I mean the US is spending money on US weapons and arms and sending them to a foreign country. We're not sending them cash. The military industrial complex in the US benefits.
Not to mention the huge benefit to us that this equipment is field tested in a way that it can't be done by just testing. That feels a little crass, but the first major comflict of this century has changed somewhat how war is fought.
Sure, the military-industrial complex benefits—but the military-industrial complex always benefits. That’s not a justification for continued involvement; it’s just a fact of how defense spending works. If anything, this strengthens my argument; why not prioritize military production and readiness for the Pacific, where our actual strategic interests lie?
As for "field testing," that’s a pretty thin silver lining to justify indefinite support. Wars evolve regardless, and we don't need to offload billions in weapons to foreign conflicts just to learn how modern combat works. If we’re going to spend, let’s spend where it serves America’s direct security, not someone else’s.
Not to mention the huge benefit to us that this equipment is field tested in a way that it can't be done by just testing. That feels a little crass, but the first major comflict of this century has changed somewhat how war is fought.