21st Century Military - it's a dick thing

How to Pay for a 21st Century Military is the title of a recent editorial in the NY Times. It goes to great length to show where the Pentagon can focus its efforts to eliminate programs/investments that are superfluous in this no-longer-new century.

Before I'd start deciding what to cut, I'd ask myself what is the purpose of this whole organization in the first place? There are a four possibilities:

1. Ego - see below for a detailed scientific analysis
2. Inertia - well, it's been around for years, may as well keep going...
3. Offense - to project American power against other nations
4. Defense - to protect American soil from unwanted intrusions

#1 - Ego. Spike Lee wrote and directed a great film in 1990 called "Mo' Better Blues." The main character (a jazz trumpeter) played by Denzel Washington can't be loyal to one woman - why? Because "with men, it's a dick thing." <-- I'm guessing many women will view this as the reason for much if not all male behavior in this or any other century, but that's another conversation.

While unlikely, one has to hope that as a country that is ten (10) generations old, we'd by now have gotten to the point of not needing to stroke ourselves in this way (forgiving the pun)?

#2 - Inertia scares me just as much as Ego. If the machine has become so large and self-feeding that it can't stop despite having no direction or intent, then what do you do? It's very easy to resort to fear-based tactics (our current administration has proved this) and make people invest in this machine just because it's there, but we have to stop the madness.

While unlikely, one has to hope that our ten-generation-old country has gotten to the point of recognizing that size doesn't matter??  

#3 - Offense. What force does America need to project against the rest of the world? Does the United States have an interest in invading and occupying even more countries (besides Iraq and presumably Afghanistan) around the world? Everyone agrees that we should never be an occupying force in any situation (even Iraq), and especially not Afghanistan. So let's get out of that business. What's more, any offensive act should only be undertaken in concert with the United Nations as part of a global effort lead by the UN and not the US.

While unlikely, one has to hope that our almost-teenage (in generations) country has gotten over the idea that being a bully is sexy???

#4 - Defense. OK - there is no argument that this (of all) country needs to have the ability to defend itself, and protect it's borders from unwanted intrusions. While I can't imagine any country wanting to take on the burden of invading and governing the United States, I can absolutely see the value of a deterrent force that is not only able to protect this land, but also participate (as the National Guard) does in civil crises, and be a partner in international, UN-lead peace-keeping efforts.

While unlikely, one has to assume that an almost-adult country has the maturity to know that well-behaved but fun guests get invited to more parties???? 

I'm sure one argument that is foremost in the minds of the pro-big-military is the so-called war on terror.

OK - first, you can't have a war on terror, you're giving terrorists much more credence and oomph (a technical term) than they've earned. Terrorists are criminals. You don't fight wars against criminals, you use the police to arrest them.

Imagine if the US Army had been brought in to fight the Mafia during their heyday? It was rightly a job for the FBI.  This is different in that it also includes foreign locales, so it's the FBI + the CIA.

Using the military ends up involving the entire citizenry of each affected nation. Given the blunt instrument that is any military, you help the criminals recruit more people because of all the collateral damage - this is exactly what we don't need.

There is another weapon that can be used to combat terrorism, improve foreign relations, and even reduce the risk of wars. I wrote about a this a while back.

The recent crises have taught us that the economies of every country in the world are profoundly interconnected. If we can help every economy grow and prosper, the people will be too busy being healthy, educated and employed to worry about harming anyone.

That's the nirvana we should aspire to in the 21st century.

Leadership is about making tough decisions.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Secretary of Defense could dig deep (sorry) to find the cohones to put the country first, and agree that this century requires a fundamental redefining of the American military machine.

Comments

[shafeen]

Great point - thanks N8Ma - you're absolutely right.

Change/Transition Management is critical, making sure that we appease "special interests" is a price to pay.

There's no question that there's a lot of political capital that gets spent pushing this through.

The arguments I'd consider to help with that:
1. How much money are we spending *outside* the US that we can now divert to domestic goals? (This includes everything from hiring local resources, to supplies, to payments for reparations, to the cost of treating the injured, etc.)
2. If our posture towards the world is not military, but partnership-oriented, we should see a reduction in our threat-level, which would lower costs and reduce the risk of things like terrorism, etc.
3. This is a way for us to reduce the number of *your constituents* that now come home injured, maimed or dead. According to this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm, more than 4,000 US soldiers have died, and more than 30,000 have been wounded n Iraq alone. These deaths and wounds should never happen again.

But you're absolutely right, N8Ma, this is not an easy fight to win.

Thank you for your comments.

[N8Ma]

Certainly but my point was addressed to your issue of "Inertia," and the idea that we have to keep spending what we're spending because we've always been spending what we're spending. I can't imagine the shifting priorities you've mentioned--even including greater UN-style peacekeeping efforts, to say nothing of increased economic aid/diplomacy--having zero impact on the size of the defense industry, its pet projects, and most importantly the firms and factories, scattered throughout the country, that support the whole shebang.

Since "retooling" is such a buzzword these days, I just think it wise that future DOD policies that involve reprioritizing if not outright downsizing (scrapping this fighter, or that submarine, or these nuclear silos) should carry some kind of transition blueprint as well, to make it more politically digestible.

Weren't Clinton's base closings in the 1990s a big deal? Fought tooth and nail by every one in Congress--with some decisions made for political and not strategic reasons?

[shafeen]

Hi N8MA,

There will be some changes to state-contracts, but not as many as we might think. First, the Department of Defense DOD) still needs to defend the country, and that does require equipment, resources, support, etc. Second, the DOD should participate in global peace keeping, humanitarian, etc. activities (lead by the UN for example). Finally, the DOD should also help out domestically as needed.

I think all of these (and potentially other roles) are in keeping with the mission, and will require ongoing investment.

The central thesis of my argument is that the DOD should be a force for defense and globally-sanctioned offshore activities. The second point I was trying to make is that foreign policy is better achieved by using the $$ we would spend to project force abroad in economic development in the countries we wish to attack - giving them something to live for, learn from, own, earn, is a much better way to help and to create friends.

Shooting at people tends to make them not like you:).

[N8Ma]

I think the Times article alluded to this, but since we now have defense contracting in every single congressional district in the country, it makes change from the status quo politically unfeasible. How do we overcome this systemic inherency?