THIS TOO SHALL PASS:

Doctrine Of the 'Big Enchilada' (Max Boot, October 14, 2002, Washington Post)

Outside of major wars, we have seldom fielded powerful armed forces -- and we've paid the price. American weakness has encouraged foes such as Germany
and Japan to attack us. And from Kasserine Pass in North Africa to the 38th Parallel in Korea, U.S. soldiers have suffered heavily in the opening battles of many of our wars.

It's easy to forget this history of weakness, given America's current strength. The United States spends more on its military than the next dozen or so nations combined. This has bought unparalleled strength in every facet of warfare -- full-spectrum dominance, in Pentagon lingo -- that far surpasses the capabilities of such previous would-be hegemons as Rome, Britain and Napoleonic France.

The odd thing is that this dominance has occurred quietly and with little public debate. The British Empire was said to have been acquired in a fit of absent-mindedness. The same thing might be said about the American Empire. By bringing this dominance out into the open, the NSC document suggests at least two important implications.

First, it means spending more on defense. Impressive as the American military dominance of the past decade has been, it was acquired, relatively speaking, on the cheap. America spends only about 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, down from 4.4 percent as recently as 1993. U.S. power looks daunting in world rankings mainly because our enemy, the Soviet Bloc, collapsed, and our allies in Europe disarmed. But there aren't enough troops to carry out all our commitments, and the equipment they use is aging fast. Pilots in all the services routinely fly airplanes (such as the B-52) and helicopters (such as the CH-46 Sea Knight) that are older than they are. Squadrons often wind up cannibalizing some of their planes to keep others flying.

This can't go on much longer.

Being mildly realistic there's no reason to believe that the current willingness to provide the military with money will last much beyond this war on Islamicist terror nor any reason to believe that the military will get large amounts of money even now. If we are to maintain the overwhelming military superiority we enjoy now it will have to be fairly cheap, with a smaller and more mobile fighting force, equipment such as cruise missiles and unmanned attack planes, and a determination to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons to others coupled with an express willingness resort to nuclear weapons ourselves. American taxpayers and civil libertarians have historically been unwilling to fund and support a large standing military and there seems to be nothing unique about the current situation that would change that. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 14, 2002 9:31 AM