How's this for efficient?

The Secretary of Defense recently gave a press conference to announce reprioritization of the billions of dollars that go into the 'defense' (sic) budget. Buzzwords included budget austerity and 'efficiency.' While acknowleging the gaping fiscal hole that is the federal deficit, and noting DoD can't 'exempt itself from belt tightening,' most of the initiatives listed still amount to rearranging deck chairs. Yes, there are commands that can be eliminated, and reducing the number of flag officers -- particularly in Europe, which is no longer the center of our military universe -- makes sense. But it doesn't address the real elephant in the room:

It's too soon to tell, but reductions in defense spending may demonstrate that it's far less expensive to protect the United States from Islamist terrorism as well as the criminality flooding in from Mexico and Latin America by controlling our borders and immigration. We must, however, stop wasting American blood and treasure on misguided military interventions designed to drag Muslim Arabs and Afghans through the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in the space of a few years, at gunpoint. They will have to do these things themselves. (HT: Vox Day)

I know this much: it'd be great for morale and a whole lot cheaper--due to considerably shorter supply lines--to keep 100,000 troops on our border with Mexico, than it does to keep them playing whack-a-mole in Central Asia. But such a posture would require a true Department of DEFENSE, instead of the current Global Hegemony Project.