Would the United States have a weak military if...

[Moooooo]

And why?

Serious question.

[Virginian87]

This is a common misconception, and it stems from people equating Democrats to the anti-war protesters of Vietnam and all subsequent conflicts, as well as the military's seeming ineptitude during the Carter Administration and the Iranian hostage crisis.  It also has a lot to do with far-right wingers wrapping themselves in the flag and denouncing anyone who does not agree with them as traitors.  I was against the war in Iraq from the start, but many Republicans have painted Dems that opposed the war as being "un-American."  So you can see this is quite a quandary. 

I believe that defense is a right for all Americans.  Currently, I think that we are spending a sufficient amount of our budget on military spending so it would not be a good idea to cut it.  However, I think the idea that we Dems are weaker than Republicans on military issues is preposterous.  A Democratic president might not spend as much as a Republican president, but the difference would be minor and it would not make a difference in our military strength.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not. Democrats had rock solid control of the government for several years before and during World War II.

[Jake]

Depends really. The US military may be less likely to get some of the high tech and expensive toys like additonal Nimitz Carriers or B-2 bombers if the Democrats controlled government. The military also would be less likely to get into any major war scenario like Iraq, instead they'd be in places like Kosovo and Somalia doing peacekeeping work. Now, depending on your opinion, the above could be defined as weaker than what we have now, but for others, it may be a better scenario.

[dazzleman]

Yes, most definitely.

Since Vietnam, it has been the Democratic party that has consistently sought to weaken the military.  It's part of the historical record, and cannot be denied.

I have no reason to believe that this has changed, especially as the party has moved closer and closer to the lunatic fringe since President Clinton left office.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, most definitely.

Since Vietnam, it has been the Democratic party that has consistently sought to weaken the military. It's part of the historical record, and cannot be denied.

Bzzz. Wrong.  The Reagan buildup was a continuation and expansion of the Carter buildup.  While Carter was not one of our best presidents, far too much of the good he did gets wrongly attributed to Reagan because the positive effects of his policies mostly began to take effect in Reagan's first term.  Unfortunately, the Reagan buildup was not sustainable and had to be scaled back to fit reality.  (Bringing the battleships out of mothballs was the single biggest mistake of the Reagan buildup.  The money spent refurbishing and operating them would have been better spent on another Nimitz-class carrier.)

[Defarge]

Depends on how Democrats take control.  If we shift right and win that way, the military will remain strong, albeit with less funding.  If we shift left and somehow win, damn straight the American military will be weaker, which is why the Democratic Party must shift right and become like the Democratic Party of the Cold War, strong on national defense but still economically progressive.

[dazzleman]

Yes, most definitely.

Since Vietnam, it has been the Democratic party that has consistently sought to weaken the military. It's part of the historical record, and cannot be denied.

Bzzz. Wrong.  The Reagan buildup was a continuation and expansion of the Carter buildup.  While Carter was not one of our best presidents, far too much of the good he did gets wrongly attributed to Reagan because the positive effects of his policies mostly began to take effect in Reagan's first term.  Unfortunately, the Reagan buildup was not sustainable and had to be scaled back to fit reality.  (Bringing the battleships out of mothballs was the single biggest mistake of the Reagan buildup.  The money spent refurbishing and operating them would have been better spent on another Nimitz-class carrier.)

That's highly revisionist.  Carter cut back on military spending and cancelled programs that had been in the pipeline for years under the Nixon and Ford administrations.  Nixon and Ford had a very difficult time getting defense programs through the Democratic congresses of the day.

Yes, he approved some programs, but only unwillingly and under duress.  And someone like Carter is probably the best we can hope for from the Democrats on defense.  That's a pretty scary thought.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Depends on how Democrats take control.  If we shift right and win that way, the military will remain strong, albeit with less funding.  If we shift left and somehow win, damn straight the American military will be weaker, which is why the Democratic Party must shift right and become like the Democratic Party of the Cold War, strong on national defense but still economically progressive.

That had really better not include invading countries for no reason. Having all of our troops tied down in Iraq has made our military weaker.

[DanielX]

If it were controlled by post-1960s Democrats? yes.
If it were controlled by pre-1960s Democrats? probably not.

[PADem]

A Weak Military? No way

A WeakER Military? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be drastically so. And John Kerry proposed a whole extra division of the Army during the 04 campaign.

[Speed of Sound]

the Democrats? no.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If it were controlled by post-1960s Democrats? yes.
If it were controlled by pre-1960s Democrats? probably not.

Senator Byrd was first elected to the Senate in 1958, and he not only voted against this stupid war, he tried to fillibuster it.

[MaC]

if they decided to get into other's business and waste our resouces. 

[opebo]

The military should be a lot 'weaker' - it should be about 1/10th its current size and sit at home.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Carter administration wasn't as gullible as Reagan's was about swallowing the PR every defense contractor comes up with to justify spending money on their sometimes dubious projects.  Take for example the B-1A  that Carter cancelled.  It was quite rightly rejected as unsuitable, but it was under Carter's watch that the design studies that came up with the B-1B variant were done. The two aircraft are so dissimilar that the B-1B should really have been named the B-2 in my opinion.  Obviously we will never know if Carter would have done as Reagan did in October 1981 and approved the B-1B for production, but at least Carter tried to base his military spending on the facts rather than the PR hype.  It was the height of irresponsibility for Reagan to promise during the 1980 campaign that he would build the B-1.  While the need for a low-level penetrating bomber was real and obvious, that the B-1B would be able to fill that role was unknown at the time..  As it is, the B-1B while servicible, never did live up to the PR hype.  Considering what we have used it for, it would have been cheaper to upgrade the B-52 agains and build a few more.  However, that's hindsight and we shouldn't fault the B-1 simply because by the time we needed a low level penetrating bomber we had the much better B-2. Carter might have decided to rely upon the F-117 until the B-2 was ready, but that would have been a questionable decision unless the problems the B-1B would have could have been accurately predicted, which I doubt.  The F-117 has neither the range nor the bombload of a bomber.  When it comes to military equiplement all too often equipment which looks great om paper turns out to be a dud, a la the Sgt. York DIVAD.

[MODU]

It all depends on the individual President, make up of Congress, and global security issues at the time.  Over all, the Republicans will be much more willing to spend on the military during times of peace than the Democrats, but it's not written in stone that all Democrats are softer towards the military.

[Virginian87]

I don't think Democrats would cater to defense contractors as much as Republicans, but this in no ways means that we would be weaker on military matters.

it's not written in stone that all Democrats are softer towards the military.

This is just a right-wing myth and generalization.  Sadly, too many people believe this.

[MODU]

I don't think Democrats would cater to defense contractors as much as Republicans, but this in no ways means that we would be weaker on military matters.

it's not written in stone that all Democrats are softer towards the military.

This is just a right-wing myth and generalization.  Sadly, too many people believe this.

Well, even pre-Vietnam, there were motions by some key Democratic politicians to slim down the military, so the "concept" is well rooted in national culture.  But you are right, there are many Democrats who are just as pro-military (and sometimes more pro-military) as some Republicans.  That's why it depends on the individuals in power and what the global conditions are in order to determine who is more pro-war.

[MissCatholic]

biggest misconception in America is that democrats are soft on defence. utter rubbish.

[Citizen James]

In terms of functional millitary power - probably not a whole lot of difference.   Probably better compensated enlisted personel and less pork with a DoD label on it.  (but more pork elsewhere in the budget to compensate - it's a travesty both sides commit).

As is, the US accounts for almost half of the world's defense spending.   Fortunately, the entire world is not against us, and our closest competitor is only at about a fifth our level.  (source: CIA world factbook

[MODU]

As is, the US accounts for almost half of the world's defense spending.   Fortunately, the entire world is not against us, and our closest competitor is only at about a fifth our level.

As the way it should be, since we keep getting pulled into everyone elses issues.

[Blue Rectangle]

Presidents and Defense Spending/GDP (%)

Nixon/Ford
1973-1976 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.2

Carter
1977-1980 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.9

Reagan/Bush 41
1981-1984 5.2 5.8 6.1 5.9   
1985-1988 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.8   
1989-1992 5.6 5.2 5.4 4.8

Clinton
1993-1996 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.5   
1997-2000 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.0

Bush 43
2001-2004 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.9

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Presidents and Defense Spending/GDP (%)

Nixon/Ford
1973-1976 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.2

Carter
1977-1980 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.9

Reagan/Bush 41
1981-1984 5.2 5.8 6.1 5.9   
1985-1988 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.8   
1989-1992 5.6 5.2 5.4 4.8

Clinton
1993-1996 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.5   
1997-2000 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.0

Bush 43
2001-2004 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.9

Throwing money away doesn't mean that the military is stronger.

[Blue Rectangle]

Presidents and Defense Spending/GDP (%)

Nixon/Ford
1973-1976 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.2

Carter
1977-1980 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.9

Reagan/Bush 41
1981-1984 5.2 5.8 6.1 5.9   
1985-1988 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.8   
1989-1992 5.6 5.2 5.4 4.8

Clinton
1993-1996 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.5   
1997-2000 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.0

Bush 43
2001-2004 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.9

Throwing money away doesn't mean that the military is stronger.

That's true.  It's also true that big military cuts don't often result in a stronger military.