How do they stack up? Or, more specifically, which candidate wants to undo 16 uninterrupted years of cuts to our Armed Forces? All of them, actually (sans weird Ron Paul). An overview of their defense proposals follows, but I think the best prescription comes from Fred Thompson. All of the candidates seem to recognize that Rumsfeld’s lighter force concept has failed and that some sort of revitalization effort is long overdue, but only Thompson properly outlines the scope of the problem and the appropriate fix. Rudy’s 10 additional BCTs, 300 ship navy, and force modernization plan is a step in the right direction–it’s a strong showing from the mayor. McCain would be an outstanding wartime leader (the best of the lot, in my opinion), but he opted to go with a broad overview instead of specifics. I liked Romney’s proposal to trim down the Pentagon bureaucracy but–when describing the details–he sounded like..well, a bureaucrat. Huckabee surprised me. I had to dig for it, but the governor wants to go back to Reagan-era defense spending, with the Pentagon racking in a full 6 percent of the GDP. Great plan, though I’m unsure he understands what he’s saying. We’re at 3.9 percent GDP for defense right now, nearly doubling that number without raising taxes sounds like a fool’s errand. That makes Fred’s plan seem more reasonable and calculated, and Huck sound like he’s just throwing money at the problem. Here are the specifics:

Mitt Romney: