I think this goes more in the up direction than down: We have so much military because we can afford it, not because we need it. "Wants" are often sold as "needs" in this game.
Where is the perfect balance between what one can afford and what one needs? There is no perfect metric to get there. I would argue that most European powers have the militaries they can get away with due to alliances with a US that has too large of a ground force for its own needs. Currently we see Secretary Panetta having to mollify European allies who are concerned they may have to resource a fairer share of their own defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/wo...rope.html?_r=1
GDP over history tells an important story; particularly in a democracy where the people have the ultimate say on such things (though like the Titanic, we are big engine, no brakes, and small rudder, and think we are unsinkable), so such adjustments take time. It shows tolerance for defense spending. The results of the effectiveness of US military power speak for themselves.
Many love to wheel out tired arguments of how we were "unprepared" for both World Wars and Korea; though were the decisive ground force in all three. Being "prepared" has enabled US officials to jump into all kinds of small to medium conflicts that we would have been forced to employ other options on if we had not possessed a warfighting army sitting on the shelf ready to go. I'm not convinced that is better.
(oh, and the "additional $500B" in cuts that SecDef calls "crazy"? I suspect will seem less crazy after the election)
Bookmarks