A Military Budget for a New World

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/opinion/a-military-budget-for-a-new-world.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

In “A Better, Not Fatter, Defense Budget” (editorial, May 9), you hint at but do not fully disclose the extent to which a Pentagon run amok shortchanges our way of life.

The military-industrial complex is thriving. Fully half of the Pentagon budget now enriches a vast ecosystem of for-profit contractors. Lockheed Martin, the maker of the ill-fated F-35 jet fighter, received more than $25 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2014.

That’s more than most states received in federal government grants, including Medicaid, in 2013.

And while Lockheed and others reap rewards from the Pentagon’s largess, Americans feel the squeeze: health care, education, infrastructure and job training must all do more with less.

Our current politics, under sequestration, ensures that this remains the case: Any increase in domestic spending results in still more spending for the Pentagon. We must re-examine our priorities.

LINDSAY KOSHGARIAN

Research Director

National Priorities Project

Northampton, Mass.

To the Editor:

You rightly point out that the Pentagon has squandered billions on unnecessary items without making us safer. Instead of pouring billions into wasteful military programs, we should invest in our 21st-century security needs, like cybersecurity and body armor.

Unfortunately, Congress is complicit in the excesses of the military-industrial complex. Instead of countering modern security threats, we spend billions on Cold War holdovers and tanks that rust in the Nevada desert.

It’s unacceptable that the Pentagon cannot account for much of this spending. Twenty-five years ago, Congress ordered an audit of the Pentagon.

Two-plus decades later, we are still waiting. Yet year after year, Congress continues to write the same blank check for more reckless spending.

As the National Defense Authorization Act comes up for a vote, I will once again co-lead a bipartisan amendment to audit the Pentagon.

It’s past time to end this unchecked waste, fraud and abuse.

BARBARA LEE

Washington

The writer, Democrat of California, is a member of the House Budget and Appropriations Committees.

To the Editor:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new threats by the Islamic State are proof that wars are no longer won by 20th-century tactics, and our defense spending needs to reflect that.

The education of our soldiers and military personnel is vital to helping them think strategically in constantly evolving environments. At the core of winning wars in the 21st century will be investing strategically in our military’s most valuable resource, its people.

For the last decade, I have worked in Congress to promote professional military education and increase the intellectual arsenal of our armed forces.

Training, developing and educating our military in the culture, language and psychology of the enemy will ensure that our military leaders have the tools needed to operate in future threat environments. Those emerging threats are becoming increasingly immune to traditional warfare, and we must adapt.

STEVE ISRAEL

Washington

The writer, a New York Democrat, is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Defense.

To the Editor:

Your editorial makes an essential point: The Pentagon has more than enough funding, if only it would spend its resources more wisely. In addition to trimming the F-35, scaling back the administration’s $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization plan, and cutting excess military bases, the Pentagon should dramatically reduce its use of private contractors. The department employs well over 600,000 contractors, many of whom do tasks that duplicate work already being done by government employees.

A recent letter signed by 17 government watchdog groups from across the political spectrum indicates that cutting this work force by 15 percent would save more than $20 billion a year, a portion of which could be used to make up for the alleged shortfalls in training and maintenance that have been used as an argument for boosting the Pentagon’s already ample budget.

WILLIAM D. HARTUNG

New York

The writer is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.

To the Editor:

You write that “defense officials recently reported that 22 percent of all military bases will not be needed by 2019.”

Rather than close them down, why not place them under the administration of agencies that require temporary housing during emergencies (like Hurricane Katrina), reducing the defense budget and at the same time serving real needs at minimal cost.

JACK HERSCHLAG

Woodland Park, N.J.