A couple of articles this morning caught my eye:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32509301
and
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32478937
I've written about the US and its military spending before. It's a difficult subject for me, and a complex one to consider - the US spends more on the military than the next top several nations combined. COMBINED. And for what? We spend so much money on a military industry that would win two and a half major conflicts. And we want to project power in order to secure our diplomatic goals. There are also benefits of such government spending, including training for soldiers that they may be able to transition over to civilian sector jobs, providing ancillary and support positions near military bases (Utah gains great benefit economically from having Hill AFB, which I believe is the largest single employer in the state), and it bolsters innovation and industry, which provides jobs for people as well. Last time I checked, the US spends around $600,000,000,000.00 on defense.
Which is a lot.
It's somewhat less than what we spend on various social programs, like social security and health care ($900 billion and $990 billion, respectively). But interestingly, it is roughly equivalent to what we are borrowing. Interesting to see where our priorities are, n'est ce pas?
This isn't a rant about spending, though. I've done that before, so I won't bother here (I reserve the right to rant about it at other times, though). No, this is about the idea of "defense" in the first place.
See, in my mind, the way we're using the military is much like a gunslinger wearing a six-shooter in an old western. Everyone can see the gun on his hip, sitting right at his hands grasp in a well-worn holster. So, you'd have to have some pretty big cojones to mess with him. This isn't defense, though. This is called "strategic deterrence". It stops the fight by an overwhelming show of force, something like mutual assured destruction - you mess with me, and you will regret it.
Defense, on the other hand, is about defending one's interests. Defense is a castle perched on a hill surrounded by a moat. Defense is pulling your resources back into the keep to protect the valuables. Defense is ability to withstand a siege, while maintaining life and limb. Defense is the plate armor surrounding the knight's chest, head, and other vitals, the shield used to parry the blows, and the strength of the person inside to withstand the blows that do fall.
Perhaps the idea of "defense" is more palatable than "strategic deterrence". We have a department of homeland security, and we have a department of defense. Why aren't the two the same thing? We could call it what it really is - the department of strategic deterrence... The department of don't tread on me.
The problem with "defense" vis a vis "strategic deterrence" is that defense is more passive, and it is necessarily restrictive. The knight in the plate armor is well-defended and safe, but his movements are necessarily restricted, hampered by the very things he's put on to protect himself. Therein lies some of the greatest vulnerability, because the joints provided to allow movement also are the weakest parts of the armor.
Compare that with the relatively unprotected sword fighter of the 18th and 19th centuries, where the swordsman used the sword to parry the jabs and thrusts and slices of the foe.
The sword, although used in such a manner, is not a defense. The sword is a weapon, and is a weapon to be used in an offensive way. It is meant to kill, cut, maim, or otherwise disable the enemy. No armor is worn in an attempt to leave the body free to move and evade the advances of the enemy.
Our posture has evolved into the swordsman approach. We don't have much in the way of actual defense, per se, focusing on projecting power and strategic deterrence. And this is OK, because it allows for quick responses, flexibility of movement, and freedom to act when and where needed. But something sticks in my craw a little bit when they talk about "defense spending", as if we were building a wall around our country to defend it from the marauding hordes.
The truth is, we don't really have that much risk in the way of invading forces. Nor do we have a lot of political will behind large-scale invasions of other countries (a la D-Day). Rather, our military posture needs to respond to diplomatic crises around the globe, exercising small-scale interventions when called upon by the UN, and reacting to and rooting out terrorist cells. Because the opposition has limited resources, their attacks tend to be small in scale while trying to gain the largest visual and psychological impact.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32509301
and
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32478937
I've written about the US and its military spending before. It's a difficult subject for me, and a complex one to consider - the US spends more on the military than the next top several nations combined. COMBINED. And for what? We spend so much money on a military industry that would win two and a half major conflicts. And we want to project power in order to secure our diplomatic goals. There are also benefits of such government spending, including training for soldiers that they may be able to transition over to civilian sector jobs, providing ancillary and support positions near military bases (Utah gains great benefit economically from having Hill AFB, which I believe is the largest single employer in the state), and it bolsters innovation and industry, which provides jobs for people as well. Last time I checked, the US spends around $600,000,000,000.00 on defense.
Which is a lot.
It's somewhat less than what we spend on various social programs, like social security and health care ($900 billion and $990 billion, respectively). But interestingly, it is roughly equivalent to what we are borrowing. Interesting to see where our priorities are, n'est ce pas?
This isn't a rant about spending, though. I've done that before, so I won't bother here (I reserve the right to rant about it at other times, though). No, this is about the idea of "defense" in the first place.
See, in my mind, the way we're using the military is much like a gunslinger wearing a six-shooter in an old western. Everyone can see the gun on his hip, sitting right at his hands grasp in a well-worn holster. So, you'd have to have some pretty big cojones to mess with him. This isn't defense, though. This is called "strategic deterrence". It stops the fight by an overwhelming show of force, something like mutual assured destruction - you mess with me, and you will regret it.
Defense, on the other hand, is about defending one's interests. Defense is a castle perched on a hill surrounded by a moat. Defense is pulling your resources back into the keep to protect the valuables. Defense is ability to withstand a siege, while maintaining life and limb. Defense is the plate armor surrounding the knight's chest, head, and other vitals, the shield used to parry the blows, and the strength of the person inside to withstand the blows that do fall.
Perhaps the idea of "defense" is more palatable than "strategic deterrence". We have a department of homeland security, and we have a department of defense. Why aren't the two the same thing? We could call it what it really is - the department of strategic deterrence... The department of don't tread on me.
The problem with "defense" vis a vis "strategic deterrence" is that defense is more passive, and it is necessarily restrictive. The knight in the plate armor is well-defended and safe, but his movements are necessarily restricted, hampered by the very things he's put on to protect himself. Therein lies some of the greatest vulnerability, because the joints provided to allow movement also are the weakest parts of the armor.
Compare that with the relatively unprotected sword fighter of the 18th and 19th centuries, where the swordsman used the sword to parry the jabs and thrusts and slices of the foe.
The sword, although used in such a manner, is not a defense. The sword is a weapon, and is a weapon to be used in an offensive way. It is meant to kill, cut, maim, or otherwise disable the enemy. No armor is worn in an attempt to leave the body free to move and evade the advances of the enemy.
Our posture has evolved into the swordsman approach. We don't have much in the way of actual defense, per se, focusing on projecting power and strategic deterrence. And this is OK, because it allows for quick responses, flexibility of movement, and freedom to act when and where needed. But something sticks in my craw a little bit when they talk about "defense spending", as if we were building a wall around our country to defend it from the marauding hordes.
The truth is, we don't really have that much risk in the way of invading forces. Nor do we have a lot of political will behind large-scale invasions of other countries (a la D-Day). Rather, our military posture needs to respond to diplomatic crises around the globe, exercising small-scale interventions when called upon by the UN, and reacting to and rooting out terrorist cells. Because the opposition has limited resources, their attacks tend to be small in scale while trying to gain the largest visual and psychological impact.
Comments