Distinguishing Defense
Many folks are not that comfortable with the idea of working in or for the military. Yes, at some level we all support armies via paying taxes, selling them food, teaching their kids, etc., but the more direct their support the more uncomfortable many folks get. For example, actually stabbing enemy soldiers on the front line is more direct than most of us prefer. No doubt this discomfort at directness deprives armies of the support of many talented folks.
Some military folks I know emphasize that their efforts are primarily defensive; they help resist enemy attack and protect civilians from harm. They are clearly asking not to be treated as if they were just an average part of the military machine. But I wonder: why don’t we make it easier for such people to show that their efforts are mainly defensive. Why don’t more parts of the military, and more military contractors, officially distinguish themselves as more emphasizing defense over offense? Why can’t I work for a particular “defense” contractor with a clear reputation for only working on the defensive side of war?
Now it is true that in this case orgs that did not explicitly identify as defensive would look more offensive, making some folks less willing to associate with them. But many a brash young man is eager to show he is a front-line fighter, so there might be overall sorting gains from making this distinction. Is it that those who run our military hate the idea of officially acknowledging and accomodating citizens who don’t offer full unconditional (offense or defense as required) support of our military?
There are a host of reasons making an explicit distinction of this sort would be an awful idea.
First the very fact that you distinguished offensive and defensive military activity carries the strong implicature that you think it's important to draw such a distinction. The message this sends to everyone in the offensive part of the military is that what they are doing isn't honorable, moral and worthy of respect by society but something shameful that needs to be swept under the rug. Remember a huge part of the reason we (our other modern democratic state) can deploy the military as cheaply as it does is because of an implicit societal contract to reimburse soldiers with favorable social status/gratitude.
Also the last thing the military needs is these extra distinctions tripping it up while in the midst of a conflict. You don't want a contractor who is best able to serve a given need unable to do so because of this kind of lack of flexibility. Besides, even during a war of choice like the Iraq war if the public felt that soldiers were dying because some "defensive" employees were refusing to help on the offensive products the backlash would quickly erase the distinction.
Most importantly though because the distinction doesn't make sense. Hell, I don't think the distinction between civilian (whose economic output helps drive the war effort for a modern nation state) and a civilian who got drafted into the military is a sensible one to make much less this distinction.
Headline:
"Obama increases Department of Offense Budget 30%"
That's why.