Former Secretaries of Defense James Schlesinger and Harold Brown argue that the United States needs to increase defense spending dramatically (BDN, Dec. 23-24). They say the U.S. military has “an obsolescent force” and cite a study showing the need for large amounts of money to replace “obsolescent aircraft, ships and tanks.”

The word “obsolescent” means going out of use, becoming progressively less useful and less able to compete with something more recent. Yet their commentary does not name even a single type of American ordnance that fits this description, and they say the U.S. military is “far superior to any other.” The Schlesinger-Brown commentary is vague in other ways. They say more money is needed for “current demands and new priorities,” but they name none. There is no mention of a single specific foreign threat. They urge more spending on “foreign assistance” without specifying the type (military, economic, both, other). They even cite the need for a careful review of current new military programs with a view toward reducing their number, but they offer no suggestions of what should be reduced.

They say nothing about the need to spend more of the military budget on meeting terrorist threats and preventing nuclear proliferation, and they make only a slight bow to the need for greater diplomatic efforts. There is no mention of the United Nations and its peacekeeping capabilities.

I’m impelled to wonder whether these men believe the United States should bestride the world like a colossus, continuing our present policy of being able to fight two major wars simultaneously without allies. We need new thinking.

Karl K. Norton

Bangor