Defending Defense: Setting the Record Straight on U.S. Military Spending Requirements

Since the end of the Cold War, administrations of both political parties have underfunded the military, first harvesting a “peace dividend” by reducing the size of the force and then repeatedly postponing investments needed to replace worn out equipment and preserve the technological advantages that have been a traditional source of American strength. Now, just as this strain on the military—engaged in today’s persistent irregular wars, yet unable to prepare fully for the wars of the future—reaches a point of crisis, come new calls to cut the Defense Department’s budget, amplified by the fears of a faltering economy, the federal government’s desire to boost spending elsewhere, and its inability to rein in other spending. Yet the arguments frequently made for Pentagon spending cuts are concocted from a mix of faulty analysis and out-of-context “facts.”

Related Keywords

Afghanistan , Iraq , United States , Iran , White House , District Of Columbia , Beijing , China , North Korea , Russia , Americans , America , Chinese , Soviet , American , Mackenzie Eaglen , Gary Schmitt , Tom Donnelly , Robert Gates , Georgew Bush , Dick Cheney , Foreign Policy Initiative , Bush Administration , Heritage Foundation , American Enterprise Institute , Defense Review Independent Panel , Defense Department , Enterprise Institute , Secure The Blessings , Cold War , Defense Secretary Robert Gates , Bill Clinton , World War , President Obama , Marine Corps , Secretary Gate , Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel , Korean War , Soviet Union , Social Security , Middle East , Defense Secretary Robert , Defense , Military , Defense Spending , Federal Budget , Pentagon , Military Budget , Ear , Department Of Defense ,