Funding to Win

Giuliani on his plan to expand the military:

…[one]voter asked Giuliani what spending he would cut to make up for the increase in the military budget. He explained his plan to trim the federal workforce by not replacing workers who retire and to ask most federal agencies to scale back their budgets. “It’s essentially the same model I followed as mayor of New York City. I increased police, because we had a big crime problem. So I would increase the military, because we have a problem of terrorist threats,” he said. “I also increased teachers … but I reduced everything else.”

I’ve had more than one bourbon fueled debate with liberal colleagues on whether or not you can beat a hostile ideology with increased defense spending. Reagan seemed to think so, though al Qaeda isn’t going to bankrupt itself trying to achieve military parity with the United States, which–as my friends point out–is how the Soviet Union imploded. But just because increased defense spending isn’t going to work in the exact same way as the Cold War model doesn’t mean that it won’t work at all. Conquering territory and holding territory are two different things. Holding ground is what beats insurgencies, but we only have numbers to conquer. Ten additional BCTs could easily change that, particularly in Afghanistan, which is in need of a surge of its own. Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain all have the right idea with their revitalization plan. Fund the war as if you want to win the war. Otherwise, you’ll be condemned to fighting it forever.

Related Content