Target entitlements, not military costs

The “peace dividend” took over $100 billion from the military and moved it into social welfare programs in the 1990s. I think people who now say the military should be reduced further have no understanding of military affairs, lack perspective, have amnesia, and would put the nation at risk.

The so-called peace dividend took the 18-division army down to 10 and made comparable sized cuts in the other services, leaving us under strength to fight a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know, because I am an active duty Army officer who was part of the daily struggle in the Pentagon, at 3rd Army, and Multinational Corps Iraq 2003-2009. I was part of the effort to make a tenuous rotation system work, field new equipment on both fronts, while all along having no strategic reserve.

Most civilians do not realize how difficult it was in 2005-2008 to put the rotations together, constantly replace equipment, and how stressed the force became. That precarious military position was caused by the Congress of the 1990s and should be repaired, not worsened with more cuts.

It is social welfare programs that have become bloated, as evidenced by the $100 billion that was added in the 1990s, and the growing mentality that even this is not enough. It is social programs that should be reduced back to what we can afford.

The military is the reason we won independence, two world wars, the Cold War, and will win our current and longest war. The existence of the United States is more important than Social Security, Medicare, and every other welfare program combined. It is that simple. Leave the American military alone for once and cut wasteful social spending before we end up like Greece.

Harold Knudsen

Arlington Heights