To the Editor:
Max Boot provides a valuable historical context [“Slashing America’s Defense: A Suicidal Trajectory,” January] for the unquestionable folly of reducing American military power below levels needed for credible deterrence or successful warfare. One would think that, like so many other issues of primary importance to America’s future, the dangers inherent in the current situation would be obvious to the American citizenry. That is sadly not the case.
Which is all the more reason why, just as Paul Ryan and others have provided the framework for getting out of and beyond the current entitlement and deficit crises, it is imperative for competent defense strategists to outline the array of forces and weapons systems—and nominal costs—that would be the minimum requirements for our primary national-security objectives, before and while the issue of a proper defense budget is argued in the 2012 presidential campaign.
Morris R. Levitt
Boston, Massachusetts
To the Editor:
Perhaps Max Boot can enlighten us about our current state of unpreparedness. Trillions were expended, yet we are told that the services are operating with fewer and antiquated equipment stores, mostly on the verge of falling apart. Where did 65 or so years of trillions of American treasure and trillions of man-hours, and hundreds of thousands of lives and limbs all go, if we are not adequately protected?
Did all or some of this expenditure go to failed offensives and operations of overbearing arrogance instead of on sound defense? Were the charades and foreign adventures cover stories for graft and vanity at home? Certainly not enough of it has gone to aid soldiers, veterans, and their families, and the wounded are languishing in hospitals, and families are losing their homes while they serve.
It is no longer enough, Mr. Boot, to stand there yelling “more, more, more!” without accounting for what has already been spent and where. America’s goals must be refined and our abilities and plans properly assessed. There is no “more” to be squandered while the American people are in need at home.
Michael Yomtov
Bradenton, Florida
To the Editor:
Max Boot’s article was spot-on, but I have a couple of minor quibbles. He states that even though there is room to cut expenses in the military, these cuts would necessarily reduce essential funds, as differing priorities and fiefdoms would be too hard to separate. Having worked at a Major Command headquarters for six years in the 1990s, I would state that there remains reducible fat. Working in an area involving planning for contingencies and exercises, planners routinely flew commercial to planning conferences all over the world, when in many cases a secure phone call, fax, or e-mail would have sufficed without any significant degradation of actual or notional operational results. Especially now with videoconferencing, meetings such as post-action “hotwashes” that review lessons learned could convene without such a large budget.
I would suggest that with a dash of fiscal rectitude and a dollop of imperial cutbacks, there is money to be saved. You’ve got to start somewhere. If you can’t fix small stuff, you’re not going to fix big stuff.
Another quibble would be with Mr. Boot’s concern about cutting the general staff. I admittedly stand on an insecure foundation, having started in the enlisted ranks and retiring at the lowly rank of major; however, there have been well researched articles in several periodicals detailing unnecessary duplication of tasks and approval authority in flag rank–manned offices in the Pentagon that could use a little house cleaning.
Joe Siegel
Maj., U.S. Air Force
Reserve (Ret.)
Fox Island, Washington
To the Editor:
Regarding Max Boot’s article and the need to maintain an efficient and strong national-security apparatus, I would agree that the Pentagon procurement system could be streamlined by reducing red tape and waste. The primary roles of the federal government are to preserve American liberties and defend the nation against domestic and foreign enemies. Therefore, a consistent yearly defense budget could help reassure Americans and our allies and provide a deterrent to hostile regimes.
Second, military planners must prepare for both asymmetric conflicts and possible conventional warfare in the future. Although China is flexing its economic and military muscles, the China threat should be monitored but not blown out of proportion. China has monumental internal challenges to overcome on the road to modernity.
Third, China’s Air Force, Army, and Navy weapons systems are for the most part second- and third-rate. The single carrier that it recently launched isn’t even up to Russian standards. Certainly, China has actively pursued cyberwarfare and is a nuclear power, but those components can be contained.
Fourth, even the Chinese leadership recognizes a problem within the ranks. Most armed-forces personnel were raised in one-child families, where the only child is the focus of attention. That presents a dilemma because individualism runs counter to the discipline and teamwork required of a professional military.
Finally, while China often plays by its own rules on the global stage and exercises growing clout, its rise ought to be taken with a grain of salt. It is a developing nation with aspirations. India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, and the West, however, can provide a counterweight to China’s rising ambitions.
Christian Milord
Fullerton, California
Max Boot writes:
I am happy to see such thoughtful responses to my article, which is all the more timely because of the ongoing threat of sequestration, which could cut another $600 billion or so from the defense budget.
Michael Yomtov issues a cri de coeur demanding to know where trillions in defense spending have gone. Actually, while some defense dollars have been wasted (as is true with all government programs and many private-sector ones), by and large the money has been well spent to procure the world’s best-armed force. Not much has gone for graft, I would say, or for “charades and foreign adventures.” A lot has gone to win the nation’s wars and prepare for future conflicts while deterring potential adversaries—that’s not “foreign adventures” but rather foreign policy. There have certainly been some abuses in the care we take of veterans; witness the Walter Reed Army Hospital scandal. But there have also been corrective actions taken. By and large, our military personnel and veterans receive generous pay and benefits, in excess of those awarded to private-sector workers with comparable qualifications—so much so that health-care costs are growing out of control in the Department of Defense as in the rest of the economy. There is room to rein in these benefits, but we should honor our contract with our soldiers and their families, both active and retired.
Where has our money gone? To our defense. In the course of doing its job, the military makes heavy use of equipment that, especially in combat, degrades. It needs to be replaced and modernized. That won’t be cheap, but it needs to be done.
Joe Siegel is right to point to wasteful spending, and of course there is room to cut it. I am skeptical, though, that we can surgically excise only “wasteful” spending while leaving our combat capabilities intact. That has been the goal of many defense secretaries and none has succeeded. Although I am in favor of cutting waste, I would rather tolerate some nonessential spending if, in the process of eliminating the fat, we were to cut big chunks of muscle as well.
Christian Milord is right, too, that the procurement needs to be reformed. But that’s what leaders of the Defense Department have been saying for years, and during that time weapons systems have become more costly and slower to procure—with some notable exceptions such as the acquisition of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs), which occurred in record time because there was an imperative to field better vehicles during the Iraq War so as to save troopers’ lives. That may be the best ticket for the short-term—to do end runs around the procurement system instead of trying to change it. In the long run, however, we have to figure out how to procure equipment faster and more cheaply.
