More Spending on Armed Forces Personnel
- Strongly Support means you believe: We have an obligation as the leaders of the world to maintain a strong military. And we have an obligation to our service personnel to pay them adequately.
- Support means you believe: We should consider carefully before making more cuts - for example, base closings have hurt local economies, and reducing military personnel has put pressure on employment.
- Oppose means you believe: Build smart, not necessarily big. Money is often better spent on issues other than defense. We should cut back on troops stationed abroad and focus on quality of our troops instead of quantity.
- Strongly Oppose means you believe: Defense spending includes huge amounts of pork-barrel spending and should be reduced dramatically. We should change our Defense policy to one of defense, instead of one where we police the world. Pull US troops out of Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.
This question is looking for your views on military spending in general. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:
- Improve military readiness
- Rebuild the `Hollow Military'
- Maintain our troop commitments overseas
- Men and women in the armed services are paid shamefully little
The hollow military refers to a reduced size of the US armed forces resulting in lack of readiness.
The term was popularized in the post-Vietnam 1970s, but has come back into use for the post-Cold War.
Current US military policy is to achieve sufficient readiness to fight two nearly-simultaneous wars.
(this section under construction)