Are we spending too much money on the military?

It appears that some generals want to keep buying big, expensive equipment that might have little use in the wars we actually fight:

On Feb. 13, according to today's issue of Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of the Air Force's materiel command, told a group of reporters, "We think that [187 planes] is the wrong number" and that the Air Force would find some way to build 380 before the program's done. He joked that 380 is a "compromise," since the original plan calls for 381.

Two things should be noted about this claim. First, by the Pentagon's own measure, the Chinese military has a long way to go before it constitutes a threat to U.S. forces. Second, even if it does become a threat, it's not at all clear that the F-22 would be the best weapon to deal with it.

It's fair to say this kind of stuff really pisses off the guys who do counterinsurgency, which relies less on multimillion dollar combat systems and more on good, smart, well-trained people.

You could argue that maybe we're spending too much on our defense. Or you could argue that the military, in time of war, is worth every penny. But if that's really, really true, wouldn't we be paying for it instead of running gargantuan deficits? We can't avoid making choices forever.