Parochial Goals of the Military

Edward N. Luttwak (Editorial Pages, Feb. 13) says that the Joint Chief of Staff are too wedded to the military Establishment to make independent judgments. Instead, they express the parochial concerns of the services. Luttwak didn’t say it, but this typifies American thought and action.

We presume that every American has a right to pursue his or her interest. However, not shamelessly. At some point he or she should recognize the rights and welfare of others. So it is with defense groups: it is legitimate for them to pursue their interests, but when it comes to making defense policy, they are supposed to act for the good of us all.

Do they? No more than other interest groups. They are interested in having it all! The fondest dream of every lobbyist and interest group is to receive unimpeded access to the Treasury. The defense groups have accomplished that. Congress and the President have written them a blank check.

What does it take to defend this country? I don’t mean it as a question about armaments. I mean, what do we need to spend? When the economy runs down and our standard of living is decimated by the debt we owe, will that be enough?

I am a child of the ‘50s and I remember well Dwight D. Eisenhower’s presidency. I thought it was dull and uninspired. But in retrospect, I appreciate something: Eisenhower controlled military spending.

How was he able to do it? No President has since. He brought two important attributes to office: (1) he was very popular and greatly trusted, a war hero, and (2) he had strong convictions about military spending. He believed in the dynamism of the economy and didn’t want taxes, deficits, and defense expenditures to undermine it. He knew that Congress and the Joint Chiefs represented parochial interests and he wouldn’t give them the budget they wanted.

Upon leaving office, he expressed doubt that Congress or the President could restrain military spending. He said only the will of the people could stop it.

I keep hoping that Ronald Reagan will emulate Eisenhower’s example, but he’s gone so far in the opposite direction I don’t see how he can.

ERIC STEEL

Oakland