Why we have to look at the US military in a "macro" view

However well or poorly or in between the various branches of the military have performed in the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, the current political climate is very favorable to shoveling money into the eager hands of our infallible generals. And right now, there is very little public scrutiny of just what the actual thinking is behind those budgets, who's profiting from them and how much, and whether some things are really necessary. In the latter category, the Star War/missle-defense boondoggle should be very high on the list and should be a big controversy every year at budget time.

The Army wants more money: Army a 'Cinderella service' Defense Tech blog 11/07/06. The blog post is based on this interview at GovExec.com with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker: Ground Truth 09/15/06.

Given the current demands on the Army, I have no doubt that the shift in the percent of the defense budget going to the Army compared to the Air Force and Navy was necessary. But both parties are inclined to use more defense spending as a sign that they "support the troops". While in some cases, they're just supporting boondoggle projects.

William Arkin explains the dynamic very well. In A Tale of Two Budgets 10/30/06, he writes:

The budget, moreover, seems secondary to war itself, the domain solely of battling bureaucrats who have little impact on - and hardly care about - what happens in the real world.

Somehow, while we weren't looking, the annual defense budget bloated to a half a trillion.

Congress just administers the madness, adding line items in a behind the scenes ritual: pork mongers and [Duke] Cunningham's on the take, Democrats trying to prove their martial spirit by arguing for even more, junior secretaries of both parties offering brilliant amendments to show that they care about the troops more still.

In America Spends To Keep the Military Away 10/26/06,


he writes:

With a WAR on, we are of course kowtowed into not questioning military spending. Inside the Pentagon quotes some industry official justifying the $17 billion the Army is seeking on top of its historic budget as exceptional because it's not a "normal year."

The Army isn't particularly concerned that the Democrats coming into power will harm its budget prospects. This is a party that has to prove its martial allegiances and qualifications, not one that will ask where does all the money actually go?

I guess that leaves it to the people. But then they are only too happy to pay whatever it costs to keep the armed forces as far away from elite America as possible.

The last sentence refers of course to conscription, the draft. I think that the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude about the military also affects much more than "the elite", by which he presumably means the wealthy. But whatever the reasons people have tended to ignore it, it needs to become a live issue for the public and Congress.

Tags: army, military budget

| +Save/Share | |