Let's get some stuff out of the way. Before we get around grandstanding about the size of the budget for the Department of Defense, it might be a nice idea to think about some things. First, we have troops in harms way on two major fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan (the 50,000 person "residual force" in Iraq is still in harm's way, folks, never forget that). We also have troops facing combat or potential combat in Yemen, perhaps the Philippines, and God knows where else. Supporting them, regardless of how one feels about the particular missions in question, should be paramount. As it stands, at least as one considers the DoD budget requests available to the public, Secretary Gates is attempting to do just that.
Rather than slashing $100 billion from the DoD budget, willy-nilly, we need to get our troops home and out of harm's way as quickly as possible. Then, we need an honest debate, a serious debate, on the affordability of Empire, on the actual cost, in simple dollars-and-cents, of continuing global hegemony. We need to be willing to entertain the thought, heresy for far too long, that we just can no longer afford to be the world's only superpower. It hasn't been sustainable, at least domestically, without ramping up the fear factor toward the Muslim world (a pretty large chuck of the planet, including many of our fellow US citizens).
In other words, snarky comments like Glenn Greenwald's tweet concerning this article from The Hill, really don't mean all that much. It isn't enough to shout, "The military budget is too big!" We need to look at the ideology behind that big budget, and ask some fundamental questions about what kind of nation we wish to be. Anyone who has been paying attention to public affairs in our recent past knows that, despite all the noise, not one penny is going to be cut from the Defense Department budget, particularly with a Republican majority in the House (and the House is where real spending originates).
First, we need to ask if NSC 68 (which I misidentified in a post a while back as NSC 17, for some reason; so, I admit my error, so sorry) is still guiding our budget and spending priorities. If so, it needs to be retracted. If not, then we need to wonder why, in practice, it seems to be still operative. We need to make clear, if we wish to remain the world's only superpower, that we are willing to pay that cost. Since not a single Administration of either party has made a case for the sacrifices necessary to remain hegemonic, it seems to me the only real bipartisan agreement we have is that the American people really want no part of being the world's policeman.
All the same, we need to have this debate all the while making sure our young men and women in uniform are kept safe until they can be removed from the line of fire. This requires we spend money, spend quite a bit of it, and spend it wisely. That, Secretary Gates is arguing, is what he has been trying to do. Once out of combat zones, then we can get down to the tough choices of deciding not only what kind of military we want, but what its role should be, reflecting whatever priorities we might prefer to present to the world. We need to start that debate now, without jeopardizing our folks in the field. We owe them that, regardless of how we feel about the justice or rightness of the policy they are carrying out.
Virtual Tin Cup
