Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?

[champ2823]

I read this article and pretty much agree 100% with its synopsis. What do you guys think about this?
The Troops Don’t Defend Our Freedoms
by Jacob G. Hornberger
How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It’s even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
Unfortunately, it just isn’t so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite – the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
Let’s examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:
1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify” the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.
After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed to conquer and “pacify” a country as large and well-armed as the United States.
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
2. Terrorists
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government, and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting us from “the terrorists,” it is the troops themselves – or, more precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out – that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the troops say they are now needed to protect us.
Think back to 1989 and the years following – when the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didn’t know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old “official enemy” was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America’s “ally” that had “liberated” Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it in existence?
The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. “We can be a big help in the war on drugs,” the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S. military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the U.S.-Mexican border. “We’ll help American businesses compete in the world.” “We’ll readjust NATO’s mission to protect Europe from non-Soviet threats.” “We’ll protect us from an unsafe world.”
Then along came the Pentagon’s old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, and gave America’s standing army a new raison d’être. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last for more than 10 continuous years.
Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to attack Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated – spreading deadly infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced what was possibly the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said were “worth it.” Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis, including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis – that is, people whose worst “crime” was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.
All that death and destruction – both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 – have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States, which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces today.
Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president – that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S. government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for its “freedom and values.”
If the American people had dismantled the nation’s standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a “war on terrorism” for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks on the same target – the World Trade Center, first in 1993 and then again in 2001.
3. The federal government
As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our freedom lies with our own government. That’s in fact why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – to protect us and our freedoms from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer: its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed a standing, professional military force in America – they knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and obedient citizenry at home.
Consider the words of James Madison:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Here’s how Patrick Henry put it:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?
Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?

 

[champ2823]

There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he would.
As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution,” in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.
What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate them in military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt that most of the troops would willingly obey the president’s orders, especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency” because they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.
Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling Padilla a “terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take him into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest? How many have publicly announced, “I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?
Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president’s orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?
If the troops didn’t protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,” or 1,000?
I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,” especially in the midst of a “crisis” or “emergency.”
And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.
Now it’s true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?
Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”
Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?
The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president’s orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.
The solution
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war against another nation – and that he has the means – a loyal and obedient army – to exercise that power. President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn’t need its approval. His position was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief’s position was that he did not need the consent of Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen whom the president labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees – and that he has the means – a loyal and obedient army – to exercise that power.
Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.
There is one – and only one – solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” – well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon’s enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.
“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms be protected?”
Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover, dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred against our nation – anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.
What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much like invading Switzerland – like swallowing a porcupine. Don’t forget that the men and women who currently serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn’t disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever threatened by invasion by a foreign power.
We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity that would result from the dismantling of America’s enormous standing army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well, instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people’s earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make our nation stronger.
What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors? The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at least one nation that would accept them – the United States of America. Rather than police the world, Americans would focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as a model for the world and to which those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.
Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do so.
We should also bear in mind the perverse results of the federal government’s military empire and overseas interventions. World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions” to foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.
By their fruits, you shall know them.
One vision – the vision of militarism and empire – will bring America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of freedom. The other vision – the vision of a limited-government, constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers – would put our nation back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.
October 22, 2005
Jacob Hornberger

 

[champ2823]

There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he would.
As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution,” in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.
What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate them in military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt that most of the troops would willingly obey the president’s orders, especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency” because they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.
Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling Padilla a “terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take him into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest? How many have publicly announced, “I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?
Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president’s orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?
If the troops didn’t protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,” or 1,000?
I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,” especially in the midst of a “crisis” or “emergency.”
And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.
Now it’s true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?
Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”
Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?
The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president’s orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.”
Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.
The solution
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war against another nation – and that he has the means – a loyal and obedient army – to exercise that power. President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn’t need its approval. His position was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief’s position was that he did not need the consent of Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen whom the president labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees – and that he has the means – a loyal and obedient army – to exercise that power.
Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president’s orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.
There is one – and only one – solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” – well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon’s enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.
“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms be protected?”
Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover, dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred against our nation – anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.
What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much like invading Switzerland – like swallowing a porcupine. Don’t forget that the men and women who currently serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn’t disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever threatened by invasion by a foreign power.
We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity that would result from the dismantling of America’s enormous standing army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well, instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people’s earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make our nation stronger.
What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors? The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at least one nation that would accept them – the United States of America. Rather than police the world, Americans would focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as a model for the world and to which those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.
Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do so.
We should also bear in mind the perverse results of the federal government’s military empire and overseas interventions. World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions” to foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.
By their fruits, you shall know them.
One vision – the vision of militarism and empire – will bring America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of freedom. The other vision – the vision of a limited-government, constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers – would put our nation back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.
October 22, 2005
Jacob Hornberger

 

[Pengwuino]

Well the guy is wrong right off the bat.

Let's all remember how different the Iraq war is from most other wars in our history. We're trying to go in, bomb them, destroy their government... then work towards them loving us and working with us. In most other wars... you go in, bomb them, destroy their government, and really don't put much into making them like you. Let's take Germany for example because they were actually able to take over countries. After they went in, they weren't trying to get people to like them or see if any Polish people would like to help fight France. Completely different situation here.

And of course, I'm tremendously confused. He says a military is not necessary for the reason that our military is too powerful for another nation to invade. I'll leave you to figure out the logical fallacy here...

I won't bother reading anything more at 2am if their first claim is bogus.

Oh and BTW

No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.

This means he has no idea what he's talking about unless "foreseeable" is say... 2 years maximum.

 

[deckart]

Hmmm, "Don't support (American) troops". After that, I have difficulty giving any credibility to anything else said.

 

[Lisa!]

Well the guy is wrong right off the bat.

Let's all remember how different the Iraq war is from most other wars in our history. We're trying to go in, bomb them, destroy their government... then work towards them loving us and working with us. In most other wars... you go in, bomb them, destroy their government, and really don't put much into making them like you. Let's take Germany for example because they were actually able to take over countries. After they went in, they weren't trying to get people to like them or see if any Polish people would like to help fight France. Completely different situation here.

Perhaps the situation is different, but the result is the same: Hatred
Yeah, no one is going to like the country which's attacked his country because of not good reasons. Do't forget that US attacked Iraq because US president claimed that there are nuclear weapons in Iraq and when they couldn't find anything, they tried to make up another excuse "Freedom of Iraqies!"

PS I admit I thought you were joking at first. and right now I'm doing my best not to laugh and type this post. Just think about it "violence and love", they look funny here and everywhere else when you claim they have anything in common. Sorry can't explain more right now!

 

[russ_watters]

What do you guys think about this?

It's an incoherent, pointless, rambling rant, but...

Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?

No.

Just an FYI, the military has a specific overall purpose right now (and has had it for about 15 years): it is to be capable of fighting two large regional wars (ie, Iraq, 1991) simultaneously.

 

[BobG]

1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify” the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.

No foreign nation has the capability to invade the US because the US has a strong military.

After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed to conquer and “pacify” a country as large and well-armed as the United States.
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.

There's a reason it's so difficult for the US to invade and control a country like Iraq, namely:

Think back to 1989 and the years following – when the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didn’t know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old “official enemy” was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America’s “ally” that had “liberated” Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it in existence? ...
... If the American people had dismantled the nation’s standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a “war on terrorism” for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.

As a nation, the US (while Bush I was President, as a matter of fact) decided to reap the 'peace dividend' and reduce (not eliminate) the size of the active duty military. The Reserves and National Guard would be sufficient to supplement the active duty forces in the event of a world crisis. At the time, invading and controlling other countries wasn't really seen as something the US would be likely to do (hopefully, Iraq will be an isolated exception).

Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer: its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed a standing, professional military force in America – they knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and obedient citizenry at home.

You're right about this. They were very adament about this and held firm on this principle right up until, about 1812, when the US was invaded by a foreign country that burned down the capitol.
A military comprised of 100% part-timers isn't going to scare anyone. They won't have the training and proficiency to compete against a full-time professional military.

 

[BobG]

It's an incoherent, pointless, rambling rant, but... No.
Just an FYI, the military has a specific overall purpose right now (and has had it for about 15 years): it is to be capable of fighting two large regional wars (ie, Iraq, 1991) simultaneously.

Interesting how that purpose has evolved.

It was decided that fighting one large regional war was sufficient and troop size was reduced (what are the odds that two large regional wars would occur at the same time?).

Then it was decided that was unacceptable and that the military should come up with a way to fight one large regional war while maintaining a stalemate in a second regional war. After the first large regional war was complete, the US could win the second large regional war (it worked in WWII). That didn't mean increasing troop size, it meant the military should fight faster and better.

Then they decided a reduced capability was unacceptable, so the purpose was revised back to the original 'fight two large regional wars', once again without increasing force size. In fact, being capable of handling something that's considered unlikely to happen means the troop size can be cut even further.

It's not a totally irresponsible line of thought. The US military has invested in good technology and is fast and deadly. But it's also the reason the US military has serious problems occupying a conquered country - that's a mission that depends on numbers more than technology.

 

[Andre]

The grand strategy of most nations of the world has evolved from survive to prosper. To obtain this, the number of conflicts in the world needs to be minimized. Preventing a stream of homeless refugees and preserving economic prosperity worldwide. Think of the Marshall plan. It's meaningless if you're the only nation in wealth, the others should be too. Only then, a good attention can be given to all the environmental issues.

But that's a hard thing to achieve. Some national leaders have medieval ideas. The population being mere slaves to the glory of the dictator. With this kind of situations conflicts are inevitable. Therefore it's better to listen to Roosevelt. Speak softly but carry a big stick.

And see if you can do something to support your grand strategy on a way to a sustainable world.

 

[Skyhunter]

Hmmm, "Don't support (American) troops". After that, I have difficulty giving any credibility to anything else said.

So you are prejudiced.

 

[jimmie]

I didn't read the text by "champ2823": too much text.

And see if you can do something to support your grand strategy on a way to a sustainable world.

Any "grand strategy" that any "leader" has for any particular nation that does not include addressing all environmental issues so as to preserve a sustainable planet, and thus all individuals from all nations including all "leaders" with a "grand strategy", is a moot strategy that has become redundant.

Hence, a TRUE "grand strategy" would be derived from ALL "leaders" from ALL nations and would include addressing ALL environmental issues so as to preserve OUR sustainable planet for ALL individuals, and being founded upon cooperation, a true grand strategy would NOT include weapons.

Lets put away ALL the weapons and concentrate on saving our dying planet.

 

[Pengwuino]

So you are prejudiced.

So you support the OP's line of thinking.

 

[Art]

They were very adament about this and held firm on this principle right up until, about 1812, when the US was invaded by a foreign country that burned down the capitol.

This was in response to the opportunistic US declaration of war against Great Britain (as Britain's military was tied up fighting Napoleon) and the US invasion of Canada and their burning of Toronto.

 

[Manchot]

No.
Just an FYI, the military has a specific overall purpose right now (and has had it for about 15 years): it is to be capable of fighting two large regional wars (ie, Iraq, 1991) simultaneously.

I think you're wrong. Soldiers are trained to unquestionably follow the orders of superiors, regardless of what they think of them. In fact, most are overzealous about it, as events such as My Lai and Abu Ghraib have shown. If they're ordered to kidnap and/or kill a U.S. civilian, they will do so. They may in theory be sworn to uphold the Constitution, but in practice they uphold their superiors' orders.

Besides, Russ, I think you're misunderstanding how it would work. It would start slowly, with a few people being arrested under some false pretenses. Then, the practice would build from there. So, while the majority of American soldiers would not kill a U.S. civilian if ordered to right now, they would slowly be eased into it. First, they're arresting terrorists. Next, they're arresting people who are a threat to the government. Then, they're arresting people who are threats to the President. Then, they're torturing them. Then, they're killing them. See how that works? In fact, pretty much every dictatorship born from a democracy has evolved in this way. Are you suggesting that the average American soldier's support of the Constitution is somehow greater than the average Roman soldier's support of the Roman Republic (which they were also sworn to uphold)? What happens is that cults of personalities are formed, which opportunistic leaders exploit for their own ends. Caesar had one, Napoleon had one, Stalin had one, Hitler had one, Mao had one, etc. What scares me most is that in my experience, many soldiers today have an excessive devotion to Bush.

And of course, I'm tremendously confused. He says a military is not necessary for the reason that our military is too powerful for another nation to invade. I'll leave you to figure out the logical fallacy here...

I think what the author is advocating is that we keep the military equipment around, but not the soldiers themselves.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think you're wrong. Soldiers are trained to unquestionably follow the orders of superiors, regardless of what they think of them. In fact, most are overzealous about it, as events such as My Lai and Abu Ghraib have shown. If they're ordered to kidnap and/or kill a U.S. civilian, they will do so. They may in theory be sworn to uphold the Constitution, but in practice they uphold their superiors' orders.

They have never, in practice, had to take unconstitutional measures.

Besides, Russ, I think you're misunderstanding how it would work. It would start slowly, with a few people being arrested under some false pretenses. Then, the practice would build from there. So, while the majority of American soldiers would not kill a U.S. civilian if ordered to right now, they would slowly be eased into it. First, they're arresting terrorists. Next, they're arresting people who are a threat to the government. Then, they're arresting people who are threats to the President. Then, they're torturing them. Then, they're killing them. See how that works? In fact, pretty much every dictatorship born from a democracy has evolved in this way. Are you suggesting that the average American soldier's support of the Constitution is somehow greater than the average Roman soldier's support of the Roman Republic (which they were also sworn to uphold)? What happens is that cults of personalities are formed, which opportunistic leaders exploit for their own ends. Caesar had one, Napoleon had one, Stalin had one, Hitler had one, Mao had one, etc. What scares me most is that in my experience, many soldiers today have an excessive devotion to Bush.

So basically, you have no proof that it'll happen but the hell if you're not sure it will? And how exactly does "excessive devotion" to Bush work when this process will be slow?

I think what the author is advocating is that we keep the military equipment around, but not the soldiers themselves.

Wow. I'll let you ponder how crazy that sounds.

 

[oldunion]

The article was 100 percent correct, though at times perhaps a bit oversimplified and idealistic. The 1776 usa isn't really possible, mainly due to economic crusades of capitalism. You can't have a passive nation that does not fight abroad, if your economic principles have every intention of disrupting world economies for maximum profit. If you got rid of imperialist tactics, and got rid of expansionist military trends and focused on national defense alone...i don't see a reason why people would invade this country. Like the article stated, 250 million informed, trained citizens of the usa would be a threat enough against any trained foreign aggressor.

What happened to the beacon of hope is that the light was replaced with a nuclear bomb.

 

[Manchot]

They have never, in practice, had to take unconstitutional measures.

Abu Ghraib? Guantánamo Bay? The internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII with no cause? The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War? Any of those ring a bell?

So basically, you have no proof that it'll happen but the hell if you're not sure it will? And how exactly does "excessive devotion" to Bush work when this process will be slow?

My proof is history, which has shown that all democracies eventually fail in this way at some time or another. And I didn't say that the process would be slow, I said that they'd be eased into it. It certainly wouldn't take more than four years.

Wow. I'll let you ponder how crazy that sounds.

How is that crazy, exactly? If we have cruise missiles placed all over the place for our defense, we don't really need that many people to operate them.

 

[Gokul43201]

They have never, in practice, had to take unconstitutional measures.

Kent State immediately comes to mind.

 

[Art]

They have never, in practice, had to take unconstitutional measures.

How about the 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry interned in the US by executive order no. 9066 during WW2? Two thirds of whom were full US citizens and none of them had committed any crime or given any cause to doubt their loyalty to the USA.

 

[Pengwuino]

Kent State immediately comes to mind.

There's a difference between a military commander telling a group of soldiers to go in and massacre a gathering and what happened at Kent state which was an accidental shooting started by the actual soldiers.

 

[Pengwuino]

Abu Ghraib? Guantánamo Bay? The internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII with no cause? The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War? Any of those ring a bell?

The US constitution does not apply to foreigners. Although we were attacked and were at war with Japan, the internment camps are actually a decent example of this though. Habeas corpus, again, good example if you ignore hte fact we were at war.

How is that crazy, exactly? If we have cruise missiles placed all over the place for our defense, we don't really need that many people to operate them.

wow again... do you even understand the military infrastructure of our country?

 

[Art]

wow again... do you even understand the military infrastructure of our country?

Please be so good as to enlighten us.

 

[moose]

They have never, in practice, had to take unconstitutional measures.

I almost always agree with you, but hold on a moment.

This year, in my ap us history course, I have read countless examples of crazed generals who made their troops do some crazy things. However, these have all been examples of the 19th century, and some beginning 20th. I will give examples later, right now I'm studying for this very class(test tomorow).EDIT: Sure we need many soldiers. We can take over an entire country strictly by air attack, but if we want to do something there, like move a group of people or something, soldiers have to do that.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's a difference between a military commander telling a group of soldiers to go in and massacre a gathering and what happened at Kent state which was an accidental shooting started by the actual soldiers.

The 1975 civil trial established that there was a verbal command given to the guardsmen, upon which they fired into the crowd. Nothing accidental about that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well think about it. Think of everything our military does and what supports it. It comes to a point where its easier to think of who CAN we let go. To list the people we can let go goes something like this...

1) A good portion of the army
2) A good portion of the marine corps

And thast about it. I mean really, to maintain a defensive military, you still need a tremendous number of people. Ships don't run themselves and air defense networks don't run themselves. Then you have personel to support everyone! To put it in numbers... we have some 150,000 people in Iraq but our military currently numbers over 2.2 million soldiers. Now add in soldiers in the small combat situations where US soldiers are in and you still don't come close to even 25% probably. Now that's a tremendous # of people simply supporting the military's existence...

 

[pattylou]

It's clear that we don't even have a good definition of what "support the troops" means, even within the confines of this thread.

Why don't we take care of that little technicality first, before deciding if it's something we should do or not?

 

[Pengwuino]

I almost always agree with you, but hold on a moment.

This year, in my ap us history course, I have read countless examples of crazed generals who made their troops do some crazy things. However, these have all been examples of the 19th century, and some beginning 20th. I will give examples later, right now I'm studying for this very class(test tomorow).

Yah the whole civil war kinda screws up my statement, I wasn't really keeping my statement inline with all of US history and dis-similar troop deployments.

 

[Pengwuino]

The 1975 civil trial established that there was a verbal command given to the guardsmen, upon which they fired into the crowd. Nothing accidental about that.

Hmm, never heard of that but at least it wasn't a standing order; that's where you'd see if your troops will really do anything you say.

 

[Smurf]

I havn't read it all because I can't be bothered to. I just read this bit:

Unfortunately, it just isn’t so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite – the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.?

And have this to say about it:

DUH!

 

[Manchot]

They have never, in practice, had to take unconstitutional measures.

Although we were attacked and were at war with Japan, the internment camps are actually a decent example of this though.

Never say never. Ignoring your contention that foreigners are not people under the Constitution, the latter two examples I provided excellently illustrate my point: that the military will do what the President wants, regardless of the Constitution. In fact, when the suspension of habeas corpus occurred, the Supreme Court actually ruled against it. You want to know what the military did in response? They completely ignored it. It doesn't matter whether we were at war or not. Many Bush fanatics actually believe us to be in a "War on Terror;" hence, many soldiers would do whatever the President feels is necessary. Is this acceptable to you?

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok so you ignore my contentions for 1

Then, to top it all off, you ignorantly call people who support Bush and our country "fanatics" and with no evidence ot support it, claim they will do anything and everything. Of course, you back up this view by listening to the propoganda you hear equating a few naked terrorists with the Nazi concentration camps most likely.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think the suspension of habeas corpus is a good example. That occurred only within the city limits of DC. When are we ever going to have another situation in which our national capital is located within the enemy country we are at war with? It was an unconstitutional act, and I understand the slippery slope implications of allowing it to happen, but even so, given that a violation of the Constitution in a standing presidential order to the military required such an extraordinary situation to occur, and even then was still opposed by the courts, shouldn't that be cause for us not to worry that there is any realistic chance of the president using the military to subdue the American people?

Besides, what reason is there to do that? Plain old fashioned propoganda and sociocultural controls work perfectly fine. The American people is already basically what the government wants it to be; it didn't have to force a certain behavior using the military.

 

[BobG]

Kent State immediately comes to mind.

I agree with Pengwuino on Kent State. It was a screw-up by a stressed unit on station, not a policy of the National Guard. You'd have to read the story on the whole weekend to understand the frame of mind of the Guardsmen at the time they opened fire on the crowd.

The US constitution does not apply to foreigners. Although we were attacked and were at war with Japan, the internment camps are actually a decent example of this though. Habeas corpus, again, good example if you ignore hte fact we were at war.
wow again... do you even understand the military infrastructure of our country?

If you're only talking about mandatory internment camps, you're right about only non-citizens and Japanese that had renounced their US citizenship being interned. During WWII, 31,000 were interned as enemy aliens because they were non-citizens from Japan, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, or Romania. About 17,000 interees were Japanese.

There's a discrepancy when it comes to Germans and Italians, however. The US actually started arresting them before war was declared between the US, Germany, and Italy.

The mandatory internments were just the tip of the iceberg. American citizens of Japanese, German, or Italian descent had to 'relocate' to areas away from the US coast. Camps were made in the West for the 112,000 Japanese relocated. They weren't technically mandatory, since, if the West coast Japanese could make some other living arrangements in the middle of the country, they could do so. Of course, most of their family and friends were from the West coast, so other arrangements weren't possible for most. The German and Italian relocatees from the East coast were just told to relocate and make their own arrangements as best they could (their lack of a few central gathering places is why you generally don't hear about them).

 

[Manchot]

Ok so you ignore my contentions for 1
Then, to top it all off, you ignorantly call people who support Bush and our country "fanatics" and with no evidence ot support it, claim they will do anything and everything. Of course, you back up this view by listening to the propoganda you hear equating a few naked terrorists with the Nazi concentration camps most likely.

I ignored your contention because I didn't think that you could possibly argue it. The Bill of Rights clearly refers to "people," not "U.S. citizens." Do you dispute this? If not, then how can you claim that it somehow doesn't apply to foreigners unless you don't think that they are, in fact, "people?"

And no, I did not say that people who support Bush are fanatics. I said "Bush fanatics." Here's a hint for future math classes that you might take: if someone tells you that A is a subset of B, then that isn't the same thing as saying that A and B are the same set. Do you deny that there is such a thing as a Bush fanatic?