Why Fund Expensive Weapons for Troops?

Dear Editor,

Recently I learned that my Great Grandfather was a soldier in the American Civil War.
The Civil War had no stealth bombers, no patriot missiles, no kevlar body armor, no computerized armored vehicles or attack helicopters. Yet evidence suggests that soldiers whose medal had been tested in the foxholes fought more valiantly than today's videogame smartbomb jockeys. Interestingly, when defense is discussed today there's no weapons system costly enough, no stealth bombers stealthy enough, and no missile defense that works despite it mega billion dollar price tag.
Instead we see cars with yellow ribbons to "Support Our Troops". We have seen defense contractors literally get contracts (Halliburton )to rebuild infrastucture with no bid contracts before our military had destroyed it in Iraq. We see chicken hawks demanding new and larger defense contracts. $420 Billion dollars is not enough. Yet we cannot defend ourselves from grandmothers with explosive vests.

Issues of defense can be addressed in a number of ways. David didn't need a stealth bomber to defeat Galiath. General Grant did need attack helecopters to defeat General Lee. Greed is usually associated with private sector defense contractors, but I contend that where greed actually resides.
Meanwhile there are thousands of kids around the world who would be happy to just get their hands on an AK-47. In many places in Africa they already have. Yet we are asked to spend more on defense? I fear that as we focus on weapons, we will loose our focus on combat. I also fear that as we continue to sow the seeds of discontentment in our defense contractors, that we will reap what we have sown for many defense budget cycles to come.
Our soldiers should be able to fight just as well with muskets and dry powder. When taxpayers send our troops out to fight and die, it shouldn't cost us an arm and a leg.