The greatest danger

As much as people complain about the bitter partisan environment in Washington, the alternative to disagreeing about everything is that some important issues get no attention, as seems to be the case with military spending. Neither party wants to make any serious cuts to military spending and as a result we are hurling towards bankruptcy, default and possibly worse; a world war with the U.S. as the main agitator.

Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in WWII, 34th President of the United States

In 1961 Dwight Eisenhower, veteran of 2 World Wars, Supreme Commander of allied forces in the second, and a Republican President, warned of the danger of an ever more powerful "Military Industrial Complex" in his farewell address. Although he had arguably done more to create this problem than any other previous president, he surely recognized the danger at the end of his administration. The military and it's suppliers exist in every state in the Union, as intended. Some have argued that the military growth of WWII, rather than Roosevelt's New Deal and the improved world economy was what really propelled us out of the Great Depression. Whatever you choose to believe about history though, it is irrefutable that our government now sees military spending as essential to keep our economy running. It would be a death sentence for any President, Senator or Representative to propose significant military spending cuts because jobs would be lost and we would be less safe. I beg to disagree.

First, we cannot afford our military. It makes no sense to me that with a national debt of over $16 trillion, so few people even mention military spending cuts. We spend over $711 billion annually on our military, almost 5 times the amount of  the #2 spender, China (a country with almost 4 times our population). That is $2,260 per capita every year as opposed to China's $102 per capita. This comes out to a full 20% of our annual budget, ten times what we spend on education. It makes no sense to me that Republicans whine about government spending so much but never mention the biggest thing we spend money on, which also happens to be the most bloated, bureaucratic and federalized department.

Although I would argue that our military leadership has too much power over our elected representatives, they are in most ways not the problem. In many instances they haven't even asked for the things we want to give them. In fact, Congress continues to approve one unnecessary military expenditure after another, from battleships to tanks to who knows what else that the Military doesn't even want. I'm not suggesting that we just hand the military a blank check, only that they might have a better understanding of what we actually need than our Congressmen that see military spending as little more than delicious pork.

Of course, Democrats are only slightly less hypocritical. Maybe Democrats would rather see money go to "social safety net" programs than tax cuts for the rich, but that money still has to come from somewhere and I don't hear too may Democrats talking about defense cuts either. In fact, military spending is up under Obama and despite Obama's debate comments about "less bayonets and battleships", we actually have more battleships under Obama than we did under Bush. Maybe it's because there are military bases and jet manufacturers in Democratic districts too or maybe it's just because they are too afraid of being called pussies if they suggest any such cuts. And though most Democrats seem to prefer being engaged in the international community to always "going it alone", none seem to so much as suggest that a military spending that equates to the total spending of the next 13 countries combined, a military presence in 130 other countries and drones flying overhead, bombing innocent civilians might actually make us less safe?

Kaiser Wilhelm II helped foster a militaristic culture in Germany before WWI

World War I was the biggest war in history, at least until World War II. Of course, many would argue that the second World War was but an inevitable continuation of the first. As we approach the centennial of the war that kicked off a century of large and small world conflicts, historians still struggle to understand the causes. Though the assassination of Franz Ferdinand may have been the spark, the Great War would not have happened had it not been for a militaristic culture in many of the Great Powers, an entangled set of alliances and militaristic doctrines that emphasized fast, decisive blows before the enemy had time to prepare. Ironically, the first World War was a defensive war, with battle after battle ending in stalemate and nearly every attempt at breakthrough ending in disaster. Maybe I am paranoid but I don't have to stretch my imagination too much to see how it could happen again. History has shown that when nations make great armies and great weapons they find ways to use them. The alliances today between the U.S. and Israel, between Iran and Syria remind me of the alliances between Germany and the Austrio-Hungarian Empires and Russia and Serbia 100 years ago. And though it no longer takes our military months to mobilize, we still have a doctrine of "attack first, ask questions later" in a world where urban and guerrilla warfare allow a small force to defend against a larger, stronger force and it's hard to tell when, if ever, a military victory is actually accomplished.

Britain and Germany were engaged in a naval arms race before the WWI but there was only one major Naval battle in the war. Maybe they should have saved their money to develop tanks and bomber planes instead?

Se let's say we do enter a major conflict. So much of our defense spending is justified by this possibility, I think it's our job to ask the question. Are we really better off? Again, I don't think so. When WWII broke out in 1939, the U.S. army ranked a puny 17th in the world and when Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941 only one American division was on full war footing. Should we have been better prepared? Surely, yes. But stockpiling tanks, planes, bombs and rifles would most likely have hurt our ability to ultimately win the war. Just as in World War I 20 years earlier and many other major conflicts, the military technology that evolved during the war quickly made old weapons obsolete. In the first World War, both Britain and Germany invested heavily in "Dreadnaughts", giant battleships, thinking that wars of the future would be Naval wars. Yet there was only one major naval battle in the entire war. The fact that the U.S. was not invested in old, soon to be obsolete military technology at the start of the war was actually a benefit because it allowed us to concentrate fully on research, development and production of the newest technologies.

The pacifist in me would love to see our military spending reduce to somewhere around $30 Billion annually, or the size of Brazil or South Korea. In my opinion, the $681 Billion we save every year could be used to improve our social safety net, improve education, repair our infrastructure, save social security, pay for health care, start to pay off the national debt and even reduce taxes. And in my opinion, a smaller military would actually make us safer because we wouldn't seem like such a threat to the world. In my opinion, a smaller military would actually improve our ability to defend ourselves in the eventuality of a major conflict. But I am a realist. I don't see that happening any time soon. Most importantly, I just want to make sure that we don't start World War III.

If anything is to change, there have to be more voices that speak out. I don't see any reason why this can't come from either side of the aisle, but if we all consent to continued military escalation we all help to push ourselves closer and closer towards the abyss. The optimist in me thinks that if more people speak out in voices of peace and just plain common sense, reducing military spending could actually be popular. I don't really think that most of us want war, even if we're not quite as afraid of it as we should be.