The progressive community is already significantly opposed to the idea. Although progressivism isn’t monolithic, the problem for many progressives isn’t that the military is poorly calibrated for non-domestic missions, the problem is that the military has non-domestic missions. Even among the sizable portion of progressives who accept foreign deployment, there is little understanding of counterinsurgency(the specific academy example would draw comparisons to the School of the Americas, for instance), and widespread belief that our current wars are unwinnable under any circumstances. The phrase ‘throwing good money after bad’ is already epidemic.

Any idea or set of ideas may seem unwise or foolish if one fails to engage them. Blue Texan, and progressives generally, are comparing the amount the US spends on the military compared to other countries – see the chart in the post you cite. Charts like this are ubiquitous among the progressives you say are “arbitrary.” Why is it arbitrary to look at what we are spending compared to other countries? It you want to make some argument for that, you ought to at least acknowledge the basis for the argument.

Given the chart, given that Frank is suggesting a 25% cut, it’s more than a little disingenuous to say that anyone in this discussion is arguing that “the military industrial complex must be suffocated.” Frank could get that and more we would still be spending far more than all of our potential adversaries put together.

What is the basis for you arguing in favor of the status quo? It seems that position is the one that is arbitrary.

Also, at this point, I suspect Frank’s argument is one largely aimed at opening the window of debate. Such cuts are fairly politically unlikely, absent further economic turn down, until at very least out of Iraq. However, failing to discuss such ideas now mean they probably won’t be on the table later.

There are policy conundrums to be sure. If scaling down doesn’t make hard choices, then there will probably be many do many things fairly ineffectively rather than a smaller number of things well. [If cuts start looking more feasible, it is incumbent on those looking to cut to figure out what capabilities our larger strategy needs and how best to take advantage of our expensive pre-existing system.]

Obviously such large scale cuts will need to reduce our capabilities and ambitions, but the relative spending argument DavidKaib references supports the idea that this will not make us less safe.

[Update: Elaborated]

Missile defense. Expensive and useless. Eliminate most, perhaps continue R&D on theater and terminal phase defense.

Strategic Bombers. Utterly useless in 2009 – they are only survivable using standoff weapons. Eliminate 80%, most R&D.

Aircraft Carriers. If not already, within ten years a carrier will be completely vulnerable to hypersonic antiship and ballistic missiles. Reduce fleet by at least half.

Strategic nuclear stockpile. Extremely expensive. Begin real good faith analysis of # of warheads required for deterrence. Likelihood is that number is under 1000.

Overseas bases. Simple common sense indicates that many of these bases serve no real military purpose, but rather political and economic purposes – reduce by half or more.

It is not at all difficult to conceive of DoD budget cuts amounting to MORE than 25% without putting American interests at risk. Of course, the Defense Department and their vendors have created a condition where a politician can’t even initiate a DISCUSSION on this and survive the next election.

It’s not just a “progressive” issue. By shutting down all debate about a common sense American Defense budget, the American people are being hosed. All the domestic needs, from infrastructure to health care, social security to high speed rail, are being short-changed by an ossified process that hasn’t made sense in decades…

mikey

A few comments. I bet Barney Frank was just throwing numbers out to get the conversation started. They’d never cut that much no matter what. The defense contractors would never have it. I don’t know what a good amount to cut it. All I know is that current spending is unsustainable. I think the big thing is what Progressives what the role of the military to be. I know it pisses some people off that we hear all this talk about curtailing Social Security and stuff like that .. and not nearly as much about defense spending cuts .. because current Federal spending is unsustainable … so I guess the big question is .. given that Federal spending is unsustainable .. where are the cuts coming from? … and will they be fair? .. and what roles do spending on the military .. and social problems(health care for one) have in the future

P.S. sorry for the rambling .. just typing as the thoughts came to me

Well, if we’re going to throw out proposals, how ’bout we cut the defense budget by 100%. That’s certainly more justifiable than $30 billion dollars on counterinsurgency which, in reality (as opposed to the fairy tale version that you guys like to pretend exists) is just lipstick on death squads.

Now, it would take a long time to get to a zero defense budget, the VA and retirement benefits would last a long time. And we would continue to spend money on international peacekeeping through an enlarged commitment to the UN. Now, work with me here, what bad things would happen if we did this? I would argue that the world as whole would be better off.

Despite all the fantasies the DoD trots out to justify its continued existence, there is absolutely zero conventional threat to the U.S. Neither Canada nor Mexico is a threat. Nobody could hope to pull off an invasion by sea. Outside of Red Dawn, nobody thinks an airborne invasion would make sense either. Nuclear warfare is insanity, there’s really nothing to do about that threat except negotiate it away which would be a lot easier as we dismantle the most ridiculous waste of money in human history.

Once you give up on the idea of wars of aggression, the need for virtually all the DoD budget goes away. If you support the current military establishment, you support aggression. It really is that simple.

Thats funny, because I remember practicing counterinsurgency tactics when I was in Afghanistan, but don’t recall being a part of any death squad.

I didn’t say that counterinsurgency was death squads. It’s the lipstick that provides cover for it.

Richard:
Did you see Blue Texan’s latest FP’er?

a couple great posts from mikeyhemlock and williamockham!

zero substantive response – just something flip about ‘hey I was there, and I wasn’t on a death squad’ which refutes none of the points about the MIC’s threat inflation, and the insinuation that vast majority of the military budget is basically corporate welfare for this huge, quasi-socialistic MIC. (But that I mean many of these companies only have one client on whom they are parasitic, the State.)