MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is the Military Really "Depleted" After Years of Record-High Spending?

No, not at all. But for military hawks, more isn't just always better, it's the only way to be patriotic.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Donald Trump said he would seek a "historic" spending increase to replenish our "depleted" military. And as Ed Krayewski notes below, the president will likely tonight officially announce a call for a $54 billion hike, which will be paid for by cuts to other parts of what's known as the "discretionary budget."

The response from at least one fellow Republican, former GOP presidential candidate John McCain? Not enough.

"In other words, President Trump intends to submit a defense budget that is a mere 3 percent above President Obama's defense budget, which has left our military underfunded, undersized, and unready to confront threats to our national security," McCain said.

There's little doubt that the military is exhausted. Since 2001, we've been waging endless wars, including in countries against whom we've never officially declared war. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, of course, and all signs point to boots on the ground in Syria sooner or later. War footing isn't simply expensive (even if we're spending less on "overseas contigency operations" that we did in the mid-Aughts), it introduces incredible strain and stress throughout the military and society at home.

But depleted, underfunded, undersized, unready? Please. Defense spending ratcheted up during the Bush years in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. It hasn't come close to coming back down. In a nation that has supposedly wound down two of its longest wars and where the principal threat to the homeland is a group of religious extremists who live thousands of miles away (and are, lest we forget, a byproduct of our own failed occupation of the Middle East), we always need more money for defense, right?

Here are some charts that show various ways to think about trends in military spending. First is defense spending between fiscal 2000 and 2016 in nominal dollars:

US Government SpendingUS Government Spending

Here is the same period but using inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 is the base year):

US Government SpendingUS Government Spending

Here is a chart comparing U.S. defense spending to that of the rest of the world:

Peter G. Peterson FoundationPeter G. Peterson Foundation

Give or take, the United States spends somewhere between $550 billion and $600 billion a year on defense. Hawks will tell you that we need to spend this or that amount of GDP (usually at least 4 percent, sometimes as high as 10 percent) on defense, which is self-evidently ridiculous.

Defense spending isn't something that scales up or down depending on the size of the economy (or even the number of people in the United States), so the idea that any sort of automatic formula makes sense doesn't pass the laugh test. Do our "enemies"—a loose-enough term to cover by ISIS and, say, North Korea, China, Russia, and Mexican immigrants—get smarter or more devious over time? Probably, but why that would require more money instead of more ingenuity on our part is unclear.

Republicans especially like to go on and on about government waste, fraud, and abuse, but they almost always exempt everything related to the military. That's despite ample evidence not simply of penny-ante stuff like Radar O'Reilly mailing a Jeep home one piece at a time from Korea but to mind-boggling boondoggles such as the F-35 program, which is producing planes that will be obsolete by the time they (maybe) are able to be deployed.

The Pentagon, like every other part of our bankrupt government and every family, business, and individual in this country, should be doing more with less. It should be streamlining and changing its operations, procurement systems, and everything else. This isn't a knock on the men and the women who defend the country, but there's no doubt that political leadership and military brass alike should be held to the same account as the rest of us.

More to the point: The reason why the military is exhauasted—not depleted or underfunded or undersized—is because our leaders in both parties have been asking too much of it for too long. It's not isolationist to say the U.S. military is in too many places and trying to do too many things; it's common sense. We want an army, navy, and air force that can keep us safe at home and defend our people and property abroad. The idea that $550 billion or $600 billion isn't enough to cover that tab is not simply ridiculous but borders on the insane. And the reality that spending that much for the past decade or more hasn't made the world a better place can be seen in the smoldering ruins of every place we've been occupying for most of the 21st century.

From 2012, here are "3 Reasons Why Conservatives—and all Other Red-Blooded Americans—Should Cut Spending Now":

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Would an act of Congress be necessary to officially change the name to "The Dangerously Underfunded United States Military"?

  • See.More||

    Will never happen. TDDUUSM is not a clever or cute acronym...

  • See.More||

    TDUUSM... fifm...

  • CE||

    How about DUSTEM?

    Dangerously Underfunded Superpower Threat Enhancement Military?

  • esteve7||

    take a shot every time someone says "depleted military" (or "gutted military"), "crumbling infrastructure", "underfunded schools", etc

  • CE||

    Yet the state of our nation, is strong.... in every state of the union speech ever.

  • esteve7||

    Also much of the military can be considered a jobs program and really the only thing keeping certain areas viable.

    So maybe if you phrase it like that, leftists would support increasing the military and the right wouldn't, but most of those bases are in republican areas

  • The Last American Hero||

    There are plenty of bases on or near the coasts, and the last I checked, 2 of our 3 coasts are pretty Blue. In addition, weapons systems are built all over the country - Boeing sits in some of the bluest regions of the country (Chicago and Seattle) and team blue loves them some military spending when it means sweet sweet union machinist jobs.

  • esteve7||

    CA is blue but the areas around all the bases are red. or at least not as blue as the rest of the state.

  • Libertymike||

    Perhaps some of the money could be spent training the sons of Admirals not to spill the beans while pretending to be a hero.

  • Juice||

    But then how can they be heroes?

  • wareagle||

    After more than a decade of constant warfare, yes it is depleted, if in no terms beyond the inability to refresh, regroup, and retool. When you're on your 8th go-round of Afghanistan or wherever, you're not quite as gung-ho as the first time. Things like odds of survival and the overall fatigue of what looks like wasted effort creep into your mind. There is a bit more to this than dollars spent.

    Yes, I'd love to see our people pulled out of there; no one wants to be the last person to die for that for effort any more than someone wanted to be the last to die in Vietnam. And constant deployment is not a great recruiting tool.

  • Rich||

    Well said.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Fair enough, but scaling back our footprint should mean shorter and fewer deployments. If we only have a fraction of the troops that were in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Also, if we scrapped wasteful make-work programs on unused weapons systems we could buy a lot more Humvees or MRAPS or whatever it is they drive these days.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Fair enough, but scaling back our footprint should mean shorter and fewer deployments. If we only have a fraction of the troops that were in Iraq or Afghanistan

    Theoretically, yes, but there's still a footprint that has to be filled, and we've also opened up a theater in North Africa now, so that's another bill that needs to be paid.

    We've been deploying troops out to the Middle East for over 26 years now--wearing out our equipment and depleting readiness, and the result is that we're spending hundreds of billions on what is increasingly becoming a hollow force.

    The phrase "do more with less" sounds nice until the ones who have to deal with the ops tempo get burned out from it, especially when Congress is continually drawing down your manpower. The only thing that would actually help at this stage would be to completely pull out of the Middle East altogether, but it's become a tar baby that every President since Bush I seems bafflingly clueless about extricating itself from.

  • Rich||

    Do our "enemies" ... get smarter or more devious over time? Probably, but why that would require more money instead of more ingenuity on our part is unclear.

    Think, man, THINK! Ingenuity doesn't grow on trees!

  • CE||

    Trump announces ingenuity tax. California hardest hit.

  • Anomalous||

    They should introduce legislation called the Dangerously Underfunded Military Budget (DUMB) Act.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    And a new tax, the DUMB Emergency Revenues.

  • Bra Ket||

    "...for military hawks, more isn't just always better, it's the only way to be patriotic."

    Same shit as with tax increases and for that matter all other govt spending. It's only the changes that give that warm fuzzy money-spending feeling, when you feel like you're spending other people's money. That's why my opt-in voluntary tax idea would be so great. Everyone will definitely feel that spending goodness anew each time they cut that big check each year, even when it's the same amount.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I spent many years pondering ways to reform government before I finally realized government is incompetent, period.

    One of my favorite was that the government could set the tax amount, but taxpayers said where their contribution went. The government might come up with a total of $4T, say, and plan to send $600B to the military and $5B to parks. But if taxpayers sent in $100B to parks and $300B to the military, then that's all the military got, and the parks only got the planned $5B, with the surplus $95B being refunded to taxpayers.

    There'd be some interesting gaming going on. How do you refund the surplus? First idea is proportional to those who sent it. People who allocated nothing to parks would get no refund. Seems sort of fair and sort of mean, but it would fall apart as soon as everyone allocated 100% of their taxes to the study of lizards in Antarctica and got 99.999% back. So you'd have to refund it to all taxpayers. First thought there is proportional to how much was sent in, but then the redistributionists would want a flat split, and that would open up new games, with people who didn't like any redistribution trying to allocate their taxes so that there was no surplus, but they couldn't prevent others from overallocating to the Antarctic lizards.

    But mainly, it would allocate taxes as the public wanted, not Congress, and it would have been fun, assuming you have to have a government one way or the other.

  • Wizard4169||

    but it would fall apart as soon as everyone allocated 100% of their taxes to the study of lizards in Antarctica and got 99.999% back. So you'd have to refund it to all taxpayers.


    Feature, not bug.

  • Gadfly||

    While it is true that the US should take a hard look at its military expenditures and operations as part of a holistic approach to getting the budget under control (which is a necessary thing for the long term security and stability of the nation), I have to criticize that third chart which shows a comparison of defense spending between nations. This chart (or others like it) is often bandied about as evidence that the US is spending way too much compared to other nations, with the implicit contention that we so outpace other nations that we could cut back extensively and not suffer any negative side effects. But strength doesn't come from money spent, but from value received, and many other nations receive far more value per dollar than the US, meaning the actual strength of the US military does not outpace the strength of other militaries nearly as much as comparing expenditures would indicate. It's difficult to measure the actual strength of militaries for comparative purposes, but attempts to do so indicate that the US lead on other nations is actually rather slim. This doesn't mean we can't cut back, but the trade-offs have to be part of the discussion. If the US decreases its military too much it will have to content itself with letting other nations drive international policy from their newfound position of strength, even if they take it in directions we disapprove of.

  • wareagle||

    Didn't Mattis just go to Europe and, implicitly at the very least, talk about that chart you reference? When the SecDef is telling NATO members that it is time for them to pony up, he is by extension suggesting that the US cannot continue to shoulder the load. Sounds like Mattis gets the need for the US to cut back in that arena but he also recognizes that it cannot be done in a vacuum.

  • Gadfly||

    Sounds like Mattis gets the need for the US to cut back in that arena but he also recognizes that it cannot be done in a vacuum.

    Yes, and that is exactly the right approach. If the burden the US is bearing is worth being borne at all, then the proper way for us to cut back is to get others to share the burden.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not that chart, no. The commitment is for them to spend at least 2% of gdp on defense which is explicitly what that chart attempts to avoid showing because it diminishes the impact substantially. Looking at china alone with its $200bb official budget and about half the gdp of the US would mean that they are spending more like $400bb equivalent. That kinda ruins the narrative.

  • Calidissident||

    "Looking at china alone with its $200bb official budget and about half the gdp of the US would mean that they are spending more like $400bb equivalent."

    That's not how that works. By that logic North Korea is spending trillions on defense since it's something crazy like 20% of their GDP.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    That's not how that works. By that logic North Korea is spending trillions on defense since it's something crazy like 20% of their GDP.

    Except government spending is part of the GDP calculation so it should still be taken into consideration. A country spending half its GDP on military is, by definition, throwing much more of its collective wealth into defense, relatively speaking, than the US is. The difference is that we aren't, for the most part, taxing to cover those commitments.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, but they point is that $200 billion worth of spending doesn't suddenly become $400 billion because you have a smaller GDP. Part of having a smaller GDP is that you have to spend a higher % of it to spend the same amount.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, money spent does not equal value received.

    However, a problem I have with the charts above is that they understate that which is actually spent. All of the "off the books" and secret expenditures are not included.

  • CE||

    Hey, anti-UFO spacecraft ain't cheap.

  • creefer||

    Some would say it's closer to $1T when you start adding in fatherlan...errr Homeland defense, Nukes, Veteran's affairs, etc.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This is the typical nick narrative, especially the petersen chart that he likes to trot out. But then again this is the guy who just loves him some ubi.

    The fact is that china pays a hell of a lot less in absolute terms for personnel and the US could do so as well if it were to bring back the draft. What's that you say? You don't like that idea? Well gosh then you're going to have to pay more for an all volunteer force. And since the average income of the US is higher than just about anywhere else on the planet you are going to have to pay even more to be competitive with civilian employment.

    The other reason for looking at defense expenditure as %gdp is that it's basically an insurance policy and as such its premium moves up and down with the value of the underlying asset. Gosh that almost makes sense. In facg as %gdp us defense spending is about back to where it was at the end of the 90's which actually DID result in a deferred maintenance and capital problem in the 2000's.

    But let's apply Nick's argument to, oh, say Nick's income. Is he any more productive than 10 years ago? 15? I don't think so. So presumably he'd be ok with the reason foundation paying him the same nominal or even real income he got 15 years ago, right?

  • Libertymike||

    Applying Nick's argument to his income is inapt: what Reason wants to pay Nick is between Reason and him.

    Is anybody's income and / or wealth being forcibly confiscated by Reason in order to pay Nick?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's perfectly apt. Reason pays him that to retain him. The notion that personnel spending will be constant is stupid for an all volunteer force. And even though nick studiously avoids mentioning personnel costs they are at least a third of the defense budget and the gastest growing item over the last 2 decades.

  • creefer||

    Personnel costs are are less that 20% of the budget, and in today's ultra lethal warfare, personnel numbers are less and less important.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yeah no. Direct personnel 153bb in 2013. VA is 180bb for 2015. Combine those and you get close to 40%. Procurement in 2013 was less than 100bb. In the end it's ppl that are driving costs.

  • Calidissident||

    VA is not included in the Defense budget. It's a separate item.

  • Libertymike||

    Okay NAS, from the perspective of personnel costs being constant over a significant length of time, that is more apt, but the analogy still suffers from the inherent differences between private / public expenditures and how they are derived.

  • SomeGuy||

    This is another reason.

    Another issue is we actually give reasonable/not total shit but sorta shitty compensation for injuries. A major reduction in post military costs would be to make leadership responsible for the shit that goes on.

    Our unit had several deaths and near deaths due to hazing and general shitty environment. We had someone drink himself to death because the place was so toxic. I know a few people hung themselves and jumped off buildings because we never actually train...its just 24/7 hazing and fuck fuck games.

    I was put into a coma for 3 days resulting in my retirement and that costed me my brain and the tax payers probably 2 million by time i die. Though they weaseled out of 50-100K so far by VA refusing to read my TBI exam and fucking up my back pay.

  • SomeGuy||

    2DMARDIV also did its damnness to cover/deflect blame on that marines death. I posted about it in the past. It was an amazing spectacle of them trying to keep further investigations at bay.

  • Calidissident||

    Using PPP makes a difference, but it doesn't even come close to wiping out the entire gap in spending. You (and conservatives in general) also seem to be engaging in the "more spending = better" fallacy that progressives do on almost everything else. No other country even comes close to touching the military capacity of the United States. No one has the force projection capability that we do or close to it.

    "The other reason for looking at defense expenditure as %gdp is that it's basically an insurance policy and as such its premium moves up and down with the value of the underlying asset."

    What? Lol

  • SFC B||

    The US lead on things like actual combat equipment might not be that great, but the only country on that list which could put a sizable fighting force in any other nation listed and maintain them for any period of time is the US. The huge advantage the US has over every other nation on Earth is in its logistics. It really doesn't matter how many tanks the Chinese have since their ability to put them anyplace but their own backyard is negligible.

  • chemjeff||

    Here is a chart comparing U.S. defense spending to that of the rest of the world:

    I really do hate this type of comparison. The US, for better or for worse, has taken upon itself to secure the means of free trade around the world. So as long as the US has this responsibility, the US military spending will be higher compared to others.

    The real question is, should the US bear this responsibility? And if not, who (if anyone) should?

  • creech||

    Does chart include the fact that one armed and trained Chinese soldier costs far fewer "dollars" than a similar U.S. soldier? Due to "labor" and material costs, other nations get more bang for the buck than does the U.S.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Of course not. That would be fake news.

  • Libertarian||

    I like that chart except for one thing. It does not emphasize the dollars the US spends in relation to its enemies. There are only two countries in the bar on the left that could be considered adversaries. If you compare US spending to only our adversaries combined, the picture is much, much worse.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nor does it correct for ppp which makes the picture much, much better.

  • Jgalt1975||

    That kind of comparison is relevant as long as proponents for increased military spending frequently try to justify it by doing things like shrieking, "China has an aircraft carrier" or "North Korea has hundreds of combat jets!"

  • DJF||

    The first thing that needs to be cut is military commitments.

    Then cutting military spending becomes much easier.

    Keep on adding military commitments and cutting spending ends up with a military that is underfunded

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Trump is wrong: defense can and should be cut as part of a broad-based, across the board, government wide spending reduction. We can make do with a few less super expensive state of the art jet fighters and a few less overseas bases.

    But, the above isn't at all what dishonest shitbag Nick Gillespie actually wants. He wants defense spending cuts so that he can get more federal spending for his beloved Planned Parenthood and "unrestricted cash grants for the poor". In other words, he wants to move us even further in the direction of the western European social welfare state than we already are now.

  • DJF||

    Don't forget Refugees, we need to open our doors to millions of tax spending Refugees

  • DJF||

    A big way to cut military spending is for Trump to find anyone in the Pentagon who has used the words Transformation or Transformational and send them to Guantanamo Bay

    These people have cost the US hundreds of billions on failed procurement programs

  • The Last American Hero||

    We created ISIS? I'm as anti-Iraq war as they come but the notion that we turned a bunch of peace-loving muslims into radical jihadi ISIS extremists is just plain silly.

  • ||

    We didn't create Isis, but we did cut the leash (Saddam) holding the jihadi beast together. Our dear leaders were convinced that if we got rid of the existing leadership, peaceful democracy would magically spring up in its place.

  • ||

    Biggest problem with the military is the mission - we're asking it to do too much. The second problem that you don't mention is the sclerotic awful no good very bad procurement process - also known as the military industrial complex. Money isn't spent with value for the military in mind, it's patriotic pork where return on cronyism is maximized. Take congress out of the procurement process, and you get at least 50% (source - my ass) more value for your military spending dollar.

    Unwanted jet engines, and unwanted tanks are the first place to start:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....p-ships-a/

  • SomeGuy||

    this is very true. Also servmart is a fucking scam. Jesus the amount of money my unit pays for toliet paper, pens, and paper is nuts. I actually went to dollar tree and walmart and used my own money to save tax payers some money with the level of scamming in prices servmart does. I couldn't consciously buy some things from servmart. :/

  • Free Market Firebrand||

    Where is this money GOING?

    We spend more on the military than the next 7 highest spending countries combined. And there are reports that aircraft are being "cannibalized" because of funding shortages?!

    When you have an organization with messy financials and missing funds, the first thing you do is figure out what the hell is going on, not give it more money to piss away.

    Litmus test time for Republicans. Do they still care about the national security threat posed by the debt as much as they did when Obomba was in power? We will found out shortly.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's going to pay ppl. The VA is $180bb for socialized medicine and another $200bb is going to civilian contractors, active duty, guard, and retirement. Procurement is the easy boogeyman to go after; it's just evil greedy corporations. But keep your gov't out of my VA (medicare, tricare, pension...)

  • SomeGuy||

    God the VA is worthless. I am like 7 years into a battle missing 50-100K back pay because the VA/lawyer fucked me on my TBI. The VA won't even read my TBI exam from Camp Lejeune. Found i think a decent attorney but it'll still be 2 more years before its unfucked just because there is no accountability for blatantly ignoring claims.

    I am just glad i have TRICARE its total shit too but it aint the VA. Tricare is pretty badass as a secondary though.

  • Calidissident||

    VA spending is a separate budget item. It is not included in the $600 billion figure.

  • SomeGuy||

    correct but it needs to be considered in the total cost of our military.

  • Calidissident||

    True, but NotEnoughSkippy is trying to portray it as if that $180 billion is a part of the $600 billion quoted figure for the defense budget (rather than in addition to it), to make it seem like we don't spend as much on non-personnel items as we actually do.

  • CE||

    President Trump intends to submit a defense budget that is a mere 3 percent above President Obama's defense budget, which has left our military underfunded, undersized, and unready to confront threats to our national securityconquer the world," McCain said.

  • SomeGuy||

    The issue is units don;t have funds to train. We spend 650 billion yet units barely train. I shot the weapon systems once in 4.4 Years. The rifle qual for marines in a gaggle fuck of a joke.

    We barely ever did any water ops let alone land field ops with the AAV. Our unit was more fucked up than most as i have posted before but the main issue is unit level funding.

    My only hope is that we never have to go to war with a real power or if we do they are as retarded as we are.

    We almost never do real training exercises with infantry in the amtrack so everyone deploys with very little training. There is some if you go on a real deployment but it still is lack luster.

    The training for a deployment i would consider should be universal training. If you don't deploy you virtually never train. Sure it saves money but if the whole Division ever deploys as a whole its a giant unorganized cluster fuck.

    The actual money required to have units actually train is not that much in the grand scheme of things.

    It is nuts that we spend 650 billion and what matters is actual soldiers/marines/sailors being proficient in a war. This isn't happening and i just hope every other country is as ill trained as we are.

    And today is 5 year retirement anniversary. Freedom from the big green weenie is great. Tonight everclear celebration :D

  • SomeGuy||

    1/4 of that 125 bil of waste would go super fucking far training our military.

  • Conchfritters||

    Sounds good to me. Just call Boeing and tell them to take a few F-35s off of our order.

    it appears that the F-35 is running at roughly $130 million per plane. I read elsewhere that A-10s can be produced for $18 million. I am not a military expert, but what would be better for a ground attack/tank busting role - one F-35, or seven A-10s?

  • creech||

    So what the hell did you do most weeks? How many more coats of OD can be put on everything?

  • SomeGuy||

    huh? coats of OD?

    On a line platoon most days were:
    taking all the gear out the of the track, counting it, putting it all back in the track. Pulling it back out and doing this several times in a day.

    Tarping the track. Untarping it, retarping it....several times a day

    Removing the deck plates, putting them back on. several times a day

    Running into a fence. several times a day

    Climbing on top of the track, jumping off. several times a day

    I am forgetting many of the fun games...I mean productive training we would do.

    Busting rust when not playing fuck fuck games like above.

    Policing calling (putting up cigarette butts of NCOs/officiers).

    Picking up sticks....because Cpl/Gunny or whoever said go pick up sticks.

    Cleaning the same room for 8 hours.

    Random searches of rooms at 2am in the morning throwing our shit around and having to put it all back and reclean room before 5 am inspection.

    random pointless formations.

    2 days of pointless safety briefs before every 72/96.

    PT

    and once every 1-3 months actually going on a field op.

  • SomeGuy||

    Also we never were allowed to get breakfast and sometimes not given lunch but an MRE so they could keep fucking with us in NC during hot summers, We were also not allowed to go the the PX that was on the ramp....a 3 min walk. This resulted in many heat injuries due to extreme exhaustion. Quite a few had heatstrokes and other heat related illnesses due to hazing. I had a heatstroke, hyponutremia, and seizure, which put me into a coma for 3 days. Once released from ICU i was supposed to get 2 weeks convo but unit gave me 5 days because FYTW so my brain never had a chance to actually heal so i went back to being hazed in the heat all day long less than 2 weeks after waking up from a coma. They also hazed me more because i lost everything due to terrible memory and walked around all funny and dizzy due to brain damage and severe sensitivity to heat. My motor skills were totally fucked too. Still pretty fucked but whatever. Life is a bitch ;)

    Heat index was 113 peak that day too but inside an amtrack it is probably like 130-140 degrees because it is 100% humidity inside an amtrack due to water always pooling in the bottom and its a aluminum oven due to sun beating on the track.

  • SomeGuy||

    Oh the hyponutremia happened because i would sweat about 2-4 gallons a day so i required 2-4 gallons of fluids but since i had no salt or electrolyte intake due to no breakfast or lunch my injury was even worse. The other days i survived because we went to chow hall and i had powerade and food with salt. The MRE i had had 0 salt but came with an electrolyte packet but i gave it to another marine because he was also about to pass out around chow time (i was okay at the time). He did too by end of the day but not as badly because everyone pooled 5 packets for him to drinkduring lunch. They also left me in my room after the days "work" until around 10pm when i had the seizure....thats when they finally said...well maybe we should take him to the hospital now. I also had a CK level of 97,000+ showing how much muscle break down occurred in my body from the hazing. This was quite normal back than the stupid fuck fuck games. I never passed out the other days because i was able to go to chow hall and eat food/salt and drink powerade. We werent even allowed to bring any to the ramp or buy any at PX on ramp because FYTW.

    I was also resilient to heatstrokes in the past. All my training i never had ant water because all my instructors broke my water bowel (canteen) caps so all training from boot camp-MCT i never had water lol but never passed out.

    Forgot what i was going to say :/ well whatever.

  • SomeGuy||

    So absolutely nothing fucking useful.

  • Out of sight, out of mind||

    I'm a reservist 2141. Weird seeing Courthouse Bay and tracks come up on Reason.

  • SomeGuy||

    Jesus that place was a shit hole. We had 3 tracks sink in 3 months. Supposedly someone also made cyanide to kill himself and got us quarantined but i dont remember it. I might have been in the hospital or just don't remember because my brain was so fucked at the time. Thought it was like Q3 2008 that cyanide thing happened. Like 60 people confirmed it but was too lazy to bug legal for papers haha.

    Again never bothered to find official proof of it because i just didn't care.

    We also had so many psycho paths. One of our Sgts punched a guy in the face and laid him flat in front of the SgtMaj and the SgtMaj just turned around and walked away. The guy was so crazy no one would bother with him. He would walk around with civi back pack in camies with desert sleeves down and a white tshirt instead of a green skivvy right past every Seneior/Staff NCO and no one said shit. The dude completely unstable.

    I posted before that one of the guys on my track got busted for counterfeiting and what else.....so much.

    Oh that guy who drank himself to death they held a funeral in fucking mainside!!! For some pfc/lcpl no one gives a fuck about. A guy who got blown the fuck up in Afghanistan doesn't even get a funeral lawl.

  • SomeGuy||

    So much more stupid shit. Like they made a rule if we had no NJP no speeding over 10 mph...basic don't be a fucktard stuff for 30 days you get an extra day off. 100 people just needed to not be garbage to get an extra day off....that almost never happened.

    We also had like a 4% drug pop rate lol.

    and so much more. Fuck....going to get dinner and enjoy my 5 years of freedom so far. Enjoy that fucking shit hole mechanic lol. God i even remembered that MOS number....still remember more than i want to.

    Oh last thing, we also didn't have funds for gas but thats do to all the sinking amtracks but our BN budget was ridiculously tiny even without sinking amtracks. Hazing was more important than doing your job in that place lol.

    Also at one point MCM/GS (fun fact MCM is a division asset and can only deploy with division) has almost no working tracks because they ignored those for like years and left them to rust.

  • SomeGuy||

    also nice name. Golden rule to being mil

  • creech||

    OD - olive drab color paint. Fifty years ago, that's what soldiers did when they had nothing else to do - put another coat of OD on the latrine or the 4x4 or officers mess hall. One guy I knew said he painted the same shed about six times one year.

  • SomeGuy||

    ah yea. I get it. We had similar things but more cleaning base or uniform base. It is retarded how we just waste time vs actually training. It also is stupid wasting time. I would rather paint a shed than clean the same room for 8 hours or run into a fence.

  • gordo53||

    What every citizen should know is that the reason there is little argument about the need to spend more on the military is that the Pentagon budget is a giant political slush fund. Washington politicians embezzle more money from the defense budget than any other entity. There are defense contractors in every single congressional district. Many are nothing more than a conduit to easy money. One popular ploy is the "research" contract. Most are multi-million dollar deals that require little more than a white paper for a deliverable. Congressmen who set these up are generously rewarded by the complicit contractors who have little choice but to play the game or go out of business. There are hundreds and probably thousands of clever schemes to bilk the Pentagon. There is not a member of Congress who does not profit from "deals" made in their district.

  • josh||

    The only way our military needs more money is 1) if you don't know how to be efficient, so you need money to cover waste or 2) you plan on taking on the whole world at some point. The problem is we've failed diplomatically and strategically, and you can buy all the tanks and planes you want, but all more money will do is help our kids learn geography.

  • XM||

    America's military isn't just for America. That stopped being the case since WW2, and definitely after the Korean War, where America officially cemented itself as a deterrent to major conflict over the east Asia region. 2/3 of the world quietly depend on us to keep the world in order and relative peace. North Korea can never officially invade South Korea knowing that America will unleash its dogs on them.

    "Let's just cut defense because it's getting expensive" has all the nuance of Trump repealing Obamacare overnight and replacing it with some random new plan. Assuming that the military isn't underfunded, what should we cut? The bulk of the defense spending is on personnel and maintenance. Not even the left will be down with cutting salaries and healthcare for military contractors, much less soldiers. And states like Virginia depend on military spending. The dems can't risk losing even more white support by appearing to argue in favor of "gutting" the military.

    Making cuts elsewhere in the budget to fund the military is a imperfect but acceptable compromise. It's why someone like Rand Paul gets elected while most libertarians will be lucky get half the votes Ross Perot got when he ran. Most Americans will want the most sophisticated and cutting edge technology to defend their nation. Some of them might be in favor of cutting fat, getting involved in less wars, and innovations that cut cost. Those are arguments more viable than "cut military spending".

  • BambiB||

    No - not depleted in the fiscal sense, but depleted in the sense of exhausted by all the Fool's Errands they've been sent on under the Bush and Obozo regimes.

  • Lord_at_War||

    Here is the same period but using inflation-adjusted dollars (2009 is the base year):

    Which peaks during the time when Dems controlled both houses and the Presidency, and only drops after the "sequester/Govt. shutdown" deal that every Reason writer declared the Repubs as stupid for doing.

    Hmmm...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online