CJS 6125 DF3 Comments. Week 3 Response (Thomas Sutter)

Comment on these two post as if you were me with 100 WORDS PER 3 QUESTIONS, DO NOT COMPARE THE POSTS, and put 3 references for each post, and please separate the references with the post it was made for.
Thomas Sutter
Week 3 response

1. After World War 2 the nation was put in similar financial situation. President Truman aided in fixing the economy in a variety of ways. The Marshall Plan invested over 12 billion dollars in the redevelopment of Europe and aided in constructing new business practices. He fought against popular programs such as super-carriers which would have added tremendous burden to national debt. “Truman made clear that budgets should still be willing to pay short-term expenditures to gain long-term savings” (Bagby, 2010). Chipping away at multiple different budgetary institutions will appease more parties and reduce the second order effect impacts.
2. “Economic globalization makes more free-trade opportunities, which puts everyone in the world on equal footing and makes countries where it is done attractive to foreign businesses” (Lombardo, 2016). On the flip-side, large corporations could take advantage of tax benefits in countries that have less regulation which is already hard to control domestically. I do believe that globalization can aide in national security efforts. I also agree that it will impact the job market in the United States. That’s why we have to make sure we switch back and forth between domestic and foreign international initiatives.
3. I’ve served in special operations for the past 6 years. The current fight is special operations intensive. The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is the command in charge of all special operations units to include Special forces (green berets), Navy Seals, Army Rangers, AFSOC and MARSOC. Each provide specific mission capability that is imperative to both conventional and unconventional warfare. The Army Rangers are the worlds premier raid force. Navy Seals and Delta Force are the only “render safe” units and the Green Berets primarily do paramilitary training. Unless there is drastic change with our near peer enemies, the war must continue to be special operations intensive. They are better trained, better equipped and more discrete then conventional units could ever be.

Bagby, M. (2017, December 06). What Truman can Teach Obama. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://www(dot)huffingtonpost(dot)com/meredith-bagby/what-truman-can-teach-oba_b_791162.html

Lombardo, C. (2016, June 25). Pros and Cons of economic globalization. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from http://visionlaunch(dot)com/pros-and-cons-of-economic-globalization/
Richard Rodarte
Week 3 Discussion
1. One of the methods that the US can reduce its budget deficit is to take a serious look at the defense spending and see what can go without, Americans are too caught up with their preconceived ideas of American homeland invulnerability and believing that it would be unpatriotic to consider cutting from that budget. This persists from the Cold War and the looming threat of the "Soviet bear" (Snow, p. 167, 2011) that could pose a serious threat to life in the U.S. at any given moment, though now that is no longer the case, and these arguments and superstitions are 40 years old now with little to show for the concern they caused. While the current environment is dangerous and threatening, our largest concern is ultimately small, isolated terrorist attacks - most of which come from within U.S. borders.
2. The pros of globalization are an increased U.S. standing among military and economic powerhouses, its widespread effects have kept the U.S. relevant among superpowers since the end of the Cold War, to this day. One of the cons to that aforementioned fact is how this has helped construct "a Chinese monopoly on production and sale of rare earth elements critical to electronic systems" (Snow, p. 186, 2011), which certainly weakens the U.S. holding on a global scale. The so-called Bretton Woods system helped create an enormous amount of leverage throughout other areas of the globe, though recently that has sparked a resurgence of terrorism-led geopolitics since 2001. I do agree that countries with outstanding trade relationships with the U.S. are less likely to engage and want to burn any bridges with one of their primary markets of goods and consumption. The U.S. needs more vested interests in U.S. borders, job creation and security - corporations are less willing to do so because of cheaper outsourcing opportunities across the globe; it's those that need to be reined in.
3. Current US force levels are both heavy and Spec-Ops intensive, however the problem is that there is no actual need for them to be heavy at the moment. "Heavy" force levels include the need for tanks, bombers, mobile artillery, battleships used for fighting conventional models of war, which hasn't happened since the Persian Gulf War in 1991 - or a modified use of the model in Afghanistan and Iraq circa 2003 (Snow, 2011). Meanwhile, most conflicts that U.S. forces currently occupy now are considered light, mobile forces that can engage in a variety of forms of warfare, not directly engaging with hostile armies, navies, etc. The heavy force was appropriate in the era of the Cold War, though now it's a holdover from a bygone era, used to sustain the American idea of invulnerability, even though its size and costs continue to chew through the national deficit for no good reason other than "it's good to have just in case World War 2I breaks out".
Resources:
Snow, D. M. (2011). National security for a new era. Boston: Longman.