Editorial missed the mark on U.S. defense budget

The Feb. 25 editorial about the U.S. defense budget was seemingly written by a Dick Cheney confrere. It’s the neocon argument that the U.S. be a new Sparta. Apparently, the military can never be big enough, never enough money budgeted for the military-industrial complex and never any international problem that can’t be solved by our military intervention.

The editorial did not acknowledge the reality that President Barack Obama’s defense budget proposes an increase, and that this budget would exceed the defense budgets of all major countries combined.

The reality is that we no longer need the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is the writer suggesting we involve ourselves in another foreign adventure on the same level (Syria, Iran)? To say that a reduction in force is putting the U.S. in a pre-WWII position is untruthful. Our current military has more sophisticated knowledge and equipment, is trained for a variety of missions and is not needed for a major land/sea war. Pentagon strategy is based on the reality of current-day conflicts, not WWII.

If the goal is for the U.S. to be a military state, ready to go into every regional conflict, one might agree with the editorial. But having the biggest military around did not prevent 9/11 nor guarantee an optimal result in Iraq/Afghanistan. Why would it guarantee anything else but self-delusional thinking about military power and bounty for defense contractors?

Robert Faux