Defense Secretary Robert Gates deserves credit for a speech he made earlier this month suggesting that the United States needs to spend less money when it comes to the Pentagon budget. And Gates wants the hundreds of billions of dollars that are spent to be spent more wisely.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. defense spending has nearly doubled. Some of that increase is understandable, given the many threats to the homeland. It's also worth noting that the $549 billion annual defense budget does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gates gave his speech at the Eisenhower Library in Kansas, and his message brought to mind President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the power of the military-industrial complex.

In his speech, Gates suggested that America can be more secure by spending less money, but spending it more wisely. He countered his critics' predictable responses by asking, "Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to our allies and partners?"

He wondered, "Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?"

Most Americans know that defense spending is too often seen as a bottomless money pit for military contractors. Politicians tend to cloak any and all defense spending as vital to national security, regardless of the costs or what the military says it needs or even if a weapon works.

What really matters to most defense contractors and their sponsors in Congress is more military spending and more corporate profits, not more national security.

More than once, news reports have told the strange tale of the Pentagon saying it didn't need or want a particular fighter jet, helicopter or battleship, yet Congress forced funding and production — all backed by the urging and campaign contributions of defense contractors.

Additional congressional support for weapons the Pentagon does not want comes when defense contractors break down production so that different components are made in factories in multiple states. Then, the argument is not about effective defense spending, it is about saving or creating jobs. And since jobs gain more votes than prudent spending of taxpayers' dollars, the waste goes on.

Defense spending is rarely looked at with a critical eye. And for that reason, Gates is courageous in talking about trimming defense spending, thinning the defense bureaucracy and evaluating weapons systems on their effectiveness — not the political clout behind them.

But, as is usually the case with government spending, Gates is not talking about actually cutting spending. He is just trying to slow the rate of growth to 2 or 3 percent above inflation. Still, it's a challenge.

Gates is looking at both big and and small savings. He suggested savings can be found in health care, noting that military retirees, often with other jobs, pay only $38 a month, an amount unchanged for 15 years, according to the New York Times.

There is little doubt that lobbyists for defense contractors and even some active or retired military groups will push back against Gates, suggesting any restraint in defense spending will weaken the country. That's nonsense, and Gates should continue his battle against the military-industrial complex, beholden politicians and other critics.

As much as some defense contractors have enjoyed the open-checkbook approach to military spending in recent years, the country can't afford it any longer. Gates argues that the U.S. cannot continue this kind of spending and warns that he plans to shut off the "gusher" of defense spending.

If he's successful, Gates will have distinguished himself in a way that few other defense secretaries have, by rationalizing U.S. defense spending, which is too often irrational and wasteful and motivated more by politics than by military needs.