Avoid the Arbitrary when Streamlining DoD

by: Richard Allen Smith

Sat May 23, 2009 at 22:28:40 PM EDT

   "We'll also ensure you can meet the missions of today, which is why we've halted reductions in Navy personnel and increased the size of the Marine Corps. And we will ensure you can meet the missions of tomorrow, which is why we're investing in the capabilities and technologies of tomorrow -- the littoral combat ships, the most advanced submarines and fighter aircraft -- so that you have what you need to succeed. In short, we will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen."

Yes, what we really need right now more than anything else is a larger, more powerful armed forces. $600B a year just isn't cutting it. In particular, we need even more advanced submarines and planes, since al Qaeda's subs and North Korea's fighters are so awesome.

While Blue Texan has a point that high-tech fighter aircraft and naval vessels may not be the best thing to be spending money on right now, I'd like to take this opportunity to address a current amongst my fellow progressives that has been bothering me for a few months.

Back in October Barney Frank made an argument for cutting the DoD budget by 25 percent. I thought, and still think, this is a pretty ridiculous idea.

Absolutely, the Defense budget is bloated and needs to be reformed. Without a doubt, there are weapons systems and defense programs that we invest in that are outdated and obsolete, and those funds could be better spent on domestic social programs. But why throw out a number like 25 percent? Where did Frank get that number? Did he go line-by-line through the Defense budget to arrive at that figure? If the DoD budget could be cut 15 percent, would Barney Frank still be disappointed.

In truth, Barney Frank is one of my favorite members of Congress (and yes, I am nerdy enough to have favorite members of Congress) but this idea is totally off base. Likewise for the current attitude that same to be prevalent in the progressive community with regards to military spending.

Here is a hypothetical: what if we cut a $20 billion dollar program from the defense budget, but spent $30 billion to establish a counterinsurgency school? This would be an increase in defense spending, but it would replace obsolete programs with a program that would be beneficial to combat leaders. Would the progressive community challenge such an idea? While I won't venture a guess on that, I would sincerely hope that we can move past the idea that the military industrial complex must be suffocated and instead, start thinking about making smart cuts and not throwing out arbitrary numbers.