From Friday’s Washington Post:

This might be one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever read arguing against cutting defense spending. He actually tries to make a case saying that drawing down the size of the military during peacetime is a primary factor in starting of new wars. Seriously, there are so many fallacies in his argument that I don’t even know where to begin.

Impact of past defense cuts should warn of risks

After World War I, our armed forces shrank from 2.9 million men in 1918 to 250,000 in 1928. The result? World War II became more likely and its early battles more costly. Imagine how Hitler might have acted in 1939 had several hundred thousand American troops been stationed in France and Poland. Under such circumstances, it is doubtful he would ever have launched his blitzkrieg. Likewise, Japanese leaders might have thought twice about attacking Pearl Harbor if their homeland had been in imminent danger of being pulverized by thousands of American bombers and their fleet sunk by dozens of American aircraft carriers.