Military spending, in historical perspective

I came across usgovernmentspending.com that allows you to generate historical charts of government expenditures. (You can view the data in actual dollars or inflation-adjusted dollars or percentage of GDP by changing the units.)

Here is a graph of military spending using inflation-adjusted dollars (and a link to it and the underlying data):


I went looking for the data because a Facebook friend of a friend claimed that the drop in military spending as a percentage of GDP during Clinton's administration was the cause of 9/11. Ew boy. For starters, it should be obvious that our external threats are what they are regardless of GDP, so I don't get why you'd look to percent-of-GDP data to make the case that the spending was insufficient (or sufficient) to keep the country safe from attack. Further, military spending at the end of Clinton's term was still historically plenty high. Does anyone writing here believe that the drop in military spending under Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen or caused 9/11? I hope not.

Setting all that aside, I have to say that as I looked at this chart I was amazed at the extreme increase in military spending since 2001 relative to historical levels. I'm curious to know whether those who believe the Iraq war was a good idea also feel that the benefit you see is commensurate with these costs. In other words, was our takeover of Iraq as important as our role in WWII? Was it far more important than the Cold War?

Crusades circa 2001

I can't wrap my head around the recent GQ story by Robert Draper about Rumsfeld's use of Bible verses in daily digests of military intelligence prepared for Pres. Bush. The story includes a slideshow of the actual memos. Example here:
I'm not sure which frightens me more: to imagine that this reflected the view from the top at the Pentagon (i.e. that the U.S. military really was fighting a religious war); or that it doesn't reflect Rumsfield's view but was used to manipulate the President (and that we had a president that could be manipulated this way).

Notably absent are slides labeled with these Bible verses:

Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Re: Joker One

Update: I saw a Reuters video today in which the author said he still doesn't know whether the Iraq War was successful. The gist was to ask him again in 50 years.

Humbled

I've finished the third in my War on Terror trilogy. Just finished Joker One. This one about the Marines in Ramadi in 2004. The author was a young lieutenant (with Princeton and Harvard degrees now working for Pepsi in Dallas) who intended the book to be primarily a tribute to his comrades but a bit about his growth as a leader and a bit about faith.

I cried again. While I truly regret not having served, I'm now convinced I'd never have made it. I think I knew that already and didn't want to admit it to myself.

Cyber spying

From the WSJ:

WASHINGTON -- Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project -- the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever -- according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks.

This is really bad. How in the heck are they able to hack the Pentagon? This isn't 24; this is life or death. I don't think the Chineese can afford to build these things but they can sure learn about any weaknesses.

Recent reading on the GWOT

I've often thought and occasionally said that my second greatest regret in life is not "having served." I've recently finished two and and am starting a third first-hand account of service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Knowing what I know now, had I served (even in my prime) I'd have been extremely lucky just to have made it through basic training and then headed off for a life as a JAG officer, at best, or some kind of Radar (O'Reilly, that is) clerk, at worst.

The first I read was David Bellavia’s House to House. What struck me most was the absolutely honest description of the horrors of battle. Shamelessly lifted from the Amazon site:

Product Description

One of the great heroes of the Iraq War, Staff Sergeant David Bellavia captures the brutal action and raw intensity of leading his Third Platoon, Alpha Company, into a lethally choreographed kill zone: the booby-trapped, explosive-laden houses of Fallujah's militant insurgents. Bringing to searing life the terrifying intimacy of hand-to-hand infantry combat, this stunning war memoir features an indelibly drawn cast of characters, not all of whom would make it out of the city alive, as well as chilling accounts of Bellavia's singular courage: Entering one house alone, he used every weapon at his disposal in the fight of his life against America's most implacable enemy.

The next was Marcus Lutrell’s Lone Survivor. Also pilfered from the Amazon site:

Product Description

Four US Navy SEALS departed one clear night in early July 2005 for the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border for a reconnaissance mission. Their task was to document the activity of an al Qaeda leader rumored to be very close to Bin Laden with a small army in a Taliban stronghold. Five days later, only one of those Navy SEALS made it out alive.

This is the story of the only survivor of Operation Redwing, SEAL fire team leader Marcus Luttrell, and the extraordinary firefight that led to the largest loss of life in American Navy SEAL history. His squadmates fought valiantly beside him until he was the only one left alive, blasted by an RPG into a place where his pursuers could not find him. Over the next four days, terribly injured and presumed dead, Luttrell crawled for miles through the mountains and was taken in by sympathetic villagers who risked their lives to keep him safe from surrounding Taliban warriors.

A born and raised Texan, Marcus Luttrell takes us from the rigors of SEAL training, where he and his fellow SEALs discovered what it took to join the most elite of the American special forces, to a fight in the desolate hills of Afghanistan for which they never could have been prepared. His account of his squadmates' heroism and mutual support renders an experience that is both heartrending and life affirming. In this rich chronicle of courage and sacrifice, honor and patriotism, Marcus Luttrell delivers a powerful narrative of modern war.

This one touched me pretty deeply as his love for Texas and his country (no secessionist here) really comes through. Even more so, his love for his fallen comrades really touched me. Also, he really explores one thing that I really admire about the Muslim (in particular, the Pashtun culture), the concept of lokhay, an extraordinary concept of hospitality. If one offers you shelter, food, er..., hospitality, one will risk one's life, family, and entire village to preserve that hospitality.

Most touching, and I had to remove my contacts to read through the tears, was the way his east Texas community came to the moral support of his family while he was missing.

He had two insights on the US Press that I found very disturbing. Caveat: these insights may ruin the whole account for those not of my political bent though the book was an NYT bestseller and I'm not sure righties alone can get a book that high on the list.

Finally, I haven't read this one yet but heard the author interviewed on the Bill Bennett show. I'm particularly interested in this because the author Donovan Campbell mentioned a crisis of faith as a result of his experience. Also, because my Dad was a marine.

This one is called Joker One:

Product Description

After graduating from Princeton, Donovan Campbell, motivated by his unwavering patriotism and commitment, decided to join the service, realizing that becoming a Marine officer would allow him to give back to his country, engage in the world, and learn to lead. In this immediate, thrilling, and inspiring memoir, Campbell recounts a timeless and transcendent tale of brotherhood, courage, and sacrifice.

As commander of a forty-man infantry platoon called Joker One, Campbell had just months to train and transform a ragtag group of brand-new Marines into a first-rate cohesive fighting unit, men who would become his family: Sergeant Leza, the house intellectual who read Che Guevara; Sergeant Mariano Noriel, the “Filipino ball of fire” who would become Campbell’s closest confidant and friend; Lance Corporal William Feldmeir, a narcoleptic who fell asleep during battle; and a lieutenant known simply as “the Ox,” whose stubborn aggressiveness would be more curse than blessing.

Campbell and his men were assigned to Ramadi, that capital of the Sunni-dominated Anbar province that was an explosion just waiting to happen. And when it did happen–with the chilling cries of “Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!” echoing from minaret to minaret–Campbell and company were there to protect the innocent, battle the insurgents, and pick up the pieces. After seven months of day-to-day, house-to-house combat, nearly half of Campbell’s platoon had been wounded, a casualty rate that went beyond that of any Marine or Army unit since Vietnam. Yet unlike Fallujah, Ramadi never fell to the enemy.Told by the man who led the unit of hard-pressed Marines, Joker One is a gripping tale of a leadership, loyalty, faith, and camaraderie throughout the best and worst of times.

Chino pants

I love the intertubes. Just wonder about something, and the info is right there:

Chino pants/trousers, or simply chinos, refer to a type of lightweight cotton trousers made from Chino cloth. Though they are sometimes confused with khakis, chinos are of dressier style similar to that of suit trousers and as such can be considered a smart casual form of dress.

Update: And the entry on Chino cloth fills in the picture:

Chino cloth is a kind of twill fabric, usually made primarily from cotton. Originally used in British and French military uniforms in the mid-1800s, today it is also used to make civilian clothing.
Chino pants gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1900s after military men returning from the Philippines after the Spanish-American War brought back their cotton military trousers. These pants were originally made in China. "Chino" is the Spanish term for Chinese, and most of the people who wear chino cloth, especially in the Philippines, are peasants (Camisa de chino); hence the fabric and these pants picked up the name. The first chinos sold in the U.S. were U.S. Army military-issue pants, and in order to save fabric during WWII-era constraints, they had no pleats and were tapered at the bottom of the leg.
The original military pants were khaki in colour. Chino pants refer to a style of pants similar to khakis, but dressier in style.

Gates following Rumsfeld’s lead?

Is it just me or does the second part of SecDef Gates’ two-part defense plan, as summarized by Austin Bay at Townhall, not echo Rumfsfeld’s, “As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

Gates' defense plan, presented this week, seeks to embed these [the first part] capabilities ["small war" capabilities, including counter-insurgency skills, local security training programs, rule of law projects, and economic and political stabilization capacities] but also [the second part explained more below] thwart the most likely current and emerging conventional threats, what he called "the security challenges posed by the military forces of other countries -- from those actively hostile to those at strategic crossroads."

"Most likely" sounds bland, but for Congress, defense industries and many military leaders, they are fighting words. Money isn't the only reason -- legitimate debate over what constitutes adequate preparation for a "war of national survival" is not only justifiable, but a duty. The reason the United States confronts terrorist threats is that America has the combat power to win conventional force-on-force fights, and that must be retained.

Gates doesn't dispute that -- he argues for balance. Budgets are limited. Procuring the expensive "perfect" may be ideal, but acquiring sufficient numbers of "the better than good enough" is more rational.

As a specific example, Gates bets that a sufficient number of F-35s assures U.S. air dominance in the coming decades, so the Pentagon can buy fewer F-22s. Now a battle over numbers flares. Gates says 187 F-22s. I estimate the right number is around 250. Hey, it's not quite thin air. It's based on attrition and operational estimates, and posits a U.S.-China clash over Taiwan.

No one wants that conflict, but if it occurs sometime in the next 20 years we'll rue the day we didn't buy more F-22s. Gates, however, wins the bigger point -- America has less expensive systems that more than overmatch potential adversaries.

In hindsight Rumsfeld’s comments, which seemed so outrageous at the time in the context of the under-armored Humvees, really did merit the opening phrase, “As you know….” It comes down to economics like so much of life (and death). Bay continues:

Choices must be made, and Secretary of Defense Gates has made his. He has done so with an acute assessment of the long-term strategic benefits of assuring success in Iraq and Afghanistan complemented by a cool, intellectually defensible estimate of future requirements. His proposals now become a Washington budget warfighting document.

Robert Kaplan on Saving Afghanistan

A long article from the author of Imperial Grunts and Hog Pilots and Blue Water Grunts, both of which I enjoyed and the latter of which I loved. Somehow I find it simultaneously depressing and hopeful. From the Atlantic:

Certainly, the can-do spirit of the American, British, Canadian, and other soldiers here is infectious, even as the gargantuan size of the operation, with its attendant planes, helicopters, up-armored Humvees, and massively fortified bases is simply stunning. A senior American military official told us that counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism are inseparable, and the idea that one can withdraw from Afghanistan while still conducting selected strikes against al-Qaeda terrorists is “absolutely ridiculous.” Without counterinsurgency, he says, the terrorists simply replace their killed leaders and have the freedom to plan attacks on the West.

The stakes are vast. An Afghanistan that can inch its way back to the modest and fragile stability of the mid-20th century will leverage Pakistan back toward normalcy, in addition to becoming a conduit for energy pipelines that promise to unite oil- and natural gas-rich Central Asia with the Indian Ocean—thus linking India and Pakistan in a peaceful system of commerce. But an Afghanistan that crumbles into granular ethnic and tribal elements will bring down Pakistan, too, in addition to enlarging Iran’s new and unconventional terrorist empire. And this is to say nothing of the moral victory that al-Qaeda and the Taliban will achieve if Afghanistan descends into chaos.

That can't be right!

As the resident rethug, I have to give Mr. Stewart his due.