I respect that this is personal for you and your defensiveness is somewhat understandable given your experience and background. Most of us do not have the luxury of your experience, and we do have to rely on sifting through the internet and the various media outlets for this information.
That being said, this Administration is doing a very poor job of messaging the actual use and distribution of the money being allocated to Ukraine. Maybe if someone in the Administration or the DOD would explain how weapons are being distributed against an existing defense budget as you pointed out, the ideology would be better received by the American public. But they are not... In fact quite the opposite is being disseminated from all media outlets left, right, and center..
Really? I think it's completely fair to ask questions of this or any other Administration in power of why we are spending billions on a country with which we have no official alliance or obligation to defend. It has nothing to do with the lack of Americans wanting to support the people of Ukraine.. It has to do with priorities and the fact that we are already underwater with an ever-growing number of crises' in our own country and half the population is genuinely struggling as a direct result of terrible policies from a government that has squandered American confidence long ago with it's lies and terrible policies across the board.
The Ukraine war and how it is being justified by this Administration may indeed be a victim of the times and the current political situation here in the USA. But, that doesn't dismiss the fact that there are many questions that deserve answers to justify American support.
Once again, I understand and agree with this generalization. However, it's not naiveté or a conspiracy theory for us to ask for specific examples of how this is more important right now than the dozens of other domestic shit storms we are already dealing with here at home. In regard to our Ukraine involvement, I have yet to hear any specific reasons, long-term strategies, or goals laid out by anyone in this Administration, or the pundits for that matter.
When hard working people see the US southern border overrun with impunity, fuel & food prices soaring, unaffordable rent and house prices, the stock market in a mass sell-off in reaction to rising interest rates, etc., it's very difficult to get them onboard with sending billions overseas to a war not of our making especially with no specific plan, and the Afghan debacle still smoldering.. Even if it's as you say and cash isn't being sent over in suitcases like Obama did with Iran, it's a hard sell to most Americans given what we have on our plates already..
Meanwhile Brandon continues to play his fiddle and only takes a break to spend more printed money and proudly proclaims that another 40 billion of it is going to Ukraine and you don't understand why taxpayers are asking questions as to how or why the money is being spent? I'm kinda surprised you don't get that?
I absolutely understand what you are saying. I could not agree more with your description of the ineptitude of this administration. Our only real difference, I believe, is with respect to the importance of blunting Russia's ambitions now in Eastern Europe.
I am convinced that not only should we be helping Ukraine, but that we should be doing so with the same urgency as the UK. I suspect Britain's own history of surrendering Czechoslovakia in Munich in 1938 is a driving force behind that nation's efforts currently. A similar historical experience is motivating Poland, a Slavic nation with less than close traditional ties to Ukraine. With respect to proportion of GDP and risk, they are doing more than almost any other nation in NATO.
We on the other hand, are saddled with a cognitive disaster as president, and in Jake Sullivan, perhaps the least prepared National Security Advisor since WWII. Neither, however, at least in my view, obviates the need for aggressive containment of Russian ambitions. It simply makes it harder.
Our own history should also be a warning. Our America First movement was very powerful in the late thirties, paralyzing FDR's ability to support Britain and France in curbing the ambitions of Adolf Hitler. We paid for that lack of interest with enormous quantities of blood and treasure. I absolutely believe, failure to curb Putin now eventually will cost this country far more than the relative pittance we are currently allocating.
I admit that I have little patience with the arguments pointing at the Southern border and then Ukraine - that the administration cares about one and not the other. It is true, it is frustrating, but it is also a false equivalency. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If Putin is successful in creating a rejuvenated Russian Empire, we will have generational challenges far greater than the chaos on the Rio Grande (something we can begin to correct in a few months).
I do not know how to be clearer about how the budget process works. I am sure there are people who believe that we are simply writing checks and giving them to the Ukrainian government. I am surprised educated people believe that, but perhaps so.
In this case, each of these allocations are authorized and appropriated by the Senate. The authorization is based upon input primarily from DOD and State. I'll stick with DOD, because it is the process with which I have the most experience. Coming up with the number is sausage making at its best. In its simplest terms, Ukraine will provide a prioritized list of what they need. DOD will work that list and determine what is available and at what risk from the US inventory. DOD will also reach out to NATO partners to determine their ability to fulfill requirements. For instance, we have lots of Harpoon missiles, but no ground launch capability. A NATO partner does.
DOD will also determine the training and sustainment package necessary to field a particular weapon system. That likely entails considerable back and forth with Ukraine's MOD as the reality of some employment timelines will push and pull capability up and down the priority list.
The NSC will also add its political and strategic concerns with respect to capabilities and timing.
HIMARS is a good example. Its employment on the battlefield, depending upon munitions, could destroy Russian artillery superiority or threaten Russian assembly areas inside Russia. Before accomplishing one or worrying about the other, Ukraine needs a US digital communications network to do targeting for HIMARS (or MLRS). Ukraine also needs an extremely robust military transportation system to handle MLRS munitions. A HIMARS can fire its six rockets in seconds and reload within five minutes. That means these systems can burn through many pods very quickly. The US uses a vast fleet of HEMETT 8x8 trucks and HEMAT trailers to keep the rocket launchers fed tactically. That lift needs to be accounted for in some way. Operational logistics also have to be solved. Until those challenges are resolved, the differences between Ukraine's desires and fulfillment will temper deployment.
But back to the budget process. Once all these competing interests are hashed out, a draft budget is created. The authorization committees will in turn tweak it and pass it to the appropriations committee which writes the check. That too can get complicated because at least some of the funding will likely come from other budgets. Then it is voted.
In any case, that portion of the appropriation to be spent against army materiel (most of it in this land war) is turned over to and managed by the US Army Security Assistance command - not Ukraine. It will be in two forms - new acquisition and draw down authority. Detailed auditing of the use of those funds by the command and industry is constant.
That well established management system is why Rand Paul's very public and seemingly all so rational demand for oversight was frustrating. He knows the system as well as anyone, but he managed a week's delay and scored some political points among the uninformed. I wonder how many Ukrainians will die due to a week's delay in a critical munition.
The State Department will manage US humanitarian assistance in a similar fashion, but as I say, I have no first hand experience in their mechanisms.
My sense is that many oppose the effort in Ukraine simply because this administration is doing it. I understand that. I generally despise its policies, I have contempt for many of its members, and November can not get here soon enough. But ignoring a vicious, almost medieval military culture trying to brutally reestablish itself on NATO's doorstep at the expense of a nation trying to become part of the European community, would be a catastrophic mistake. It is, I believe, in our critical national interests to address that threat right now. Unfortunately, we have to do it with the tools we have at hand.
