Military Musings

When I read news reports about the Afghanistan war, I constantly see references to "the fighting season."  Often, these references are to the impending end of the fighting season.  No mention of the fighting playoffs or the World Series of fighting, but that's neither here nor there.  I'm just wondering about all the implications for military strategy: I mean, I'm no Colin Powell--or even Colin Farrell--or even Will Farrell--where was I?  Oh, yeah: I'm no brilliant military strategist, but, if our enemies at some point just say, "OK, we're done fighting for the year, see you in springtime," wouldn't that be a good time to attack?

I Read the News Today Oy Vey

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Invention's father?  Nobody knows.  Necessity's a bit of a whore.

Let me start over.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  LACK of necessity, though, births newsworthy nonsense.  No less than three of today's front-page stories in the New York Times revolved around things less necessary than mackerel-sized biking shorts.

For starters, senators ranging from the once-respectable John McCain to the I-once-thought-reasonable Susan Collins continue to wax apoplectic over UN Ambassador Susan Rice's "gaffes" in the wake of the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.  The fact that these "gaffes," shared on several Sunday morning news programs, consisted of intelligence-approved talking points--talking points initially requested by a congressman, no less!--makes no difference to these watchdogs of American safety, who are convinced--convinced, I say!--that Rice's performance in this matter makes her an utterly unacceptable candidate for Secretary of State, which is why they have made clear that they are unlikely to support her for nomination to this position for which she has not, in fact, been nominated!

Well, pre-emptive nominee-bashing is never out of style.  Let's see what else is in the news.

Ah, the University of Tennessee has fired its head football coach, Derek "Say-This-Name-With-a-Straight-Face" Dooley.  Fair enough.  The team has staggered to a disappointing 1-7 record, and the university has to fire the coach since it can't fire the players (but just wait 'til they see their P.E. grades!).  Here's the thing, though: Dooley has a contract, so the university must pay him about $5 million for the privilege of being fired!  Throw in money owed to his coaching staff, who will likely also be let go, and the total amount the school will shell out comes to about $18 million.  In case you're wondering where the money will come from, well, don't worry: It's going to be taken from money earmarked for scholarships--academic scholarships, by the way, not athletic scholarships--'cause, you know, why would UT cut funding for the athletic department, what with its dysfunctional 1-7 football team bringing such pride to the university.

Meantime, in military news, the world's most advanced military jet, the F-35 joint strike fighter, under development seemingly for the last 400 years at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars, may fall victim to budget cutting by Congress.  I don't believe it, though.  Considering the United States can already pretty much overwhelm any competing military force the sheer unnecessariness of the F-35 makes it the perfect emblem of today's misplaced priorities.  I'll take a dozen!

Today's Double-Speak

As part of efforts to rein in government spending, the Obama administration has declared its intention to cut the military budget.  Considering the fact that the US spends more on the military than practically all other nations combined, this makes sense.  Nevertheless, a debate has begun over the potential effects of military cutbacks.  National security is an obvious concern, but economists, politicians, and others worry that military spending cuts will increase unemployment and lead to a decrease in technological innovation, the military being a chief driver and consumer of research and development ("A Shrinking Military Budget May Take Neighbors with It").

Many economists point out, however, that military spending actually provides less "bang for the buck" than other forms of government investment:

"Military spending does not compare well economically with many other forms of government spending, some experts say. Professor [Robert]Pollin calculated in a recent analysis that $1 billion in spending on health care produced an economic benefit about 14 percent larger than spending on defense. The impact of spending on transportation, education and energy were even larger."

Case closed? Well, not exactly:

"Some economists, however, argue that such studies fail to account for the economic value of security and stability. The crucial benefit is not what defense spending provides but what it prevents, Joshua Aizenman, a professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Reuven Glick, a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, wrote in a 2006 paper."

So, if I understand that last point correctly, the economic benefits of military spending arise not from any increases in productivity generated by the spending, but by "savings" generated by not having to spend money on other things. But, what would these "other things" be? Presumably, the things that military spending prevents are threats to national security--which would necessitate military spending. In other words, spending money on the military reduces the necessity to spend money on the military. Makes perfect sense!

Enjoy that "peace dividend," everybody.

Don't Ask

Here's today's "sounds-like-an-Onion-headline-but-isn't":

"Marines Hit the Ground Running in Seeking Recruits at Gay Center"

Now that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is history, the Marines wasted no time and set up a recruitment stand at a gay community center in, of all places, Tulsa, Oklahoma.  While all branches of the military were invited, only the Marines took advantage of the opportunity.  According to the Times' reporter, "the Marines appear determined to prove that they will be better than the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard in recruiting gay, lesbian and bisexual service members."

I don't doubt the Marines' sincerity, but do they seriously think they can be gayer than the Coast Guard?  Good luck with that!

(WOS: To any Coast Guard members out there, please, go easy on the Solipsist.  Remember, he has a family of cats to support.)

Be All That You Can Be--and Then Some

We saw an unnerving photograph on the front page of today's Times:



Now, as the Solipsist lives in something of a glass house--through the windows of which one can spy him in all his overweight glory--we hesitate to cast aspersions on anyone's lack of physical fitness. Furthermore, for all we know, this picture was snapped just after this particular young lady had finished a triathlon. Nevertheless, we cannot help but feel the Times, in the interest of national security, should have withheld publication: This could, after all, be construed as providing aid and comfort to our enemies.