Something good may yet come from the sequestration idiocy on Capitol Hill: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered a reexamination of military strategy approved last year because budget cuts may force a readjustment of priorities. Let's hope this is the start of a trend.\n\tFor nearly a quarter century U.S. defense policy has been designed to fight an enemy that doesn\u2019t exist, in ways that make less sense with every passing day.\u00a0\n\tIt\u2019s an axiom that generals are always trying to fight the last war. They are seldom prepared for the changes in combat that occurred since the last time they were under fire. Well, the Pentagon is still designed to fight the Soviet Union.\n\tSome examples:\n\t\n\t\tThe United States has\u00a09,000 Abrams M-1 main battle tanks with its\u00a0active forces and 3,000 more in storage. But those tanks are of little use. In the past 50 years America\u00a0fought major wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan; none of which required any significant number of\u00a0tanks. U.S.\u00a0tanks were designed to be deployed in\u00a0Europe to\u00a0counter Soviet tank forces. They are too big to be shipped\u00a0quickly across\u00a0the globe. They consume far too much fuel, and\u2013because they use gas and not diesel\u2013they are especially prone to problems\u00a0in sandy environments.\n\t\n\t\tAmerica has\u00a011 aircraft carrier groups,\u00a0each with\u00a0an aircraft carrier, two guided missile cruisers, two anti-aircraft warships\u00a0and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates. Pardon the pun but this is\u00a0beyond overkill. This would\u00a0only makes sense if the United States were\u00a0facing a naval power of equal or nearly equal size. The next largest navy in this category is Italy. It has\u00a0three carriers. The Chinese have one: A used Russian carrier it acquired\u00a0last year\u2013it is not yet ready to launch aircraft. America\u00a0built the largest, most lethal navy in the history of\u00a0the world to counter the Soviets, who had the largest land-based army in the history of the world. The current American rationale: The carriers\u00a0give\u00a0the United States the ability to "project power"\u00a0anywhere in the world. And yet the U.S. Navy\u00a0can\u2019t stop Somali pirates who use inflatable boats.\n\t\n\t\tThe United States has\u00a0more than 3,000 fighter planes. Russia\u00a0and China, the next two largest air forces, combined have 2,300 fighters. Not only does America\u00a0have more fighters than anyone else, it has\u00a0better fighters than anyone else. It has been more than 40 years since the United States\u00a0lost a fighter in combat. Despite\u00a0numerical and technical superiority, America is\u00a0developing a replacement for its\u00a0current fighters even though it's not needed\u00a0and\u00a0is a terrible plane. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost the U.S. taxpayer nearly $400 billion by the time all 2,500 of them are completed. The current estimated cost of each plane is $162.5 million. They\u00a0will replace the F-16s that\u00a0costs about $45 million each. At one point during its development the F-35 had to be grounded because it could not operate in the rain.\n\n\tOfficially America spends about $561 billion a year on its military. That is more than all the other militaries of the world\u00a0combined,\u00a0and that's a low estimate.\u00a0As David Cay Johnston reported earlier this year, that number excludes things like:\n\t\n\t\t$88.5 billion\u00a0spent\u00a0each year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;\n\t\n\t\t$52 billion spent\u00a0on intelligence gathering;\n\t\n\t\t$19.2 billion to build nuclear weapons;\n\t\n\t\t$10.5 billion for the Coast Guard.\n\n\tThe U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are all constructed and armed around the idea that America will have to defend itself from another major industrial power, even though no such enemy exists or is ever likely to exist.\n\tThe government would like its citizens to believe the Chinese are that enemy. To that end it has been redeploying U.S. military "assets" to the Pacific. It is difficult to make a convincing argument that the Chinese are a military threat and not an economic competitor.\n\tHowever, for the sake of discussion let us say they are. It is militarily impossible for America to stop the Chinese anywhere in mainland Asia. America could not field and supply an army even remotely large enough to contest China. Fortunately the Chinese are awash in way too many internal economic and political problems to even contemplate expanding\u2013if it even made sense to do so in the first place.\n\tAllow me to paraphrase former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who is responsible for severely damaging the U.S. military to no good end): "[Y]ou go to war with the enemy you have. They're not the enemy you might want or wish to have at a later time."