In the 1990's military morale went through the floor when politicians believed that a strong national defense was no longer necessary.  Now  we need to increase spending to counter the present danger, and to prepare for whatever happens next.  And happen it will.  No matter what our idealistic vision may be, someone always comes along to shatter it at the world possible time.

At the time this writing was begun former Missouri Senator Jim Talent was making the rounds of the talk show circuit advocating increased defense spending. His platform is based on a Heritage Foundation plan called the 4% for Freedom Solution .

The basic premise behind the 4% proposal is that the United States has spent too little on national defense since the demise of the Soviet Union. Using actual figure for the recent past he demonstrates how spending declined to the point where existing equipment has become outdated and needs either modernization or replacement. He provides estimated numbers of what should be necessary to achieve the goal of strengthening the US military to a level that should be able to deal with the current threat of Islamic terrorism and the potential threat of aggressive nations which may also become matters of concern in the future.

Much of what Senator Talent has to say is based on historic fact. If we take the 20^th century as our example, we could start with World War I and its aftermath. It is well known that this war was considered by many to be so tragic that no nation would want to start another for fear of the consequences to humanity. Thus, we see it mentioned many times as "The War To End All Wars". It was hoped that the League of Nations would be the preventive solution to human conflict. It wasn't. Meanwhile, the Russian Revolution set the stage for future Soviet aggression and the Cold War. And, as many people tend to forget, Japan fought against Germany during WWI in order to obtain control of key Pacific Islands such as Truk and New Britain. They established key naval bases as part of their plans for becoming a world power through expansion into East Asia and the Pacific Basin. Most historians date the beginning of World War II at September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. It would be better to use the date when Japan invaded China; July of 1937. (This is often referred to as the Second Sino-Japanese war, which, in the totality of its historical context appears to be a misnomer.)

When World War I ended the United States began to disarm, and participated in several arms limitation treaties. Several other major powers did the same, while relying on the Versailles Treaty to keep Germany from re-arming and repeating is prior behavior. However, as imperialist sentiments became pervasive in Japan, Germany came under the control of the Nazi party, and fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 it became obvious that peace was not going to become the dominant factor in world affairs and that military imperialism was far from dead. With Germany's attack on Poland, and Soviet Russia's invasion of Finland later the same year, not forgetting that Japan has already invaded China, the effect was further reinforced.

After the defeat of the German/Italian/Japanese Axis in 1945 America and its allies generally began to disarm once again. Soviet Russia was on nation that did not. After having gained control of Eastern Europe they wanted to keep control of it, and Stalin's ambitions pointed toward Western Europe as the next logical extension of Russia's WWII acquisitions. It took the Korean War from 1950-1953 to bring much of America back to a defense oriented mentality. The defense commitment declined, again until Vietnam, although, to his credit, President Eisenhower was well aware of the threat posed by the Soviets. This led, among other things to the U-2 overflights which created an international incident, but may well have helped prevent another major war. After the 1960's American government was fairly well aware of the fact that they could not go to sleep on defense without consequences. Despite this, President Carter did his best to reduce military spending during his 1970's administration. President Reagan reversed the trend when he was elected, and national defense again became a priority, but an unpopular one with many people, who believed that disarmament was a better way to achieve "world peace".

All this changed with the end of the Cold War in 1990. The Reagan Presidency had forced the Soviets into an arms race they could not win. Sources estimate that they had been spending as much as 25% of their GNP on the military, starving the nation of consumer goods necessary for the nation's day to day survival. Eventually, the Soviet Communist Party gave up, and while Reagan's strategy had carried the day against Moscow, many critics refused to accept that his strategy had been a correct one. The political focus in government again began to shift away from national defense.

Perhaps the best example of the new focus in Washington, DC was President George H. W. Bush 's announcement of a "peace dividend". Large amounts of military spending would no longer be necessary. The money could go toward social programs, etc. This idea became government policy with the Clinton Administration's wholesale military base closures and other military cutbacks. America's troop strength declined, old systems were not upgraded, and there were insufficient purchases of new systems to maintain a modern effective defense force. Military morale went through the floor when it became apparent that many politicians believed that a strong national defense was no longer necessary. Worse still, due to new administrative rules, it became impossible for the US Government to effectively combat terrorism including the preparations that led up to the 9/11 attacks. As Senator Tenant sees it, we have made progress since then, but not enough; we need to increase spending to counter the present danger, and to prepare for whatever happens next. And happen it will. No matter what our idealistic vision may be, someone always comes along to shatter it at the world possible time.

Some of us may remember Rodney King; an African-American who, in March 1991 was arrested in Los Angeles after a high speed chase. The arrest became violent and resulted in charges against the LAPD officers involved. The circumstances led to a series of riots in the Los Angeles area in 1992. King, in an attempt to quell the riots went on television with the plea " Can't we all just get along." His plea was well intentioned, but not entirely rational. As Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an expert on human behavior, explained it recently.

            The world is always at war. People fight, it's what we do. We quarrel, often in deadly ways with other
            family members, and we fight bitter, brutal battles with anyone who is "different" in terms of gender,
            class, race, ethnicity, tribe, religion, and ideology. The planet is perpetually plagued by civil and
            national wars. Not to be outdone, persecuted peoples internalize the prejudice and hatred leveled
            against them and unleash it against others like themselves.

While we may wish for a messianic age in which everyone does get along, where there is no war, disease or discomfort, it simply is not practical. Certainly, it cannot be achieved by us imperfect human beings. And when someone comes along with a "perfect solution", we cannot trust it. Invariably their perfect solution decays into a scenario for a small group to obtain power over everyone else. It is human nature. That is the basic flaw behind Marxism; once the "evil capitalists" were overthrown in a violent revolution the revolutionary leaders would not give up the power they had attained; they hung onto it, and replaced capitalism with a system where freedoms and opportunities were even less than under the quasi-feudal czarist government.

Senator Tenant is absolutely right that we must maintain a strong national defense if our nation is to survive. It is only part of the solution, but it is a necessary part. One of the reasons Rome fell was its eventual inability to defend itself against outside aggression. With the end of the Cold War many people believed that we had reached an "end of history" point. They were wrong, because human nature dictated otherwise. Someone always steps into the breach. Someone always becomes a trouble maker whenever the opportunity presents itself. If a power vacuum occurs some nation always steps in to fill it.

Thomas P.M. Barnett originally believed that China would present the next challenge for the US after the collapse of the USSR. He appears to have been wrong in his timing, but China is already showing its intent to become a world superpower. And post Soviet Russia may present an additional future threat, depending on the direction its government takes. And that does not cover our need to deal with terror organizations, private armies, and political radicals who are intent on causing havoc in the pursuit of their various ends. We have, for all practical purposes the need for two types of military capability.

The first military capability is traditional. It is the large strategic force using masses of men, and equipment in the image of World War II. It is designed for fighting on the grand scale. This type of military capability is necessary for the nation to deter aggression by other large nations. It is what we used to create the stalemate with the USSR during the Cold War. The obvious rationale is that if a potential aggressor respects your strength, they will leave you alone. So far, it has worked fairly well.

The second capability is needed to deal with the small enemies. Al Qaida fits this category. When President Kennedy established the Navy Seals in the early 1960's he truly understood that we would need soldiers who were capable of engaging in surgical strikes against small entities; terrorists, trouble makers, private armies and the like. Small teams capable of using high technology weapons and support systems can be our main line of defense against these enemies. We have a goodly number of trained and capable people to fill this role. We probably need more. The amount of such non-governmental military organizations seems to be increasing, rather than declining. This calls for an equal amount of targeted strength to counter the threat.

There is also a third capability that is not military; it is political. It matters not what types of weapons we have, or what training and capabilities out soldiers have, if we will not turn them loose when needed to act in the national defense. We need the political will to use these forces or there is no point in having them. And if we have no will to use them, then there is no point in having a nation or a national identity. We must be willing and able to pull the trigger whenever and wherever necessary to protect the nation and the national interest. We should also be willing to defend out allies in the same way. The Clinton Administration's failure to take out Osama Bin Laden when it could have was a failure of the political will, and was the bottom line cause of the 9/11 attacks. If terrorist groups understood that they were not safe, no matter where they hid, and that our special forces might take them out at any moment, they would be less likely to take us on. An enemy's belief that America is weak, in will, if not in capability can be deadly.

Senator Tenant and his colleagues at the Heritage Foundation are correct in their assessment. Now it is up to us to convince our government that all of the state run welfare programs that they want to creat will be of no use if we have no nation left; that we need to put national defense on a higher level of priority then it is now. It is a dangerous world and we need it now, more than ever.