Number Perspective

   NBC News made much of the report that the U.S. would reduce its military to the lowest level since before World War II.
   Sounds scary, but some context is needed, which the network did not provide. Specifically, what was the force level in 1940 compared to the current level?
   To report that the Department of Defense would cut the military by some 450,000 troops is one bit of information, but it does not give before and after numbers. Nor does it say that even after the reduction there would still be at least twice as many military personnel on active duty as there were in 1940.
   The numbers are not hard to find. An ordinary desk reference such as the World Almanac and Book of Facts (my edition is three years old) yields the fact that in 1940, there were 267,767 active duty personnel with the U.S. Army, and that total grew to more than 8 million in 1945. In the year 2010, there were 566,065 Army personnel, out of some 1.4 million personnel on active duty in the U.S. military worldwide.
   Granted, one could do a Google search to find these numbers, but that would involve going to the PC, turning it on, waiting for it to boot itself up, signing on, accessing the Internet, typing in a search term, hoping it's the right term and it yields the desired information. Then the searcher must choose from the many possible sources provided, and browse through a given source to locate the data wanted. All this while assuming you haven't forgotten by this time just what it was you were looking for. Also hoping that the chosen source is reliable.
   Moreover, all this assumes you have a computer. Many folks don't, and in any case the search would distract a TV watcher from the news program, which should have provided the contextual information in the first place.

   All this is not to admit being a technological troglodyte, but to urge news professionals to do a better job of putting new information into a larger context.
   The bottom line is this: Even after reducing the military to "the lowest level since before World War II," American military strength would still be twice what it was in 1940.

    And here's an irony for you: The same GOP conservatives who rant so much about the need to reduce government spending have been virulent in their protests and objections to the proposed reductions -- and consequent cost savings -- in a more streamlined military.
   Sen. Marco Rubio, for example, has been especially vociferous in his objections, warning that the U.S. would be unable to uphold (Read: impose or enforce) its version of democracy throughout the world.
   As if it should, even as there are plenty of issues about democracy and human rights to be settled at home.

   Military contractors, of course, might lose some business if the Defense Department trims its spending, and that may be the real reason behind the protests and objections, in addition to the knee-jerk opposition to anything the present Administration proposes.
   Meanwhile, remember what President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- the former five-star general who supervised the invasion of Normandy -- warned about the "military-industrial complex."
   And lest we forget, the U.S. military wasn't the only force going ashore on D-Day.