I think defense spending should be kept at current levels or increased. According to Richard Perle, in 1981, after ten years of neglect in which defense spending declined by three percent a year had caused a multilane of deficiencies. A massive backlog of crucial maintenance; low pay and morale among our men and women in uniform; shortages of tanks, aircraft, missiles and basic munitions were the situations the United States had gotten itself into. The United States was now ill prepared to meet the challenge of other countries growing military power. .
In 1981, under the Reagan administration, with the support in Congress, set about correcting the deficiencies. The restoration of American strength paid a dividend for larger than anyone imagined and was instrumental in persuading the Soviet leadership that the achievement of military superiority was beyond the reach of the failing Soviet economy and it was key to bringing the Cold War to an end.
According to Anthony Cordesman, even after the lessons learned from pre-Reagan, the United States fell back into the same trap of less defense spending in the late 1990's and look what happened, September 11, 2001. In my opinion, what happened in New York on September 11, 2001 is a direct result of years of less defense spending, and the cutbacks in the budgets of the CIA and FBI as well. The national defense is the first task of the federal government. Too often, defense spending is seen as a competitor to domestic spending. Liberals say that more money for guns means less for education and health care. But our ability to protect our lives, our independence, and ourselves is precondition for providing any of these other things.
Yet even after the reminder of September 11, 2001, we are still short-changing defense. President Bush's proposed $48 billion dollars increase in defense spending for next year falls short of our military needs.