Aaron Brooks' column, "The US needs to cut defense spending and condense the military," was out of touch and uninformed. His argument essentially amounted to: "the U.S. spends more money than everyone else; therefore, we should spend less."
What Brooks should be focused on, instead of crippling two branches of our military, is fostering a doctrine of accountability to the American people by the armed services.
Is there wasteful spending in the military? Yes. Sen. John McCain, at the Christian Science Monitor Breakfast, stated that $3.4 billion a year was spent on programs that were ineffective.
He pointed out that the U.S. is investing in a missile defense program that will never be used and in the F-35 fighter jet, which is going to cost taxpayers twice the initial price tag.
Eliminating these costly projects would recover close to $800 million and foster accountability.
Mr. Brooks sees the Army as obsolete, citing the Libyan crisis as a template for future intervention strategies. Sure, this is plausible.
However, what happens when the bombing campaign ends and the reconstruction and stabilization of a country begins? Are combined U.N./U.S. forces just going to yell demands from their cockpits to civilians on the ground then?
Furthermore, Mr. Brooks states that all the U.S. needs if facing an attack on our soil, after getting rid of our Army, are "boats, bombs, planes and special forces." The special forces are in the Army, Aaron!
Please be more cautious in the future when making such bold claims.
junior history education major