Too Much Military Spending

Cutting Spending

A lot has been said about the high cost of the US military intervention in other countries and the need to reduce this spending. Most of the public is asking the government to cut the spending more deeply than than the way it is. When the US sufficiently believes that her sovereinty is endegered, she could resort to the use of army, in quelling conflict within her boarders or launch an assault in another country (Roth, 2005). Usually, the military intervention in other countries is an expensive venture and the US could spend millions of dollars to quell the uprising. Similarly, a powerful country can intervene using her military to restore peace and order in the war ravaged country. This situation leads to high spending, a situation that as sparked a heated debate on the need to cut such spending (Dayang, 2010). Apparently, the state should  be compelled to cut on its spending on military actions against other countries, particularly Iraq.  

Basically, the latest military invasion in Iraq has proved to to be one of the most expensive ventures that the US has engaged in. President Obama has not fully withdrawn his troops in Iraq despite the public outcry that the military intervention should be stoped to cut on spending and loss of lives. However, stoping this military activity has been difficult because he thinks that it is his responsibility to take the required measures to prevent the country from any repeat of terrorism acts, which are directed against the United States force so as to eliminate military aggressions, and could not be achieved through diplomacy (U.S. Diplomacy, 2011).  

Other Methods Cutting the Spending

There are methods that can be used to reduce the spending on military intervention, instead of using huge amount or money on such activity. One of the sure way to find solution for problems is through engaging the different parties through dialogue or diplomacy. This involves the use of negotiations in an attempt to bring peace to two or many warring nations. Under this kind of relationship, the discontented parties are brought to the negotiation table, where they agree on a particular set of obligations (Dayang, 2010). Notably, the provisions of the agreement, thereafter becomes binding to the two parties and their subjects. For example, in showing her commitment to cutting the spending on military, the U.S. signed treaties with China and Greece to enable them work as a team in fostering peace (U.S. Diplomacy, 2011).

Lately, the U.S. has really changed ways it relates with the other countries (Roth, 2005). Taking China and Greece as examples, one realizes that the United States has changed fro its predominant use of military relationships to the use of diplomatic means in working with other nation. This could be as a result the disadvantages of the military approach, one of them being the expenses incurred during invasion.  In this regard, the US cuts on its military spending in other countries so that she could get enough  money to invest in other development activities. Therefore, thecountry have adopted a more liberal means of increasing her relationship approaches, which are friendlier in solving disputes between them and other nations as their approach to the two countries indicate.

Views of Stakeholders

Regardng the spending on military intervention, both parties have different points of view in the situation. According to the American’s public view, many people justified the military involvement in Iraq as an important battles or actions to supress acts of terrorism. Some also viewed it as a solution to the conflict in that country including the level of violence used and methods/strategies employed by the extremists. In fact, they are of the opinion that military intervention is the best option in supressing the activities of the extremists. The increaced budget on military activities in the countries, which are considered to be threats does not worry the proponents of military intervention.

However, those oppossed to it argue that the military involvement of the US troops in Iraq is a waste of taxpayers money that should be channeled to development activities. Other than citing the high number of death associated with the military assault against Iraq, the opponent of the US’s involvement in this activity only view the amount of money being spent against the retun, thus disputing the whole exercise as futile and draining the American ailing economy (Dayang, 2010). They also argue that the high spending threatens the financial stability of the US, thus it could lead to economic and fiscal crisis.     

Advntages of the Cutting

In essence, cutting on the high military spending and solving the conflicts through peaceful dialogue would be more useful for the nation. Through diplomacy, the US would spend little amount of money in brining peace to the war tone countries (Nakamura & Weed, 2009). Though the initiative has several advantages, there are also a number of disadvantages, which might derail its practicality. The advantages of diplomacy include the following. First, diplomatic relationships could lead to amicable and permanent solution to the problem. Second, the two antagonistic parties are brought to agreement. Third, the relationship might not be expensive.

Some of the disadvantages include the following. First, the initiative might take a longer time than anticipated. Sometimes, the two opposing parties might not reach consensus, therefore, it could be a waste of time. In other situation, conflict of interest among the mediators might jeopardize the whole process (Nakamura & Weed, 2009). Furthermore, negotiating with a criminal might be difficult and fruitless, thus it renders diplomacy an unsuccessful initiative. Although the disadvantages of military intervention are inevitable, the US is forced to take such actions when they are deemed necessary.