United States Military Cutbacks

The Constitution

When talking about the United States military, it is necessary to examine the constitution. As is common knowledge Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, gives congress the rights to wage war, grant rights to privateers, and also allows for a funding of the Army and Navy (cl. 12 and 13 respectively). The interesting thing about these particular clauses is the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists when they were written some 200 years ago. 

The Anti-Federalists were skeptical about the need for a standing army during peacetime, citing many grievances. James Burgh stated that, "[a] standing army in times of peace, [is] one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses."

An anti-federalist paper (suspected to written by George Clinton's political ally Robert Yates) Brutus no. 10 states that they, "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader."

However it is the great John Hamilton who defended the clause by saying that,  "These powers ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them." (The Federalist No. 23)

So a middle ground was reached which involved Military funding which according to the Constitution was supposed to be every 2 years. In this way the Army could be adjusted based on need, and that a large standing army could be avoided for precautionary measures. 

Modern Threats

Terrorism

All this to say that the cutting of Military troops to so called "Pre World War II levels" do nothing to threaten our existence or way of life. The fear of retaliation is enough to assuage our enemies in the modern age. This, as I believe it, is the reason terrorism is so rampant in today's world and that a war against is always going to be perpetual. 

Terrorism has no nationality, and resorts to surreptitious means to fulfill what it sees as the ultimate end goal- the demise of the ruling class or ones they view as the tyrants. Therefore with no diplomacy available, as with a war or an attack by a country, terrorism will continue regardless of counter attacks, and regardless of a government's efforts to deter it. So it seems to me that the argument that a large military will prevent terrorism is a moot point. 

Men vs Men

Another point that I have heard spouted from the dissidents of DOD cutbacks is what I call the Men vs Men argument. It states that because of the manpower of super armies such as North Korea, China, India, and Russia that we should have an equal amount in America, for after all we are the worlds most powerful and advanced nation. This argument laughably solves itself. Anyone that thinks that wars are fought largely with men vs men especially in this modern age should rethink their position. 

Between the United States' vast weapons technology and advanced military training we would, even with proposed cuts, be able to defend ourselves. Also we would be able to retaliate ten fold, with ICBMs and if necessary nuclear force, to deter our enemies even more. 

I'll reiterate the bottom line from Monday's post:

If war were to break out tomorrow even with the defense cuts, I strongly doubt that the United States would be unprepared for such a conflict. What this should be seen as is the DOD finally realizing that they have a spending problem, and them trying to responsibly resolve the issue without putting the Nation's defense in jeopardy.