The American military establishment may be the largest bureaucracy in the world. To argue against bureaucracy per se is to make an argument which applies to all bureaucracies. So why do the people making these arguments against bureaucracy almost always leave out the military? How is it that anti-government conservatives so often miss the relevance of their arguments to what is often their most cherished bureaucracy? And why does the anti-militaristic left almost never seek to apply the conservative argument against all bureaucracies to the one it likes the least?. It is a truism amongst conservatives that government agencies are self-perpetuating. Instituted to meet some urgent need, these agencies develop bureaucracies which lobby to meet an ever growing number of needs, including their own. Forced into political maneuvers to secure their existence, such agencies rarely function effectively and efficiently. Rather, because they are so often the tools of politicians seeking re-election, the wrong programs tend to be supported in the wrong places, at the wrong times. Moreover, the size of these agencies makes their employees a substantial voting block which might rally behind any politician who would support them. With their tendency toward growth and self-protection, bureaucracies have a way of burning cash that is often astounding. The bigger the bureaucracy the badder the bills.