I know all of that. That's the academic and logical reasons, but the failure for "fiscally conservative" GOP consistency in this area goes beyond the academic reasons and straight to the emotionally illogical and fear-based.
We agree here -- you don't have a military as large as ours without finding "necessary" reasons to use it. I'd argue that the heart of it though is a fear-based mentality that sees potential danger around every corner, thus the need to keep building up military resources. And when you have a hammer like that every problem becomes a nail & the fear becomes a self-fulfilling system...which is neither conservative fiscally nor an actual resolution to issues.
It could be argued that those with such a heavy military emphasis don't want to actually engage in conflict. Perhaps they want to engage in violence and war, but not the actual conflict; military operations and war itself doesn't actually address the root conflict, because the issue becomes about destroying an opponent, not about figuring out the deeper issue that led to the war and having the necessary conflict of ideas and systems to resolve the conflict. While necessary at times, it's not "the" answer that our already huge military suggests it to be.
TheForge wrote:
I already told you why. Think of the military like the republicans version of public education, except more effective in general.
The republicans make up 3 basic core constituencies (yes, they can be subdivided), but you have fiscal hawks, social conservatives and war hawks. There is generally more overlap between these groups than any sort of democrat voter, but all support a strong military, just differ in opinions on how much. But it is foolish to think that social conservatives give a shit about fiscal conservatism as a voting block or war hawks. Have you heard of a war that McCain, Graham or Rubio wouldn't commit us to with billions in cost, meanwhile bitching about spending on other programs. The problem I have with having such a greatly powerful military above all others, is than these assholes say what "what good is having such a big military if we don't use it".
Yes, next to entitlement, defense is the largest cost. And because all republicans generally support being the strongest military power, 2 out of three who don't believe in fiscal restraint when it comes to the military, tends to drown out any sort of dissent. Rand Paul tried that only to be personally accosted by John McCain in the hall way. Too many constituencies are depending on military spending whether it is contractors or the military itself that it is impossible to reign it in. Do you want to vote on a bill that cuts spending and closes a base in your district with thousands of jobs that will simply go to another state? Do you want to force Lockheed, L3 com, Boeing, or any other contractor to cut a specific model without a replacement? It is no mystery why nearly every congressional district has at least one major military contractor as a major employer. Nearly every city I have lived in had strong ties to the military.
1. Virginia Beach - switches between largest and second largest concentration of military bases in the world. Also home to several navy ship builders (Lockheed, etc.)
2. Washington DC/NOVA - well that doesn't count, but that explains why the two richest counties are the suburbs of DC.
3. Orlando & Tampa - Had major offices from Lockheed (the largest non-local gov't or hospitality employer in central florida), Harris, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Knight Armament, etc. NASA was close by, so shared resources. Centcom and SOCCOM were headquartered in Tampa at McDill AFB.
4. Arizona - Tazer, Luke AFB, Raytheon, Honeywell Aerospace, General Dynamics, etc, etc, etc.