Cutting the American War Machine?

This post was mostly provoked by this article by Nicholas Kristoff, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26kristof.html?src=me&ref=general, which was partly provoked by this book, http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Rules-Americas-Permanent-American/dp/0805091416, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

More on Col. Bacevich and his new book here: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/2/andrew_bacevich_on_afghanistan_war_the

From Kristoff's essay, quote:
"...Let me be clear: I’m a believer in a robust military, which is essential for backing up diplomacy. But the implication is that we need a balanced tool chest of diplomatic and military tools alike. Instead, we have a billionaire military and a pauper diplomacy. The U.S. military now has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has in its foreign service — and that’s preposterous.

"What’s more, if you’re carrying an armload of hammers, every problem looks like a nail. The truth is that military power often isn’t very effective at solving modern problems, like a nuclear North Korea or an Iran that is on the nuclear path. Indeed, in an age of nationalism, our military force is often counterproductive.

"After the first gulf war, the United States retained bases in Saudi Arabia on the assumption that they would enhance American security. Instead, they appear to have provoked fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden into attacking the U.S. In other words, hugely expensive bases undermined American security (and we later closed them anyway)...

"... Paradoxically, it’s often people with experience in the military who lead the way in warning against overinvestment in arms. It was President Dwight Eisenhower who gave the strongest warning: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” And in the Obama administration, it is Defense Secretary Robert Gates who has argued that military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny; it is Secretary Gates who has argued most eloquently for more investment in diplomacy and development aid.

"American troops in Afghanistan are among the strongest advocates of investing more in schools there because they see firsthand that education fights extremism far more effectively than bombs. And here’s the trade-off: For the cost of one American soldier in Afghanistan for one year, you could build about 20 schools...."

Now my take: Of course. But the problem is, we have high unemployment and we are thinking about "laying off" hundreds of thousands of military personel? Not smart politically. Not two years before a presidential election. This president will not do it. And take a look [in the radio transcript linked to above] at the way that Col. Bacevich raked Obama over the coals for actually increasing spending on a war he didn't even believe in! And always, when you cut back, the ones kept on the payroll are more likely administrative deadwood and ineffectual generals, colonels and majors than fighting forces.

It will be done, in a small way, as National Guard and reserve troops come home and go back to their jobs, if any. But as far as remaking the Pentagon and it's plans, that is as practical as teaching a lion to eat spinach.

A lot of folks in my neck of the woods fuss about entitlements and those on welfare.  But the military is as much an "entitlement" program as social security, medicare, farm subsidies or food stamps.  And like the others, it will be damned hard to cut.