The Bully Principle

In my ongoing, and futile attempt to educate the misinformed on the truth behind their political beliefs, it is time to tackle military issues.  One point I keep hearing is that we need to keep our military strong and that Governor Romney will do that.  The difficulty with that is very few seem to understand what our military and national strengths are, and how to maintain them.  The Romney philosophy (a very common one, especially within the GOP) is to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the corporation that equip our armed forces with everything from bullets to uniforms.  Tanks, ships, jets, bombs, guns, food...  The list goes on and on and most of the items come from corporations that deal almost exclusively with military customers.  These corporations take billions to make improvements to existing products that are often worth thousands, occasionally millions.  And this somehow makes us stronger.  Let me elaborate.

In 1980, when I joined the Navy, the work uniforms used a very tough polyester material for both the pants and shirts.  The material itself was very long wearing and extremely durable.  The downside for this uniform was that it would melt.  If you find yourself in a situation where whether your clothes are going to melt or burst into flame, the issue is not going to be your top concern.  However, in the interest of safety the switch was made to light denim pants and a cotton/polyester blend shirt.  The new uniforms tended to wear out quickly and were very prone to tearing.  I don't know how many millions were spent by our government to "improve" our uniforms by making them less durable, but I know the end result:  Every enlisted man (below E-7 paygrade) had to spend money, they had too little of, to buy uniforms that, instead of lasting for decades, would wear out in a year or less.  You see, the problem wasn't that the uniforms would melt.  The problem was that the underpaid, overworked sailors weren't buying enough new uniforms.

What is strength?  There are several possible choices, all have been tried in this country and each has its supporters and merits.  Each also has a downside.  Probably the most visible strength is the "Biggest, Baddest" type.  In the movies, the biggest, baddest is almost always the bad guy, who will be brought down by the "Strong, Silent" type.  Occasionally, the villain will be the "Dangerous Psycho", but the heroes are almost always the same.  One important point, in all the movies, the hero gets a serious ass-kicking before finally winning the fight.

Biggest, Baddest has two variations, one is bullying by intimidation, the other is bullying by action.  Bullying by intimidation was the method used during the Reagan administration.  By spending lavishly on Defense and by frequently issuing threats, we maintained an image of strength.  The G.W. Bush administration took the action route.  For eight years we showed that we were willing to incur any expense in order to fight anyone that so much as looked at us wrong.  From a foreign relations standpoint, not very successful.

Except for the past 70 years, our country's strength has not been the size of our military, or by the size of their guns.  Until the cold war, following World War II, the end of a war meant a large scale reduction in the military and a significant reduction in military spending.  The Spanish-American war found us completely out-gunned and out-manned against the second best Navy in the world (at the time, Great Britain was the top naval power.  We ranked about 5th).  Within days we had more volunteers than we had equipment for and the war was quickly ended, favorably for us.  At the onset of WW I, we lacked manpower and equipment.  Our ships were nearly obsolete, our tanks and heavy artillery were substandard and our aircraft were in short supply.  WW II began with us in the same position.  How did we persevere in each case when starting with such a huge handicap?

One of our country's greatest strengths has always been our natural resources.  Nearly everything we could want or need is in abundant supply, or available if we need it.  With a strong manufacturing base and available resources, we can quickly produce whatever we need.  Another strength is that we're the good guys.  People all over the world have wanted to come here, not for a free lunch, but for a chance for a better life.  Our behavior (with the exception of from 2001-2008) has been admirable.  We treated people with respect and dignity and backed that with quiet strength.  It's very difficult to win a war against a country, when most of your population would rather live in that country.  Lastly, our strength has been in our national consciousness.  In times of need, we respond.  Whether that need arises from an attack on Pearl Harbor or a devastating tsunami hitting Japan, we stand up to be counted and do our part.

Because of our location, we are resistant to most military action.  Russia is not going to march 3 million soldiers through Siberia, across the arctic, and down through Canada to attack us.  Paying millions of people to effectively do nothing, actually makes us weaker.  Forgetting the cost of all those soldier, sailors, marines and airmen, let's look at the people themselves.

In a small, peacetime military, quality over quantity is the focus.  The people allowed to join, and stay are there because they are good at their jobs, and because they want to be there.  This means a competent, highly trained command structure, which can quickly grow to whatever size needed.  As anyone who has served in at least the past 30 years can tell you, many ofthe people in the military don't want to be there, and probably shouldn't be there.  Quite a few people join, not from any patriotism, or desire to serve, but for a guaranteed paycheck and some benefits which may come in handy later in life.  This gives us a military which is sluggish and full of disciplinary problems.  Sorry, but that is not strength.

We have many exceptional people serving in our military, and please don't think that I am in any way putting them down or insulting them.  But mixed in with them are a significant number of people that are just there to meet a quota.  To make our military stronger, we need to reduce the numbers and once again focus on quality.  We need to stop handing out blank checks to the corporations and instead focus on intelligent application of our resources.  At the moment, we pay billions to have corporations develop technology, then pay billions for the corporations to turn the technology into weapons, then pay billions to the corporations for the weapons that we have already paid them for twice.  And after all of that we pay several times the worth of the finished product.  If you want a fence around your yard, you pay someone to build a fence.  You don't pay someone to buy themselves a forest and a sawmill so you can pay them for the boards they will use when you pay them to put up the fence.