A response to radical reductionism

I found this [1] post over at the Daily Kos calling for an immediate 50% reduction of military spending. While I am all in favor of reducing our propensity towards violence, I am a firm believer that our capacity to wage war is an extension of our peacetime politics, not a direct result of the existence of a large military (really they are one and the same).

So I disagree. Not that I think the budget should be reduced, but that the purpose of our military is to keep us safe from harm. In fact, I can think of at least two other reasons.:

The first is that our inflated economy depends critically upon our taxpayer subsidized defense contractors making tons of money for unnecessary weapons systems (e.g. missile defense that most agree won't work - even if it does). Without this stimulation of our economy, we would be in for some drastic changes (albeit positive in the long run).

The second reason is that we have so long been the top military spender that to suddenly pull back now would certainly leave us in a far less hegemonic position to dictate global policy. It's like that game "king of the hill" I used to play when I was a kid - the only person the other kids try to knock off is the one at the top. A sudden drawdown would certainly invite challenges from those that we’ve been kicking around and suppressing for so long.

I think a more sensible plan would be to change the nature through which we appropriate military funding, beginning with the creation of a department of peace at the DOD whose responsibilities would include humanitarian aid, proactive intervention in failing states, the support of pre-existing democratic uprisings, focus on human security (AIDS, poverty, clean water), etc.

Of course, I don't know that people with guns are in the best position to be running the show. Certainly a strong civilian oversight would be critical in preventing this from becoming just another arm of the military (i.e. invading and occupying Iraq in the name of promoting democracy), but it at least provides us with a first step towards a gradual reduction of military spending while simultaneously reducing the need for an active military defense.