Daniel Drezner deserves credit for addressing arguments that link military primacy to economic benefits, which are typically considered only indirectly in the security studies subfield.1 Any plan for future U.S. military spending would profit from a thorough understanding of (1) whether primacy provides economic benefits that offset its costs, and if not, (2) whether other benefits that it provides may be worth those costs. Drezner does not adequately establish the former argument, however, and he tries to dismiss the latter despite acknowledging the significant security benefits of primacy. Drezner advocates “deeper cuts” in U.S. military spending (p. 79), but ultimately provides little in his article to help readers determine whether making such cuts would be a good decision.
My critique proceeds in three sections. The first lays out four core flaws that undermine Drezner's analysis: (1) stretching the concept of military primacy, (2) drifting across several distinct research questions,...