Research Log #1

Name: Zachary Simbajon

Date: September 20, 2017
EQ: Should the US spend as much as they do on military?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The US military needs new weapons and vehicles
#2: Technological advancements
#3: Protection of other countries and protection at home
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Point that this Source/Information Proves: # 1: The US should spend more due to the
protection of other countries.

Excerpts (​​These should provide insight into the Point to Prove​​):

Salam ​is an associate editor at The Atlantic, and was previously a producer for NBC
News, a junior editor and editorial researcher at The New York Times, a research
associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a reporter-researcher at The New
Republic. He says, ​“ The point of investing in a more capable military is not to topple
foreign governments at the drop of a hat, or to recklessly enmesh U.S. forces in
conflicts that will have no meaningful impact on U.S. national interests.”

“The other thing we expect of our military is that it be able to protect not just the U.S.
homeland, but also our allies around the world. The United States is pledged to defend
every other NATO member state if they’re ever under attack.” Salam explained in the
“Slate”.

Salam wrote, “And restoring order is extremely expensive, because restoring order can’t
be done by drones. High-tech weapons can work wonders when your goal is to wipe out
your enemy.”

Analysis (​​How does this source support the Point to Prove?​​):

In this article Reihan Salam explains how our spending on military is a necessity. This
supports my point because the United States has a big military budget not because we just want
to spend more. But because we need a powerful military to protect other countries and our
interests around the world. Most countries in Europe and Asia depend on the military might of
the United States to protect them from any country that poses a threat. ​The support the U.S.
provides to the other countries (Japan, Germany and South Korea) comes from the cost of
having U.S. military bases in those countries, and the added cost of that is difficult to quantify.

Work Cited (correct ​MLA format​​):

Salam, Reihan. “The United States Doesn’t Spend Enough on Its Military.” ​Slate Magazine​, 12 Nov.
2015,

French, David. “Yes, It's Time to Increase Defense Spending.” ​National Review,​ 27 Feb. 2017

“Arena Profile: Reihan Salam.” ​Reihan Salam Bio | Politico.com​,

Research Log #2

Name: Zachary Simbajon

Date: September 23, 2017
EQ: Should the US spend as much as they do on military?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The US military needs new weapons and vehicles
#2: Technological advancements
#3: Protection of other countries and protection at home
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Point that this Source/Information Proves: #3: Protection of other countries and protection at
home

Excerpts (​​These should provide insight into the Point to Prove​​):

Lori Robertson says “Total foreign aid, of all kinds, was an estimated $35.3 billion in 
2014, and ​$5.9 billion of that was military financing​​ with another $105.6 million for 
international military education and training, according to State Department figures on 
foreign assistance. Most of the military financing (75 percent) went to Israel and Egypt. 
That’s followed by Iraq, Jordan and Pakistan.” 
 
Michael P. Noonan, director of research and director of the Program on National 
Security for the Foreign Policy Research Institute states “Where the U.S. really supports 
Japan, Germany and South Korea is in having U.S. military bases in those countries, but 
quantifying the extra cost for the U.S. to keep troops there, as opposed to on bases in 
the United States, is difficult — not to mention the difficulty in putting a price tag on a 
benefit to the host country versus a benefit to the United States.” 

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

In this article Lori Robertson and Michael P. Noonan explains how our spending on
military is a necessity. This supports my point because the United States has a big military
budget not because we just want to spend more. But because we need a powerful military to
protect other countries and our interests around the world. Most countries in Europe and Asia
depend on the military might of the United States to protect them from any country that poses a
threat. ​The support the U.S. provides to the other countries (Japan, Germany and South Korea)
comes from the cost of having U.S. military bases in those countries, and the added cost of that
is difficult to quantify.
Work Cited (correct ​MLA format​​):

Robertson, Lori. “U.S. Foreign Military Support.” ​FactCheck.org​, 20 Apr. 2016,

www.factcheck.org/2016/04/u-s-foreign-military-support/.
Research Log #3

Name: Zachary Simbajon

Date: September 30, 2017
EQ: Should the US spend as much as they do on military?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The US military needs new weapons and vehicles
#2: Technological advancements
#3: Protection of other countries and protection at home
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Point that this Source/Information Proves: #4: Cost of Repairs and Maintenance

Excerpts

Anne Scott Tyson of the Washington Post says, “The military's ground forces are only
beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat
equipment -- work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for
several more years, regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000
major pieces of equipment in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or
replaced. Before the war, the Army spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and
tear.​”

She also states “An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed
or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to
nine times the rate in times of peace.”

Anne states that “Responding to urgent requests from the Army and Marine Corps,
Congress approved an extra $23.8 billion in October to replace worn-out equipment in
fiscal 2007. With the money, the Army plans to double the workload at its depots, which
will repair and upgrade 130,000 pieces in 2007, up from 63,000 last year. This will
include a quadrupling of the number of tanks, Bradleys and other tracked vehicles
overhauled, from 1,000 to 4,000.”

Analysis (How does this source support the Point to Prove?):

Every year the United States increases our spending on the military. But you have to
think about the reason why. Our presence in the Middle East and our fight against terrorism
stack our costs on repairing and maintenance of our military equipment. Damaged vehicles and
destroyed military equipment, need to be repaired and the equipment that hasn't been used yet
need to be maintenanced in order to keep it in working shape. Keeping equipment in working
order isn’t a cheap thing to do. As Anne Scott says, ​ “The military's ground forces are only
beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat equipment --
work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for several more years,
regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000 major pieces of equipment
in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or replaced. Before the war, the Army
spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and tear.​”

Work Cited (correct ​MLA format​​):

Tyson, Anne Scott. “U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment.” ​The Washington Post​, WP Company,
5 Dec. 2006, ​www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html​.
Research Log #4

Name: Zachary Simbajon

Date: September 25, 2017
EQ: Should the US spend as much as they do on military?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The US military needs new weapons and vehicles
#2: Technological advancements
#3: Protection of other countries and protection at home
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Point that this Source/Information Proves: # 2: Technological Advancements

Excerpts (​​These should provide insight into the Point to Prove​​):

Michele Flournoy from the Washington Post says, “The bulk of any additional
defense investment must focus on maintaining and extending our
technological and warfighting edge, including in cyber, electronic and
anti-submarine arenas, unmanned systems, automation, long-range striking
and protected communications.”

Analysis (​​How does this source support the Point to Prove?​​):

In this article Michele Flournoy explains that we should have an increase in military spending.
However, she says that it depends on what we spend it on. The US military should always have an edge
technologically. Meaning that we should spend mostly on ​“​cyber, electronic and anti-submarine
arenas, unmanned systems, automation, long-range striking and protected communications.”​ I
completely agree with this because being the world’s most powerful military, other countries are
going to ask for our protection. We need as much advantage as we can get. Especially
technologically.

Work Cited (correct ​MLA format​​):

Flournoy, Michèle. “Opinion | Trump Is Right to Spend More on Defense. Here's How to Do
so Wisely.” ​The Washington Post​, WP Company, 1 Mar. 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-right-to-spend-more-on-defense-heres-how-
to-do-so-wisely/2017/03/01/ca776f74-fe8e-11e6-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html?utm_ter
m=.2c8d78ca0f5f.
Research Log #5

Name: Zachary Simbajon

Date: September 25, 2017
EQ: Should the US spend as much as they do on military?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The US military needs new weapons and vehicles
#2: Technological advancements
#3: Protection of other countries and protection at home
#4: More spending increases our readiness to fight foreign enemies.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Point that this Source/Information Proves: # 4: More spending increases our readiness to
fight foreign enemies.
Excerpts (​​These should provide insight into the Point to Prove​​):

Senator Marco Rubio from Florida states in a CNN social commentary article, “ ​Even
though
we've been able to keep the homeland safe for more than a decade, the
threats to Americans at home and abroad are growing. From the rise of the
Islamic State and the spread of Islamic terrorism, to Russia's aggression in
Europe, to Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, the threats to
American security are growing. Yet, even as the world outside our borders is
filled with more doubt and uncertainty, the United States has been steadily
reducing our spending on defense.

“Our force reductions have been felt throughout the world -- by our friends and
our enemies. They have presented not just a crisis of readiness for America,
but also a perilous strategic weakness. Our adversaries have been
emboldened by what they perceive as our diminished military presence.”

“History has shown that every time we have unreasonably cut resources from
our military in anticipation of a peace dividend, it has only cost us more to
make up for the deficit we create in military readiness and capability, and the
expected era of perpetual peace fails to materialize.”
Analysis (​​How does this source support the Point to Prove?​​):

This supports my point because the US is receiving threats from Chinese

expansionism, Russian aggression, North Korean nuclear threats, and Islamic terrorism.
This is enough for us to build up our military so we take action when it’s necessary.
Protecting ourselves is one thing, but the US is also obligated to protect our allies.
That’s not cheap to do. In order to beef up our military and to continue to protect our
allies from the growing threats we need to spend more. Because the US needs every
advantage we can get. Which will benefit us, and our allies.

Work Cited (correct ​MLA format​​):

Rubio, Marco, and Tom Cotton. “In a Scarier World, We Need a Bigger Defense Budget.”
CNN​, Cable News Network, 26 Mar. 2015,
www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/opinions/rubio-cotton-defense-cuts/index.html.
Research Log #6

Name: Zachary Simbajon

Date: September 25, 2017
EQ: Should the US spend as much as they do on military?

Three Points to Prove: #1: The US military needs new weapons and vehicles
#2: Technological advancements
#3: Protection of other countries and protection at home
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Point that this Source/Information Proves: # 5 Many US jobs depend on maintaining the
military budget
Excerpts (​​These should provide insight into the Point to Prove​​):

Loren Thompson from Forbes states “The number of jobs created by defense
spending varies depending on the nature of the activity and how much each
job pays, but it's a safe bet that at least one direct job is created for every
$200,000 in spending. Thus, the $100 billion in annual military spending cuts
that might be spawned by deficit-control legislation potentially accounts for
500,000 direct jobs”

He also states “This finding corresponds loosely with the fact that the U.S.
gross domestic product of $15 trillion currently sustains about 140 million
jobs.”

Analysis (​​How does this source support the Point to Prove?​​):

In this article Loren Thompson explains that cutting military spending will not only
weaken our military, but would also weaken our economy. Millions of jobs will be affected if
there are cuts the military. The military creates lots of jobs including companies that create our
weapons such as Lockheed Martin which is currently developing and manufacturing fighter jets
for the US military. Not to mention all the other jobs such as education, construction, and retail
can be affected.
Work Cited (correct ​MLA format​​):

Thompson, Loren. “Defense Cuts Could Destroy A Million Jobs.” ​Forbes​, Forbes Magazine, 3 Oct.
2011,
www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/09/19/defense-cuts-could-destroy-a-million-jobs/#d7cf487bdbf3​.