Why we don’t (shouldn’t) begrudge the Pentagon money

I was thinking about the Pentagon’s constant desire for money so that it can have bigger and better weapons.  Anti-War people tend to write this off as institutional greed, sublimated violence, and an indecent expression of “big boys and their bigger toys.”  I tend to have a very different view of military spending.

To begin with, our military is soooo huge, there’s necessarily going to be inefficiency, and we’re just going to have to recognize that as the premium we pay for having the largest military in the world.

More importantly, the military’s desire for bigger and better weapon’s systems has nothing to do with sublimated violence and everything to do with a desire to minimize war deaths.  First, if you’re big enough and scary enough, the other guy will leave you alone, which definitely reduces the number of casualties.  Second, if the other guy is stupid enough to pick a fight with you, the military’s job is to stop caring about the other side’s battlefield casualties, and to focus long and hard on preventing its own casualties.  And that’s where a heck of lot of money does and should go.

Here’s a case in point:  The Pentagon has just announced the following good news:

The U.S. military’s new armored trucks in Afghanistan are significantly reducing troop deaths in roadside attacks at a time when insurgent bombings are at record levels, according to statistics provided to USA TODAY.

Read the rest here.

Those armored trucks, obviously, didn’t magically appear on the battlefield without any money spent.  Someone had to design them and someone had to build them.  The money spent will go a long way to keeping our guys safe and, by decreasing incentives for the bad guys (since every American death is an incentive), also works towards bringing hostilities to an end, thereby decreasing their casualties too.

I’m not arguing a blank check for the military.  Oversight is extremely important, especially to prevent the institution from becoming slack and corrupt.  I do believe, however, that the institutional desire for enhanced weaponry is surprisingly benign in its intent, insofar as it means to decrease incentives for the bad guys to make war and to protect our guys along the way.

With that in mind, the next time you hear the execrable Bawny Fwank discuss his desire to slash the military budget, think about whether peaceful coexistence and diminished American deaths are more likely with an emaciated, emasculated, de-weaponized military, or with an institution strong enough to frighten our foes and protect its own.