran and bided their time for the inevitable troop withdrawals.

The Taliban now controls a sizeable area of Afghanistan. I cannot, in good conscience, ask our soldiers to go back to Afghanistan to take back the same villages they’ve taken twice, first in 2002 and then again in 2010.

Candidate Trump wisely ran on a platform that the Iraq War was a mistake. But President Trump is surrounded by generals who have never seen a war that they believe cannot be won. And so the wars continue.

My hope is that President Trump will remember candidate Trump, and tell the generals who surround him: “Enough is enough. I’m bringing the boys home.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ion-too-large/

Quick everybody to the comment section, I think all of the warmonger bots are trying to influence the Russian election..

[juleswin]

This is what frustrates me the most about Rand. I know people say he is cunningly trying to persuade Trump with this sort of talk. But to most people who have figured Trump or will figure Trump out in the coming months, they will see him as a naive and maybe slow insider guy who cannot get it through his head that he has been had by Trump.

Candidate Trump and President Trump is the same people. We saw this with Bush, Obama and now Trump, why is it so hard to understand that this is just what successful candidates do to win elections i.e. pretend to be populists/anti establishment and do a 180 and turn establishment once elected.

[acptulsa]

This is what frustrates me the most about Rand. I know people say he is cunningly trying to persuade Trump with this sort of talk. But to most people who have figured Trump or will figure Trump out in the coming months, they will see him as a naive and maybe slow insider guy who cannot get it through his head that he has been had by Trump.

Candidate Trump and President Trump is the same people. We saw this with Bush, Obama and now Trump, why is it so hard to understand that this is just what successful candidates do to win elections i.e. pretend to be populists/anti establishment and do a 180 and turn establishment once elected.

Well, Rand is a successful candidate too. And what he does is try to show how he's representing his voters without causing them discomfort by destroying their cherished myths, or alienating them by telling them how they're lying to themselves. That's how he won a statewide election, which is more than his father ever did.

When should he stop pretending Trump can be salvaged? When the polls indicate 50% of Kentucky voters see through him? When polls indicate 50% of Kentucky Republicans see through him? Just remember--when he does stop pretending, he can no longer go to Trump and say, 'I'm the only person in this town giving you cover, but I can't keep it up unless you throw the voters this bone...'

[nikcers]

Well, Rand is a successful candidate too. And what he does is try to show how he's representing his voters without causing them discomfort by destroying their cherished myths

Yeah I think its also him carving out his name and his brand as someone who is his own man. If he were to not criticize the foreign policy of the candidate he endorsed it would damage his image of integrity.

[acptulsa]

"Nowadays we have diplomats work on wars for years before arranging them. That's so when it's over, nobody will know what they were fighting for. We lost thousands and spent billions, and you could hand a sheet of paper to one million different people and tell 'em to write down what the last war was for, and the only answer that will be alike will be, 'Damned if I know.'"--Will Rogers

[Origanalist]

It must be tough for Trump with those General's he appointed and handed over control to domineering foreign policy.