Sen. Rand Paul is a Different Kind of Republican. He will drag    the party, kicking and screaming, toward a new kind of    conservatism that appeals more to todays youth, who embrace    liberty and are skeptical of foreign intervention. The    millennials     will flock to him. Rand Paul also would like you to know        that the Pentagon must keep buying Tomahawk missiles.  
    Thats the thesis of Pauls column at Breitbart.com, which    begins with a pledge of allegiance to Ronald Reagans policy    of Peace through Strength. Paul is outraged that the Obama    administrations latest budget calls for the Department of    Defense to buy fewer new Tomahawk missiles in 2015, and then no    missiles at all after that. While the eventual zeroing out of    Tomahawk procurement has yet to make much of an impact in the    mainstream press,     the right-wing media has been     bubbling with outrage on the subject     for days already.  
    Pauls Op-Ed makes more sense if you believe, as he implies,    that Obama plans to get rid of all Tomahawk missiles,    rather than that his Defense Department plans to stop buying    new ones. This is a mistake and will weaken our defenses,    Paul says. There are reportedly no plans to replace it with    another comparable weapon, or any weapon, for that matter.    (This    is, obviously, untrue.)  
    Wait, isnt Paul supposed to be the libertarian    anti-interventionist Republican? The only one who is actually    serious about cutting the size of the government,    including the bloated military budget? He is, yes, but    that doesnt make him some hippie.  
        Nobody wants to cut spending, including Pentagon waste and        abuse, more than me. I agree with former Chairman of the        Joints Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen who has said that the        greatest threat to our national security is the national        debt.      
        But I dont want to cut weapons that have been integral to        maintaining a strong military.      
        We should retain our strength and strategic advantages        while looking for ways to reform the Pentagon and cut        waste.      
      Here we see Paul trying to thread the needle by adopting a      form of the Obama wants us to be weak argument that is      compatible with his oft-stated belief that       defense spending can be (and should be) deeply cut without      harming our national defense. That position, along with      his general dove-ishness, is what makes him a unique figure      among modern Republicans, who have long been hypocrites on      the subject of government spending. But that position is also      what may make Paul open to attacks for being weak on national      defense in a Republican presidential primary contest. So here      is his bumper sticker solution: Cut waste, not missiles.    
      Paul then links to       Sen. Tom Coburns exhaustive study of what Sen. Tom      Coburn believes the Pentagon should not be spending money on.      Its an interesting document, and worth reading. Coburn is      one of the few Washington Republicans who is quite sincere in      his (completely wrongheaded) belief that the national debt is      a severe problem that must be dealt with by any means      necessary, including the gutting of popular programs and      agencies. Coburns report finds that a lot of Pentagon      research grants fund scientific studies that are only      tangentially related to defense. DARPA spends a (poorly      overseen) fortune on pie-in-the-sky sci-fi research. The      Pentagon is funding a few very expensive elementary schools      on American soil for reasons dating back to the era of legal      segregation. It operates a massive chain of domestic grocery      stores and commissaries as a legacy of a program that perhaps      made more sense in the 19th century.    
      So there is indeed a ton of non-defense-related stuff (or      waste in Coburn-speak) in the Pentagon budget. That is      because after years of conservative deficit hysteria combined      with belligerent warmongering, it eventually became easier to      fund stuff that our elected representatives feel the      government ought to fund  including scientific research and      development in a variety of fields  by saying it was vital      to our national security and sticking it in the sacrosanct      Pentagon budget. Maybe the Pentagon shouldnt fund some of      these things. But many of these things also keep a lot of      civilians and veterans employed, and they are funding a great      deal of scientific research. Coburn says that other agencies      should fund the non-defense programs the Pentagon currently      funds. But in this political environment, the more likely      outcome of taking these things out of the Pentagon budget is      that they will not be funded at all.    
Read more: 
Rand Paul loves Tomahawk missiles