Cut Military Spending at one's own risk.....

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/12/14/How-to-Shrink-the-Defense-Budget-and-Come-Out-Winning.aspx#page1


Uhh, yea...not really!  It's FAR from clear that we can cut the military and still come out "ahead" or winning.  This is WAY to over simplified.  Afghanistan is not really a done deal, nor is the war on terrorism for that matter,  Anyone recall Benghazi by chance?  Once the State Department FINALLY settled on one account of the incident - it was an act of terrorism, not some isolated act related to the latest insulting portrayal of Mohammed.  There are quite a few variables and factors relevant to this issue that are ignored - and naturally - have fiscal ramifications.  How many different "arenas" or "theaters" of war does the US practically speaking have to be capable of managing at the same time?  Sorry, this is NOT a technology issue alone; there is clearly a "man-power"...aka..."soldier" element involved.  Also, they are going to "cut waste"; uhh don't we hear that ALL the time, and yet there is still waste.  Why it there any waste now to cut?  Obama was supposedly going to cut something like 500 Billion in waste to get Obamacare going and "budget" acceptable.  That's a big "no-go" so far.  Yes, some cuts in Military are probably necessary, but by the slimmest of margins possible.

Also, the article is going to compare military spending to other entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare etc.  This is really NOT a good comparison or analysis.  While medical services and care are essential public goods in some respects, this is NOT necessarily an exclusively public good.  There are LOTS of ways to reduce Federal Spending on healthcare and still provide many of the same care to those who need it; let the states have a shot at it.  Obviously, the downside on this can't be that bad as the current arrangement is clearly unsustainable.  This however,  goes back to the whole Obamacare, how do we best do healthcare issue.

Back to the point, while some healthcare can be provided in the private market place, the same is hardly true with all things "National Security" - including the military.  National defense is purely a public good - and thereby - cannot be reasonably compared to private goods.  Sorry, but citizens not named Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, cannot afford to buy bombs, planes, jets, laser guided missile systems etc.  Consequently, deciding appropriate budgetary levels has to be dealt with differently than "cross-goods" (those provided in both the public and private sector).  Military spending needs to be considered separately and looked upon under the most conservative or cautious of "lenses".  Some cutting might be in order - but a hatchet job will not discourage North Korea, the Taliban, and any other terrorist network in the least from "dying" to turn the USA into a mere pile of ash, or their latest "territorial" or "state" addition.