Guns as butter?

First of all, I should begin with a thanks to Oppenheimer, von Braun, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others for their efforts to build and field weapons that have finally ended major war between nation states. Despite ongoing and widespread civil wars and border conflicts in the developing world, there is a growing list of countries that do not fear invasion or even widespread bombing because they can provide a credible threat of nuclear retaliation. That is no small thing, and those of us who live under a comfortable nuclear umbrella should be thankful.

However, that does not mean large military forces are unnecessary. ICBMs and nuclear bombs might keep major combat to a minimum, but they do nothing to prevent, as former Marine Corps Commandant Krulak put it, the "stepchildren of Chechnya" from reaping havoc. The solution to this problem is often referred to as finding a Comprehensive Approach, one that integrates the military, diplomacy and economy of a state or international body to direct the course of a nation or state abroad.

This is known as "armed social work", in the 1990's as DIME, more recently as COIN, and here I'll call it "Guns as Butter." In the typical guns vs. butter model, social work, economic development and primary education are social goods that compete with the military for public funds. Most conservatives argue heavily in favor of buying "guns", as these provide security, as opposed to the wishy-washy notions of a Great Society. However, the primary application of our "guns" since WWII has been to try and spread "butter" across the rest of the world. The irony of this is not lost on organizations such as the Center for Complex Operations, but the magnitude of the problem prevents much laughter.

To be fair, this model has its domestic applications as well. The recent fight over the F-22 is a great example, as almost every defense of the program included the word "jobs" and only a resolute few claimed there was a military need for thirteen more of the jets. Most defense contractors publish advertisements citing how widespread their sourcing is for major weapons systems, clearly to encourage Congress spread a little "gun butter" around their districts. Militarily, a supply chain that stretches across CONUS is much more vulnerable to attack, or even natural disaster, than a centralized one. Socially, this is invaluable for providing demand for technology workers around the country.

This post is not a criticism of this arrangement. Certainly, I have and continue to personally benefit from it to a large degree. However, we're in a bad fiscal position, and this is unsustainable. David Brooks suggests that this is The Next culture War. I certainly hope so.