What are the 'big changes' in the defense budget that progressive-minded folks should cheer?

[bigtree]

We're caught up in a dynamic where the republicans are so far off in their criticism of the defense budget that many Democrats have made themselves content with defending the budget against those ridiculous attacks and shying away from any substantive criticism at all.

Many responses to criticisms here like to point to articles and assessments which tout the 'historic' nature of the budget omissions and cuts, but all I see when I look at the way the Pentagon has prepared the budget pie is over $20 billion in new spending requests above last years budget. I see the big increases in vet and active duty health, housing, and other benefits and needs. Those items, however, don't make up the bulk of the spending.

There are still multi-billions in orders for new carriers and fighters (albeit in reduced numbers from the last budget and the elimination of some weapon systems and technology). There is still an obsession with the 'missile defense' regime (albeit with some cuts to certain applications within that program) and no sign that the U.S. is going to abandon the provocative plan to ring Russia with missile systems.

Moreover, there's an open effort to codify the type of regime-change/ nation-building militarism that Gates and his fellow Bush holdovers have been allowed to formulate into U.S. foreign policy. It's one thing to go ahead and give Gates and Co. what they say they need for the Afghanistan mission, but it's quite another thing to allow the Pentagon to feather their resources to make these types of military overthrows effortless in their expense and preparation.

I'd be satisfied to find that it's untenable for the U.S. to prosecute and maintain the types of occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan that we've been saddled with. I don't want to make it easier. Most of the reasons for the Pentagon and administration re-thinking of their militarism has had to do with the costs and effects on our defensive forces.

The type of warfare Gates and Co. are angling to sell us in their budget is a slippery slope for our military into an offensive posture which is indeed a big change from our defensive posture we've maintained against the potential threat from a rouge state or aggressor nation. There is also a striking disregard for the sovereignty of other nations in the way of our strident advance across their borders, and a curious resignation to fear in the assumptions of the prevalence of military confrontations in the future which would require the same types of anti-democratic military actions.

But, to the point of the op, I wonder what folks here see as the 'big changes' in this increase in defense spending? I've read the articles and opinions of Democrats who are defending the budget against outrageously false claims and complaints. What I'd like to know is what changes individuals have identified in this budget as progressive or worthy of uncritical support?

I'll admit that I'm baffled by the support for this $530 billion defense budget from many Democrats who once excoriated the Bush administration for similar levels of spending. All I see is a host of unnecessary militarism supported by this budget, with a host of dubious justifications for it's need and efficacy. What SPECIFICALLY makes this defense spending (which is hundreds of billions higher than that of our closest adversaries) worthy of Democratic or progressive support?