Gautam wrote:
Doug, how precisely do you expect to pay for the war we're currently
fighting? We can't, oddly enough, do it without increasing the
defense budget.
Me:
I don't disagree that we need to increase spending. I do disagree
with a large increase in spending without a greater degree of
accountability by the DoD and the Defense industry. Oliphant writes
in the Globe:
"First, the military budget for next year breaks Bush's promise and
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's commitment to a
''transformation'' of the military into a leaner, faster, and more
mobile force for the future. In the campaign and for most of last
year, the administration made common cause with the military
reformers of the past two decades, including, most recently, Senator
John McCain.
This budget breaks the commitment. You search it in vain for
decisions to streamline force structures, continue closing outdated
bases, and avoid duplicative projects (marginally different versions
of the same fighter plane) and pork-barrel procurement (the infamous
V-22 Osprey assault aircraft that even Dick Cheney had been opposing
for years)."
Gautam:
Wars cost money. It's one of the less important reasons that you
try to avoid fighting them.
Me:
IMO the administration needs to define just what kind of war we are
fighting and how we win. I'm not happy with the idea that we will
be fighting some indeterminate entity indefinitely. If we really
want to end terrorism, we need to wipe out the disease rather than
swatting at the symptoms.
Gautam:
Yes, there are lots of people who think the Administration is
spending too much on the military. Congratulations, you've proven
that to me. There are lots of people who think that we shouldn't
have toppled the Taliban too. So what? There are lots of people who
believe every damn fool thing you can imagine. Many of them are
journalists. In this particular case, given how overwhelmingly
leftist the American media is, there is no defense spending increase
that wouldn't draw criticism from lots of the media.
Me:
The U.S. media may appear liberal to the ultra conservative, but
it's my opinion that they are pretty middle of the road for the most
part. If you read any of those editorials you know that most of
them agree that some increase in defense spending is necessary, but
that they are opposed to writing a blank check to the DoD. From an
external viewpoint the U.S. media probably appears conservative.
Gautam:
The only even vaguely conservative source you cited was the Cato
Institute - a libertarian institute that opposes almost all defense
spending on principle. Cato thinks our response to Afghanistan
should have been to pretty much withdraw from world politics. If
you don't think that, then you might, just might, disagree with
their assessments of the defense budget.
There are lots of people who think it's spending the right amount.
The fact that a bunch of columnists who can't tell a squad from a
squadron are hysterically denouncing the increases is not terribly
likely to convince me.
Me:
I can't say anything I posted seemed hysterical to me. Could you
point me to the passage or passages exhibiting hysteria? Or maybe
that's hyperbole?
Gautam:
The Administration is proposing a $379B defense budget. The total
budget is, I believe, approximately $2.2 Trillion. The total GDP is
in the range of $10 Trillion. Which means we are spending less than
4% of the GDP on defense. In the 1980s we routinely spent more than
6%. Given that 3000 Americans just got killed by agents of a
hostile country - a striking demonstration of the violent
potential of the modern world - spending more doesn't seem like a
bad idea. Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of their
priorities either. But given the difficulties the military has had
in recruiting, an across-the-board pay raise doesn't seem like a
bad idea.
Me:
From the Center for Defense Information (are they leftists?):
http://www.cdi.org
"The proposed $48 billion increase in the next defense budget
represents a 12 percent real increase over this year, and comes to a
dramatic 14 percent above the Cold War average -- to fund a force
structure that is one-third smaller than it was a decade ago. U.S.
military spending is creeping toward $400 billion -- and now exceeds
the combined military spending of the 15 countries with the next
biggest defense budgets."
Gautam:
Given the rapid pace of change in military technology, spending a
lot on R&D seems like a good idea. Given the incredible tempo of
military operations in the last 15 years - one likely to increase -
spending a substantial amount on procurement seems like a good idea.
And gee, you know, when we ask American soldiers to fly off on a
moment's notice to every God-forsaken corner of the planet to get
shot at over and over and over again, it doesn't exactly seem unfair
to pay them a bit more.
Me:
We agree that there are reasonable expenditures.
Gautam:
Given the threat of rising Chinese power (among other things)
spending a lot on systems designed to fight conventional wars seems
like a good idea.
Me:
If we are building up the military in order to combat China, then
let us state that that is the reason. Procuring weapons to fight a
hypothetical war with China using the war on terrorism as a reason
to procure them is not acceptable.
Gautam:
Given that we're in the middle of a recession, doing it with
deficit spending seems rather like a good idea.
Me:
Is defense spending really good for the economy? Look at what
happened when we lowered defense spending at the conclusion of the
cold war. Is it just a coincidence, or is it possible that when we
drain the talents of our best and brightest to build weapons of war
that contribute very little in the way of marketable goods or
salable technologies thus having a rather deleterious effect on the
economy? If we really want to spend lots of money on something in
order to boost the economy would't it be more effective to subsidize
those industries that are likely to be more productive?
Gautam:
Which one of those particular facts do you not agree with? Exactly
how do you think the US is going to maintain its current military
dominance without spending money? Oddly enough it isn't free. The
current defense budget is not - compared to the size of the
economy, the only relevant figure - even that large. If you think
it's too big, instead of just reflexively condemning all military
increases,
Me:
Note that I do not and have not reflexively condemned all military
expenditures. Please don't put words in my mouth. None of the
articles condemned all military spending, reflexively or otherwise.
They called for fiscal responsibility when dealing with military
expenditures.
Gautam:
you might want to point out what, exactly, you disagree with.
Then maybe I can debate with you. But saying that you think a
hysterical screed like Krugman's is exactly right makes me think
that it's not the defense increase you oppose - it's the
Administration in anything that it does.
Me:
Sigh. I posted articles that said any number of things I agreed
with, Gautam. Your first reply was a personal attack on the author
of the article and an essay that attacking the definitiveness of his
analogy but did little to address his points.
Your second post, attributes opinions to me that neither I nor the
articles I posted expressed and used hyperbole for emphasis. I
would have thought that if Klugman is so wrong that you could have
taken one or more of his points and destroyed it.
Consider that a challenge. 8^)
--
Doug
Don't you just love these spell checkers - mine wanted to change
Pork-Barrel into procurable. <G>
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
"Imagine all the people,
Living for Today"
John Lennon
