The Department of War

In reading and listening to commentary on possible cuts to the Federal budget, I have noticed that the Department of Defense usually is treated as sacrosanct. It is lumped in with Social Security and Medicare as a permanent, untouchable feature of the District of Columbia.

I believe that the restoration of fiscal sanity requires massive cuts to the defense budget. This can be accomplished while actually boosting national security. There is no reason, other than protecting sinecures and pork, to desist from wielding the scalpel.

Bloat and waste are off the charts. The nominal defense budget is approaching the trillion dollar mark. It goes well beyond that point when you factor in dark ops, foreign military aid, and the numerous defense-related functions that are domiciled in other parts of the government. A prime example is the Department of Energy, which has responsibility for the nuclear arsenal as well as the national “laboratories.”

We all know about the obscenely expensive weapons systems that don’t work, and have heard the legendary stories of hundred-dollar hammers and such. Is there no way to fix this? Should be a top priority for the incoming Secretary of Defense. He might also be interested in the battalions of consultants who do nothing but consult, and in the research institutes that research how to make PowerPoint slides. The trough that feeds these hogs is virtually bottomless.

One beneficial move would be to restore the name of the DoD to the Department of War, as it was called prior to 1947. Let’s be frank about the purpose of this organization: killing people and blowing things up. Everything else is extraneous. If some project or personnel are not directly involved in this mission, they can be cut. This is one area that I believe will be at least partially addressed by the new administration, as DEI, gender madness, and other such pursuits are dismantled, saving money while improving the military’s warfighting capability.

Of all the 800-pound gorillas wandering around the room, the hardest to tackle may very well be the role and presence of the U.S. military in the international arena. Does the defense of the United States really necessitate hundreds of bases and installations in scores of countries? Even if it did, the Federal government is bankrupt; an orderly drawdown is certainly preferable to the sudden impact of foreclosure.

Putting an end to harebrained interventions such as the wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine will of course save substantial sums of money. Why expand NATO onto Russia’s doorstep? Come to think of it, NATO itself can be terminated; it has far outlived its original purpose. And on the other side of the world, do we need to constantly antagonize China by “patrolling” their backyard?

And then stop the meddling in the Middle East. There is no longer any need to maintain the fiction of the Petrodollar system—it’s dead as a doornail. Let Saudi Arabia and Israel handle regional security. We can sell them weapons, and give them a free hand to manage the lunatics in their midst. Instead of "peace in the Middle East," try to forge arrangements that are sustainable.

Here’s a novel idea: use the military to defend the homeland. Bring our boys home, as the Left used to say before they became warmongers. If you want to beef up America’s strategic position beyond its borders, concentrate on the Western hemisphere. While we thump our chests over Taiwan, China is quietly expanding its influence in Latin America. Yes, take back the Panama Canal, as Mr. Trump has promised. It’s time to revive the Monroe Doctrine. That would be the kind of imperialism I could get behind. Forge alliances with Milei in Argentina, and other like-minded governments.

Meanwhile, I hear the cha-ching of the cash register in the background, as the savings pile up to the ceiling.