Military budget goes for overkill

The Thursday letter “Durbin disrupted important talks” from Michael Holman offers interesting details about his view of the readiness of U.S. military forces, primarily in terms of naval aviation. He claims that these shortcomings derive from “dereliction of duty” by Congress. Maybe, maybe not.

Holman said, “I want my family and the country protected.” So do I, but I don’t believe that such protection requires more than 800 U.S. military bases in more than 80 foreign countries. I don’t believe it requires the $398 billion spent on the F-35 fighter (Source: Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Report, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, 2015) that went so far over budget that it became “too big to kill.” Kind of like banks that are “too big to fail.”

It’s true that our nation has a role in the larger world. However, that role is often inflated by former military personnel employed by U.S. weapons manufacturers and elected officials who see the military as a convenient campaign tool. With more than a million people employed in the aerospace and defense sector and more than 3 million workers involved in military subcontracts in almost every state, our real strategy seems to emphasize the “industry” in defense industry.

Instead of taking potshots at Democratic senators, Holman might train his sights on the manufacturers of unnecessary weapons systems whose lobbyists direct vital military funds into their own pockets, as well as on all the politicians who feed, and feed on, defense-related businesses.

Steve Abbott Columbus