A new task force led by Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank may recommend $1 trillion in defense cuts over the next decade. Is that a good idea?

As in other spheres of government spending, surely there are some savings to be found in finding efficiencies and removing redundancies. But serious reductions would have to entail cuts either on the human resources side — the troops, that is — or in weaponry and equipment.

Let's start with personnel. For all the talk lately about reducing the size of government, there is surprisingly little discussion about reducing staff in the Defense Department, which employs about 60 percent of federal workers, and provides their salaries, health care and even pensions that can be earned for life after just 20 years service.

But military service ought to be rewarded differently because it is different. Although the majority of soldiers, sailors and Marines have billets that keep them well out of harm's way, military service is different from federal work for, say, the postal service. People serve long hours and often at long distances from family and friends back home. There are restrictions on everything from hairstyles to permissible language.

Indeed, if military service is not competitively compensated (and if thousands of military families are qualifying for food stamps, you wonder), the United States will continue to face the desperate, supply-and-demand choices the Pentagon made this past decade: lowering admission test standards; doubling the number of moral waivers to allow those with criminal backgrounds to enlist; ignoring gang activity within the ranks; invoking "stop loss" provisions to compel those who otherwise completed their service contracts to remain in uniform; and calling National Guardsmen into active, wartime service.

So let's not scrimp on compensation or benefits. The better way to reduce human resource costs is to reduce the total number of personnel needed.

On this score, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — so wrong about the use of force and so cavalier about the realities of invading Iraq — was right about the future of our national defense when he called for a new smaller, lightweight and more technically sophisticated armed services. The wars of the 21st century and beyond will increasingly be fought against nonstate actors and will thus depend more on technology and information and less on ground troops.

Sadly, however, President George W. Bush tried to demonstrate this shift by declaring two 20th century ground wars against two nations, at least one of which was entirely unnecessary. (Tellingly, the $1 trillion the Frank task force aims to save over the next decade is how much we've spent already in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Though not to blame for starting the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, Barack Obama ran for president knowing full well he'd inherit them, and he now must show the courage to end both. Blame aside, the point is that the best way to reduce the size and expense of the active military is to avoid fighting unnecessary ground wars in the first place — or at least to fight them with a proper exit strategy.

As for munitions and equipment, given that Americans believe half of government spending is wasted, where are the rallies on the National Mall protesting redundancies and noncompetitive contracts in the military-industrial complex? The task force is proposing to eliminate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (a move supported by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates) and the Air Force's midair refuel tanker program, and to reduce the U.S. naval fleet by about a fourth. There's probably more that could be cut, but the real political trick is finding programs to eliminate without raising the hackles of the many members of Congress who protect military spending that benefits workers and industries in their home states.

A final point: The United States shouldn't have to shoulder the global defense burden so disproportionately. Although U.S. defense spending as a share of GDP today (about 5 percent) is almost half what it was 50 years ago, America still accounts for nearly half the world's defense spending. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I have to give Glenn Beck credit for raising the issue of our defense budget obligations two months ago on his Fox television show.

We can remain safe with a leaner, more efficient and less costly American fighting machine. Freedom isn't free. But that doesn't mean we have to overpay for it.

Thomas F. Schaller teaches political science at UMBC. His column appears regularly. His e-mail is schaller67@gmail.com.