It's too bad I almost agree with you, George. That way I can only quibble about minor points.
georgeob1 wrote: 1) Life and the world situation can change fairly quickly.
I agree. For example, high-powered missile defense looks kind of stupid in a world where weirdos armed with box cutters can fly commercial plains into buildings. But again, uncertainty cuts both ways. America has an edge in defense spending mostly because the rest of the world trusts it, and lets it. It isn't clear whether an increase in America's defense budget would strengthen America's power in the world. It can just as well erode other nations trust, and make them expand
their defense spending too. In this case America would have started an arms race that benefits nobody, and doesn't increase its relative power.
Quote: 4) We cannot control the actions of potential rivals, and history strongly suggests that some will emerge. This problem of riding the tiger is real.
You cannot control it, but you can influence it. For example, maintaining the expectation that America plays by the rules greatly reduces a foreign nation's demand for defense spending. This serves America's selfish interests. A big part of my unhappiness with the Bush administration is that it sees very clearly the advantages of military power, but not the advantages of other nations' trust. It's not just about the UN. Consider his WTO-illegal steel tarrifs, his blackmailing of Bayer in the Anthrax situation, his China policy, and other such things.
Quote: 5) We are paying the bill for completed and continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and replenishing our stocks of weapons expended in them. Beyond that there is little or no growth.
Point acknowledged. But while Afghanistan was a necessity in the war on terror, Iraq was a choice. You and I disagree whether the choice was right or wrong. But it was a choice, so it's a meaningful part of the growth in America's military spending.
