Last Thursday while discussing the annual defense spending bill, Arizona Republican Rep. Martha McSally called for a move that was passed "unanimously by voice vote."

McSally's proposal to "help us guide reprioritization of defense spending" suggested spending could be saved if the military were to "limit all military ensemble performances at social functions outside official military duties," which, the Military Times explicated, "would include dances, parties and dinners held mainly for entertainment purposes."

At first glance, the idea sounds obvious and financially savvy. However, it is dangerous conjecture — most notably because that's not how military bands function.

Presently, if you see military bandsmen performing as representatives of the military (meaning they are in uniform or other identifying apparel), they are on duty, and they are performing military functions. Whether they are playing at a Military Ball or Commander's ambassadorial dinner at his/her personal residence, their presence has been deemed significant enough to be considered a military mission.

However, the amendment proposes to drastically alter the meaning of "official military duties."

A Primer On Military Musicians

Military bandsmen do not provide music in addition to other jobs allocated by the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard or Air Force. These men and women are active duty musicians. Their military occupational specialties (referred to as MOSs in the Army and Marines) are military musicians.

For example, within the Army, they are 42 Romeos (42R). They are not Infantrymen-Who-Pick-Up-A-Tuba-To-Play-For-A-Ball-And-Collect-More-Money. They are professionals trained as active duty military. They survived boot camp; future U.S. Army trumpeters (42R) crawling through the mud alongside your future motor transport operator (88M) and your future petroleum supply specialist (92F) and your future counterintelligence agent (35L).

They must maintain the military standard of fitness. They must qualify on their weapons. They must go through the same promotion boards and procedures as every other active duty military member.

So Much More Than 'Entertainment'

Military bandsmen cannot gig as military representatives for outside pay, nor are they compensated for missions outside of the normal duty day. If you see them, it's official business. Even if you are there for entertainment purposes. Even if it's outside the typical workday. If those men and women are performing as representatives of their military band, they are there in a professional capacity and are not using money allocated to other military spending.

"For every dollar that is spent on our bands to entertain at social functions, that's a dollar we're not spending on national security and our troops and families," McSally said last Thursday.

But, again, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

The money allocated to military musicians covers instruments, uniforms and travel expenses; according to the DoD estimates, this comes out to approximately $437 million. There are thousands of active duty military musicians: The Army fields 33 bands; the Marines, 10; the Navy, nine; the Air Force, 10. When put within context, $437 million is pocket change.

And, these men and women are busy. For example, the Army's 1st Armored Division Band stationed at Fort Bliss executes over 1,000 missions annually.

The "dollar that is spent […] to entertain at social functions" is the same very dollar that was used for the bugler to play at seven veterans' funerals earlier that day. No extra money is allocated to "entertainment attire" or "entertainment instruments." Regarding travel, a.) the overwhelming majority of military musician travel spend is not a significant portion of their budget and b.) an even more minute portion is dished out to travel to and from the more "social entertainment" performances (with premiere bands being an exception).

"McSally said many military band performances could be backfilled by civilian bands, freeing up defense funds for more pressing priorities," the Military Times wrote. However, who do you think pays for civilian bands to fill the same function? So, instead of utilizing military professionals, at no additional cost, McSally proposes spending money on civilians to perform for military functions. Civilian musicians won't play for free, despite her claims that "the USO and civilian bands would love to fill the role." Nor will they be as easy to work with as military bandsmen. Just consider any other contracted work, and it quickly becomes clear why this idea is less than ideal and ultimately would not be a money-saving venture.

The Amendment

The initial coverage of the amendment made it sound like McSally was merely proposing to do away with missions deemed too social or too entertain-y. The official rhetoric, however, is much more severe, and would prevent military bands from utilizing funding for anything beyond "ceremonies, funerals, honoring the fallen, and playing taps." Furthermore, the wording of the amendment, when read against the current code (10 U.S. Code § 974), would also disallow military bandsmen from performing their diplomatic and community service duties.

The newly released transcript of the minutes reads in part, "We should be recruiting warriors, but the Army Web site is targeting people to play music for a living. Don't get me wrong; I believe the bands play an important role. Let me tell you, in my 26 years in the military, I used to be at Christmas parties with the wing commanders and generals, and we would have Active-Duty military entertaining us, and it bothered me then."

"[I]n this year's NDAA, we asked for detailed information on the size and cost of all bands across the military. While we wait for this information, this amendment will inform the military that Congress desires them to use defense dollars on defense."

"Let's be clear, this is not an attack on the arts."

Final Thoughts

These musicians' jobs are to play their instruments. Through their support and rallying, their outreach and ambassadorial responsibilities here and abroad, they are doing their job — it is not a distraction from the mission, nor would they be "defending their country" in another way.

"This is not an attack on the arts," McSally said, "I care deeply about the arts […] While our communities certainly do enjoy being entertained by our military bands, they would prefer to be protected by our military."

With all due respect, Congresswoman, the military bands providing comfort to the families of the fallen, performing for the community, playing concerts for deployed troops — these acts far supersede "entertainment" and are not detracting from providing protection or national security. In many ways, their presence at these highly visible events enables your security.

As explained* by one military musician,

"We do much more for diplomacy and peace than McSally throwing away millions upon millions of dollars trying to upgrade something that won't be used and will become obsolete in a few years."

Another military musician* posted on a White House petition,

"For hundreds of years, community outreach by Military bands has played a critical role in securing support from the public, both at home and abroad. Whether it's in a parade, a collaboration with local school music programs or a 4th of July concert in the park, it has always been the responsibility of Military bands to promote the Armed Forces' message of preserving 'freedom in peace,' as well as to inspire a sense of national pride, fellowship, and common loyalty [...] this will mark the 'beginning of the end' for Military bands and over 240 years of American tradition. If you have ever experienced one of these great bands, then you know their remarkable ability to unite people in support of our common interest."

In a recent blog titled "A False Dichotomy: Military Bands vs. National Security," Lt. Col. Robinson* wrote,

"No providing entertainment at key leader engagements between U.S. and foreign leaders. No performing for deployed troops. Just ceremonies and military funerals. Apparently, that's all we're good for according to the House of Representatives. Why, you may ask? To save money.

"The people who think limiting military bands to ceremonies and funerals is a good idea have no idea what we do for senior leaders, combatant commanders, service members, or the American people. For almost 18 years, I have witnessed firsthand the power of military bands. We make Americans feel good about their military and their country; we create connections between cultures; we set the stage for strategic talks; we bridge the gap; we provide context; we help people celebrate and we help people mourn. Good luck replacing us."

Everyone fulfills their duty as protectors of this great nation by adhering to their specialty. Mechanics, infantry, medics, musicians...it is through their music these active duty soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen work as important cogs within the greater machine that is our United States military. By reaching out to the community, engaging members of other nations when deployed, our musicians bring humanity to our military.

*Disclosure: Quotes have been edited for length and clarity.