A smaller military. It seems like our nation has been sold on the general idea of a smaller military now for as far back as I can remember. Both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike, have been pushing and plotting, positioning and lobbying to close military bases, privatize operations, reduce the ranks.

Why, I wonder?

It seems to me that the military keeps getting assigned bigger and broader duties while the global picture gets more complex, if not more dangerous.

The Reserves get sent to Iraq.

The National Guard goes off to patrol the border with Mexico. Meanwhile the Iran situation simmers.

And let's not even get into the Korea discussion.

And like every year, hurricane season is just around the corner.

I think we've been sold a bill of goods on both sides of the political aisle.

I've done no research whatsoever on the topic of a leaner military. But my ears perk up when I hear over and over that the troop levels in Iraq have been inadequate from day one. I wince when I read account after account that we are extending the stays of troops, or keeping folks on the line that otherwise would be eligible to retire. When new areas of conflict or need are discussed the word "overextended" surfaces immediately. And it's no wonder.

Other than cost, what's wrong with the idea of a robust military?

Export democracy, protect the oppressed, secure our national interests... it seems that no matter what the stated mission is, it takes people in uniform, lots of them, to do the job.

I don't like the sound of a lean military. I prefer the ring of ample, or able.

Sometime after Vietnam, it simply became fashionable to look at the military as something to reduce.

I suppose in the short term it's all about the money. Corporations lobby Congress to sell the government the stealth and the sleek, the shiny and the silent of jets and bombs and things that go kaboom.

Only the brass lobby for filling the ranks.

But knocking at the door, AARP needs and needs and needs, no matter what. The biggest lobby in the entire nation demands entitlement.

I'm certain this must sound naive, but why wouldn't national defense be the first and foremost "given" in the nation's big picture agenda?

From the accounts of what is going on in Iraq, it sounds like the secret weapon of the U.S. is the men and women in uniform who touch lives.

Lean and mean with fancy machine, that doesn't sound like a plan to reach people, to make impressions, to change lives.

I heard a program on the radio recently about the local impact of base closings on the community left behind. What struck me was the positive ripple effect that a military base represents in the way of opportunity and economy.

The military route for career or employment has always presented a unique opportunity for folks to get ahead, to challenge and to grow. A choice, the military route has always represented a choice.

As a taxpayer, I think more military and less regulatory is the way to go.

I know folks want the government to protect them from every single bothersome telemarketer and each and every slippery swindler. "There ought to be a law," we chant in the face of unpleasantries.

But first, before all this, before entitlement and before annoyance, shouldn't we be glad and grateful to write the first check out to our national defense?