I had long ago come to the conclusion that military spending levels have been absolutely, totally indefensible for nearly twenty years. At least nobody has offered one single defense - other than the Topol argument [from Fiddler on the Roof] "tradition" - for why we spend so much on superfulous [for defense anyway] weaponry and troop deployments. There is one inescapable fact about "the other side" of the military spending issue: if you are not willing to concede that previous levels of spending were justified and place the burden of proof solidly in the corner of the sensible spending advocates, they refuse to discuss the issue with you. You will be airily dismissed with the following statement: "we will just have to disagree; there is nothing I can say that will convince you".

The news media is solidly behind the defenders of precedent and will eagerly print numbers, figures, and comparisons of previous years spending along with any speculative reports about potential adversaries on the front page. Any in depth discussion of military spending - if published, and which usually debunks previous front page pentagon hysteria - is relegated to the back pages of their newspapers, where (hopefully) few will see it. Anyone who seriously questions military spending levels will be labeled as "unwilling to compromise or discuss" the issue "sensibly". What is NEVER mentioned is that "sensibly" means accepting the "tradition" argument as valid without justification - a tactic that would never survive intellectual scrutiny. There is no balance in the discussion about military spending and more importantly there are no arguments - outside of precedent and tradition - in favor of present levels. If there were, why haven't I heard even one.

1/5/97

"http://www.geocities.com">Geocities home page

"http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5059">back to index