TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Shrivel the military & watch out

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By Jay Ambrose
Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
 

Let's shrivel our military and rescue ourselves from debt, say some. They are confused.

They should note that this is the second decade of the 21st century, far from the days when military spending took up as much as half the budget. It's 18 percent now, a dwarf next to the budgetary Goliath it used to be. The Goliath today is entitlement programs.

Military spending came down significantly after the Soviet Union waved goodbye. Remember how economically jovial the Clinton years were? One reason was major military reductions in federal spending.

Today you could substitute pea shooters for drones as part of a transformation-to-tiny military budget and still witness bloat in overall spending as baby boomers retire and Medicare, Social Security and other programs usher us to a continent-shaking debt calamity.

Never mind, says the administration as it proposes something resembling a pea-shooter initiative that includes the hacking of Army manpower to the lowest levels seen since before World War II. The president frets little about the entitlement threat, instead giving us another entitlement, something a third of Americans say has already made their lives worse despite legally dubious delays of its imposed tribulations. I speak of ObamaCare. I speak of gross negligence.

The confusion about military spending does not end with faulty awareness of what's big and small in dollar distributions. It extends to the point of not knowing how dangerous the world still is or what kinds of strategies might make a difference.

You see, there's Russia, and there's Vladimir Putin. While he is not exactly another Soviet premier, he is tap dancing in that direction. There's China playing bullying games with Japan and still making threats about Taiwan as it enlarges its military. There's nuclear-armed North Korea headed by someone whose character attributes appear to be murderousness and wackiness. We haven't even mentioned Africa or the Middle East or jihadism yet, and when you put it all together, it's not as if there's nothing that may need deterring.

Oh, no big deal, retort some, observing how our military is larger than the next 10 largest militaries without getting it that it's not a helpful idea to make this a fairer fight if it comes to that. We want to win decisively with as little loss as possible and we want to keep it from coming to that by scaring possible aggressors to shivers and shakes. Not only that, but the challenges to us come from every possible direction, meaning our forces could be spread here, there and yonder fighting many enemies.

Yes, it's true that any bureaucracy will have waste, that priorities and needs change, that readjustments are needed and that sometimes savings are involved. But when you run across liberals or libertarians telling you that we can cut military spending enormously, ask them about strategy.

I asked a libertarian that once after a debate had arrived at a question-and-answer period, and he snarled that I was expecting him to say all we had to do was have weapons and troops on our shorelines. No. I was looking for an analysis equal to his opponent's intricate illustrations of what might achieve what where. As best I understood by the time this person had quit rambling in search of an answer was that he thought we could just have weapons and troops on our shorelines.

I am sorry. It won't do.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for McClatchy-Tribune.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Police: Escaped Armstrong County inmate armed, dangerous homicide suspect
  2. Pirates’ Burnett endures another poor start in blowout loss to Reds
  3. Pirates bolster bullpen by trading for former closer Soria
  4. Steelers’ reserve quarterbacks vie to secure spot behind Roethlisberger, Gradkowski
  5. Inside the Steelers: Rookie linebacker Chickillo continues to excel
  6. Warrant issued for man accused of killing Brookline woman
  7. Steelers stress improved conditioning in attempt to play past injuries
  8. Emails among Governor Wolf’s aides reveal concern over AG Kane
  9. Pirates notebook: Blanton introduced; Worley designated for assignment
  10. Memories of Steelers fan from Beaver Falls go beyond simple recall
  11. Steelers notebook: Tomlin says Latrobe session won’t differ from normal practice