Asking whether Rumsfeld has done well with what he has is perhaps the wrong question.

Glenn has another one of those long posts that turn out to be so rich in information that you should not miss them. Here are some comments of mine to his post.

Perhaps what we should be asking instead is has he asked for what we needed in regards to military spending. We are a nation at war with an enemy intent not on merely taking over Europe but murdering us here at home, and our military spending has not risen over some of the lowest levels of the Clinton Administration as a % of GDP.

The Military needs transformation, everyone agrees on that, not because the people in it are bad, or that the men and women in it are bad, but its an organization built for a job that’s changed tremendously with world events. It hasn’t changed, and it wont, without someone forcing that sort of institutional transformation. Its a hard job and its rarely successful.

Transformation is a buzz word that is being used to excuse trying to do a lot more with a lot less. This has some appeal when we are in times of assured peace if those times ever exist but even then penny pinching may not be wise. I am reminded of these wise words “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.” if you want peace prepare for war. But surely that does not define the times we are in right now. We are in a war. At this point efficiency is not as wise as simply making sure we have what we need.

Rumsfeld’s weakness if the responsibility for not increasing spending over the measly 3.7% of GDP we stand at now is falls on him is not realizing that war changes everything. We can stand waste to defend ourselves.

Because I don’t see this mentioned often enough I will state it clearly now. One of the Governments primary duty’s is to provide for the Defense of this Nation. That should come before Prescription Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind and all the other assorted attempts to buy votes which have also served to sour so many conservatives with the Bush Administration.

I have never seen anyone make much of this but this stands as fact that needs to be mentioned whenever the Budget of the Military is discussed. One we supported at one point during peacetime nearly 25 Divisions, we now support 10. So when you wonder why so many of our troops are going back for 2 and 3 tours of combat that is why. We have so few divisions in part because of this next startling series of facts.

Then we come across this fact which I never see anyone talking about and I always wonder why. Defense Spending during Clinton as a % of GDP, 1990=5.6, 1991=5.0, 1992=5.2, 1993=4.8, 1994=4.3, 1995=4.0, 1996=3.7, 1997=3.5, 1998=3.3, 1999= 3.3)Defense spending in 2006 remained at 3.7% of GDP a level not far from the lowest point of the Clinton years and which we were led to believe by Candidate Bush was too low.

Are we too broke to defend ourselves? And if Rumsfeld has been the one driving this then that he is indeed a problem.

We can comfort ourselves perhaps with the thought that if the Democrats were to come to power Defense Spending would be even lower. Especially given the makeup of the powerbrokers inside of the Party.

Finally to those who defend this sort of frugal behavior during wartime, have any of you considered what the consequences will be if we lose? What are the consequences if Iran attacks? What about if N. Korea and Iran attack? Before you answer that such collaboration won’t occur explain Japan and Germany.

Source: Instapundit.com -

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Stumble It!

2 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

That is an interesting question but I think we need to be careful that we don’t forget an essential fact.

We decided at one point to significantly downsize the combined number of men and women in the armed forces. We decided that because we wanted to take advantage of the Peace dividend to fund stuff that had nothing to do with the Government’s primary duty, the Defense of this Nation.

Now we are at war and we are still acting like No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug benefit and such are important, or more correctly more important that Defense.

It is not.

1. Pierre Legrand on November 6th, 2006 at
It would be interesting to see the actual dollar amounts for both defense spending and GDP over the same time period. Has the level remained under 4% because a growing economy led to a big increase in GDP or has the DOD really made significant overall cutbacks? Or is it the end result of all those base closings–many of which were bitterly opposed by Dems AND Repubs?

2. Peter F. on November 5th, 2006 at