In US political culture, there are some things that are completely outside the realm of debate. The benevolence of US leaders is generally never questioned, and anyone who actually calls a leader out for having malevolent motives is immediately perceived to be an extremist.

It seems to me that it's even more taboo to question the need for global US military dominance or the amount of reverence troops deserve. Most people here would probably agree that statements like "Freedom isn't free" and "Support our troops" are stupid and pretty much devoid of meaning, but how would you explain the pervasiveness of the myths in our culture? Soldiers in Iraq are not protecting our freedoms. They are fighting a war, and are certainly braver than I for doing it, but there's nothing "defensive" about the war in Iraq. An argument could perhaps be made for Afghanistan, but from what we now know terrorist organizations are generally more interested in attacking Middle-Eastern and European targets than American ones.

And this has generally been the case throughout the 20th century. There was no risk of the VC taking over all of Southeast Asia and then climbing in boats and invading the US. Vietnam is an easy example because it's a similarly controversial war, and any criticism of military operations seems to draw incredible (and undue) amounts of vitriol from the political right and from soldiers, who often say things like "We defend your right to speak against us". But is that true? There hasn't been a clear-cut war of self-defense or moral righteousness since WWII (which is a whole other thread about unquestionables in American culture), and America is far from the only country where free speech is practically or legally guaranteed, so our freedoms are hardly threatened from outside our borders.

It goes way beyond just conservatives demonizing liberals for criticizing the war. Even liberals who criticize the war of the day have to pay their lip service to the troops and say that they are defending our nation or something along those lines. The praise is usually less glowing than from conservatives, but it's definitely there. It simply cannot be questioned that wherever they are, the troops are the best people our country has and they deserve only the utmost reverence for being brave but also "protecting us all". Why is it so impossible to challenge this? I know some nice servicemen but I know a lot of them who are absolutely horrible people who I'd really rather not have "protecting me" anywhere. Bravery seems to supersede any character flaws in these people, as though what our nation needs most at the moment is young men who are willing to throw their lives into harm's way.

Chomsky would say it's all imperial culture, and that we all know our well-being comes at the expense of the rest of the world, so we deify the people who enforce our global (economic) dominance with violence. But it seems to me it's more complex than that.

One of the mystified beliefs about military service is that it teaches "discipline, honor, and courage" or some similar version of this. Certainly military service takes discipline, and experience breeds courage, but the way these words are thrown by hawks and servicemen at critics of wars or of the military as a whole, it seems to me gender norms play a huge role in the dialogue.

The idea is that troops are the real men at the front line of the war for our freedom, whose courage protects the rest of us who are chickenshits or something like that and who don't have the balls to step it up. I can't say what I would do if there were a war the US were involved in that actually seemed to have legitimate reasoning. I consider myself a pacifist and the dominant discourse in this country says that I don't contribute to the nation's well-being and that I'm not man enough to risk my life. Is willingness to risk one's life regardless of the cause (and when the cause is more often than not a pretty terribly unilateral assault on a country/people that didn't deserve it) something that we really should glorify though? Why should it be that we're not allowed to question this?

I'd love to hear from any veterans to know how they perceive the way they've been received upon returning from service, or what it feels like to hear people criticize a war they've been in. Is it hard not to take it personally? Do you actually believe you've been defending free speech abroad?

8/27/2009 11:42:07 AM

If freedom isn't free, they should have called it "costdom."

8/27/2009 12:00:10 PM

tlrfsfr

8/27/2009 12:01:02 PM

I believe there's the whole note about executing orders and having surrendered liberty. There are dissenters within the military. I have no idea why our problem with terrorism is so low in the US. I personally believe that a soldier who is currently serving or served the country without desertion is honorable. That being said, it is a voluntary military and you don't have to support the troops, but that would seem to be a personalized opposition to an official problem and would be in contention of the individuals and not the government (a la Willy Nilly). I would expect civility toward our troops from all citizens unless there is a direct and imposing strike against individuals (war crimes, causing hell while drunk, etc.)

And no, freedom is not free.

Quote :

"To preserve the freedom of the human mind then and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement. "

--Thomas Jefferson

Quote :

"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure. "

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith.

8/27/2009 12:22:37 PM

Good and thought provoking post. Just out of curiosity did you write that or did you get it from somewhere else?

Also...

Quote :

"There hasn't been a clear-cut war of self-defense or moral righteousness since WWII (which is a whole other thread about unquestionables in American culture)"

I assume this is about the question of war crimes and excessive civilian damage?

8/27/2009 12:23:52 PM

The United States should never be the aggressor in a war. I'm against war in general, but I realize there are times when it's necessary. If another nation attacks us, we have no choice but to retaliate.

It's obvious that none of the current wars are "protecting our freedoms." It would be ridiculous to say otherwise. I guess the statement "freedom isn't free" is technically true, but it's often extended to mean "any war being fought requires us to sacrifice soldiers, therefore we should support it." If the government ordered the military to slaughter an entire population of people for no reason, would "supporting the troops" still be a positive thing?

And yeah, we often look at our own military history with rose-tinted glasses, overlooking the things that may have been questionable. A big one for me is the nuking of Japan. Hundreds of thousands of people died, most of them completely innocent citizens.

8/27/2009 2:14:47 PM

.



"Lady Liberty is a bitch who must be bedded on a mattress of corpses."






[Edited on August 27, 2009 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2009 5:30:19 PM

I have mixed emotions and thoughts about this and I'm not sure I can elucidate them clearly but I'll give it a try:

I think one of the greatest tragedies in our grand experiment has been the militarization of the image of the United States. The equating of patriotism with wars of aggression around the world, especially in the latter half of the 20th Century (but including the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars) is a complete repudiation of the founding vision for America. From George Washington's farewell address:

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit

When Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the growing influence of the Military-Industrial Complex, he wasn't speaking as some leftist radical but as the President and as a retired 5-star general.


I think it is incorrect for us to frame this in a left-right debate though. The right is certainly guilty of associating American pride with military aggression*, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. The right opposed entry into World Wars I and II, opposed the intervention in Korea, and opposed Kennedy's action in Vietnam. It wasn't until the sixties and the anti-war leanings of the counter-culture that the right identified itself with militarism as an emblem of American strength.

On the other hand, progressives have agitated for interventionism throughout much of the 20th century. While there is a portion of the radical left which opposes war on anti-imperialist grounds, the power-brokers of the Democratic party have not shied away from the use of military force. Nixon ran on a platform of withdrawal from Vietnam in response to LBJ's escalation. Clinton deployed US troops to Somalia and the Balkins. Harry Truman involved us in the police action that became known as the Korean War. Quite frankly, the progressive left's faith in the state to right things at home extends to it's ability to right wrongs abroad. This is what Murray Rothbard, I think accurately, termed the Warfare-Welfare state.

So to whose benefit is this? I don't think anyone can deny that the price of oil is subsidized by American military presence in the middle east and, though specifics escape me, practically every military intervention we've conducted has a back story that involves a small group of people who profit off the war they promote. The profits of individual contractors has skyrocketed since 2001 and there is a general (if arguably false) assumption that the government spending of World War II got us out of the Great Depression. We almost take it as a fact that the economic and moral greatness of America rests on the might of our military. The left is complicit in this as the right. Humanitarian interventions are born of the well intentioned paternalistic hubris that we know what is right for the world and we're the only ones who can fix it. The truth is that only when that organization with a monopoly on violence, the state (the darling of the left) meets the profit motive (the darling on the right) is a warfare nation possible.

Like I said, that is pretty nebulous and weak, but it's about all my brain can handle tonight. A really good article by Thomas E. Woods called The Neglected Costs of the Warfare State can be found here: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/woods2.pdf


As to the my reactions as a veteran . . . I'd be lying if I said I appreciated when anyone short of a veteran came up to me and thanked me for what I was doing. I'm not saying that is logical or that it isn't arrogant, but it is how I feel. I've been to Iraq twice but I don't think most Americans appreciate the fiscal, moral, or human (both American and Iraqi) costs a dubious and extremely poorly planned invasion has and will continue to have. I'd also be lying if I didn't think there was a combination of true believers in the ability to promote democracy at the tip of the sword and those who saw an opportunity to profit off of the largess of the state and the naivete of taxpayers.

That being said, if the Iraqis can pull this off, and I hope to God / Allah / the great JuJu that they can . . . it'll probably have been worth it in the long run.



* Good article by Robert Green on the psychological composition of the Republican Party: http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/

8/27/2009 8:57:21 PM

"Freedom Isn't Free" and "Support Our Troops" is typically nothing more than political claptrap.

I think there is some frustration when the military is blamed or accused or chastised. The military is an apolitical organization that reports to the President who, in turn, is directly elected by the general US population. It's difficult to be harrassed for taking actions directed by a President who represents the people doing the criticising. It's difficult when the realities of war conflict with idealistic perceptions fed by Hollywood, politics, and the attitudes described in the OP.

Quote :

"As to the my reactions as a veteran . . . I'd be lying if I said I appreciated when anyone short of a veteran came up to me and thanked me for what I was doing. I'm not saying that is logical or that it isn't arrogant, but it is how I feel."

I pretty much agree. Half the time I'm embarassed.

8/27/2009 10:19:37 PM

Yeah, and it's not like I'm being a "if you weren't there you don't know!" breed of asshole. My experience wasn't remotely extraordinary, but . . . yeah, embarrassed.

I mean EMTs and firefighters bust their ass every day and don't usually get the thanks or respect they deserve, what makes me special?

8/27/2009 10:29:38 PM

^, ^^

8/27/2009 10:39:08 PM

Quote :

"I mean EMTs and firefighters bust their ass every day and don't usually get the thanks or respect they deserve, what makes me special?"

And yet, if I may add, the bias still exists in this statement.

Sure, the attitude toward the troops is stronger, but in reality the same golden calf / unquestioning adulation is given toward many kinds of government workers.

Ask anyone who in society is most under-appreciated, or most underpaid, whatever - and the list is the same: the military, the public school teachers, the EMTs, the firefighters, nurses, the cops, etc.

Never on that list will you see the janitors, the Fedex drivers, non-union manufacturing workers, the day care teachers or even those working full-time for truly excellent private charities. Government and government-unions have ensured the propaganda and public sentiment is entirely on one side.

There are the regular people who sometimes do good things, and then there are the "public servants" who are inherently good.

Of course, they granted themselves that title to ensure public sympathy and support. It really doesn't matter what you do: no one will ever come up and thank you just for being who you are and doing what you do.....unless you live off of other people's productivity.

Now I have nothing against those who are in most of these professions (though I hesitate often on both the troops and especially the cops), and my parents and extended family are full of them. Hell, I just applied to be a firefighter yesterday.

But I've worked the grunt jobs at UPS, the janitorial work, and volunteered with a lot of private charities. And it's just plain wrong to ignore and dismiss them because they are paid by evil, self-seeking companies or charities that don't get the limelight.

Why in the world is a public works employee working on sewer lines considered a public servant to whom we owe gratitude for his service, while the everyday small business owning plumber is not? There exists an inherent emotional bias in society against the private sector in general, whether for profit or not. In their mind, doing a certain task might be ok, but if you do it on a government paycheck, it becomes noble and selfless.

So, to the OP, I would say it's not a matter of the "Support the Troops!" mantra existing in a vacuum. That is a capstone, in a sense, to an entire worldview. People love the government that takes care of them. And the existence and mission of the troops is the highest culmination of all that the State is - lots of power and authority ostensibly used for the good of others.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 1:28 AM. Reason : a]

8/28/2009 1:12:27 AM

Quote :

"Never on that list will you see the janitors, the Fedex drivers, non-union manufacturing workers, the day care teachers or even those working full-time for truly excellent private charities."

You make a good point. I think the difference, especially for military and firefighters, is the proximity of risk involved in doing the job, not just the fact that they're government employees.

But you're absolutely right, there are hard working people all over the US who go unappreciated.

8/28/2009 8:35:56 AM

I think some people place the military on a pedestal because they believe that without it, no other occupations (as we know and understand them) would exist. If you can't protect it (society, lifestyles, freedom, and so on) nothing else matters.

If it weren't for our military (and other forces), Americans would be Nazi janitors or Communist EMTs or Islamofascist plumbers. How people can't see this is beyond me--these threats to our country's ways and very existence were and are real.

I do see problems with adulation of the military. For one, it fosters jingoism. And this exaggerated support helps to perpetuate an us-versus-them mentality, which, frankly, is going to lead to the end of this country if we don't find a third way (and beyond) in our political power structure.

And there are all types of backslappers for the military. I think the jock sniffer is a category that just likes the military the way people like sports teams: Yeah, you're our guys--go kick ass, team! And I think this category also sees the military through the lens of iconic cinematic representations of military heroes and conflates the two.

Then there's the politically expedient military supporter. This category--left and right--only really supports the military (or military action, at least) when the mission has been defined and authorized by their party's leader(s).

But I also think there is the genuine military supporter. This category simply respects the sacrifices--sometimes the ultimate sacrifice--that young men and women make to protect our country. They're not quite sure how to express their thanks, so it sometimes comes out at awkward moments or in corny ways--but it is genuine.

8/28/2009 8:46:31 AM

Quote :

""Support our troops""

I have no problem with this statement and do not see why even a peace n love hippy would either. While i may not support
our foreign policy or the manufactured war in Iraq of George Dubya; I do support the livelihood of our troops over there that
are merely following orders. It is not their fault that W wanted to send them to Iraq and I hope they make it back safely.

Quote :

"Freedom isn't free"

I have a contrary thought about this statement. While it is true "freedom isn't free" this holds no relevance with our situation today
or the war in Iraq. Saddam was not involved in 9/11 or a credible threat to the US. If anything a lot of his stubbornness and feigns for
acquiring WMD's were more about scaring off Iran than Saddam's desire to Jihad the US.

Quote :

"here was no risk of the VC taking over all of Southeast Asia and then climbing in boats and invading the US. Vietnam is an easy example because it's a similarly controversial war"

I would say Vietnam was a lot more controversial. The issue is that we supported a totalitarian regime of south vietnam (until we assassinated Diem)
merely b.c they conducted favorable trade with US business's. The premise of this war being the false dilemma of the "Domino Theory" as
far as communism was concerned. Ho Chi Minh was largely running a populist movement while Saddam was a stale old authoritarian regime.
While we could argue that Iraq was good for at least "freeing the people's" (even if bullshit), no similar justification could be made for
Vietnam.

Quote :

"discipline, honor, and courage"

Some of the most obnoxious problem causing peoples I ever see at the bars are fucking douche bag jarheads off the lease running around
downtown wilmington.

Quote :

"I consider myself a pacifist and the dominant discourse in this country says that I don't contribute to the nation's well-being and that I'm not man enough to risk my life. "

Well consider yourself smart for not getting blown up in Iraq fighting for corporate interests and friendly oil. If we were fighting a legitimate national security risk like N. Korea it might be different.

8/28/2009 8:48:12 AM

Quote :

"Constant whining and finger-pointing. If they lost badly in 2006 and were trailing in the polls in 2008, it was not because of their actions but because of the liberal media, or natural election cycles or whatever other rationale could be found. This prevented any kind of self-reflection or challenge to their cherished beliefs. Everything to maintain the bubble and the illusion that they still represented mainstream America. "

I thought it was b.c the Republican party strayed from its conservative roots

8/28/2009 8:52:39 AM

Quote :

"If it weren't for our military (and other forces), Americans would be Nazi janitors or Communist EMTs or Islamofascist plumbers. How people can't see this is beyond me--these threats to our country's ways and very existence were and are real. "

I'm interested in hearing why you think this.

Do you think the actual state of the military at each of these points in time has been important, or just the presence of a military at all?

8/28/2009 9:05:54 AM

^ It was the military (with a lot of direct and indirect civilian support) who ultimately defended this country from being taken over by outside forces--and the military is still defending against this. You aren't disputing this, are you?

When you write the "actual state of the military," are you referring to our country's defense posture during the periods at issue? Be that as it may, yes, (1) the presence of the military had and has an obvious deterrent effect, and (2) the specific actions taken by the military were and are crucial to preventing an existential threat to the United States.

8/28/2009 9:26:19 AM

I think he is looking for specific examples of when the United States military was protecting us from a force that was an inherent threat to this country's security. By inherent threat I mean, "an amassed force about to storm or already storming the shores of our beaches."

8/28/2009 9:28:24 AM

^ Let him post it.

8/28/2009 9:31:17 AM

Quote :

""You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" "

-Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Our greatest security against invasion is not from the military. It's from the second amendment. There are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Invasion may be possible, but occupation and victory is not.

No, the Japanese and the Germans never once considered any such action. If we had never entered WWII, and had a much smaller military, no one would have even thought about invading us.

Hell, the Germans didn't even invade the Swiss, despite Hitler's desperate desire to do so, and his hatred of them. Sure, the Germans probably could have done it, but they would have taken such overwhelming losses, it would have crippled him. And he knew it. There were two things that assured him of this: tough Swiss terrain/geography, and that every Swiss citizen possessed multiple firearms.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : a]

8/28/2009 12:21:35 PM

Zweites Buch, Adolph Hitler

Quote :

"It focused on foreign policy, expanding on the ideas of Mein Kampf and suggesting that around 1980, a final struggle would take place between the United States and the combined forces of Greater Germany and the British Empire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Second_Book:_The_Unpublished_Sequel_to_Mein_Kampf


[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2009 12:28:51 PM

Was that supposed to be your example?

8/28/2009 12:29:39 PM

^ Your superior tone aside, yes, it's one example. And I suppose Soviet expansionism was simply a figment of neocon hawks' imagination, too?

If you think that attempts by these fascists and communists to expand their sphere of influence and control ended or ends at our shores, you're deluded.

Islamic Economics and Shariah Law: A Plan for World Domination
David J. Jonsson
December 21, 2006

Quote :

"It should be realized that the goal of the Islamists, following in the footsteps of Muhammad, is not so much to conquer the land but to Islmanize the populations. In so doing they seek to have the lands come under Shariah law and that the lands become dar al-Islam—the land of Islam and that all non-Muslims accept the status of Dhimmis—subservient to Muslim rule."

http://www.salemthesoldier.us/jonsson_shariah_economics.html

Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance

http://tinyurl.com/kk59e7

8/28/2009 1:31:25 PM

I'm asking for a situation in which there was a large militarized force from another country that was heading for the shores of the United States or attacking targets within the United States.

8/28/2009 1:33:00 PM

^ They simply haven't had the means. That doesn't mean they didn't or don't have the desire.

From this. . .

Attack on America

Quote :

"German aircraft designers did conceive a number of other unorthodox flying machines. The Focke-Wulf Triebflugel, a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, had a trio of wings that rotated around the fuselage, driven by small rocket engines or a fuselage-mounted takeoff booster. Once the wings were spinning, the aircraft would have been powered by ramjets, which only operate at high speeds. Envisioned as a high-speed fighter-interceptor, the Triebflugel hadn’t progressed beyond wind-tunnel tests when the war ended. Frustrated by the imprecision of their missiles, which lacked guidance systems, the Germans also developed the Fi 103R-4, code-named Reichenberg, a piloted version of the V-1 flying bomb, presumably for kamikaze-style pinpoint attacks on targets such as Buckingham Palace. At war’s end, Allied troops also found drawings of a non-suicidal variation of that idea called the Silent Dart, a glider designed to be released from a larger aircraft. The pilot would dive toward the target, release a 1,000-kilogram bomb, and inflate a huge balloon that—at least in theory—would lift the glider above the blast so that it could float to safety. Both Hitler and Hermann Goring, head of the Luftwaffe, were obsessed with finding a way to attack the United States, which was out of the reach of existing Nazi bombers. They dispatched Willy Messerschmitt, Reimar and Walter Horten and other top German aircraft designers on a quest to build an “America Bomber” capable of crossing the Atlantic. To that end, the Hortens came up with the Ho 18 intercontinental bomber, a larger version of their Ho 229 flying wing, powered by six turbojet engines and designed to race across the Atlantic at supersonic speeds. The war ended before they could build a prototype [which would have carried nuclear bombs]. Another, even more outré contender for the same mission was Eugen Sänger’s Silbervogel (“Silverbird”), a design for a rocket-powered suborbital bomber. After being launched from a rail track by a rocket-powered sled, the Silbervogel would have fired its own rocket engine and climbed into the upper atmosphere. It then would have descended until it hit a layer of denser air about 25 miles up, and ricocheted back up from that layer—“like a flat stone skipping across a lake,” as Myhra explains. It would have bounced in this fashion across the Atlantic to attack New York, and then continued westward until it finally landed in Japanese-controlled territory in the Pacific. “It was a good concept,” Myhra says. “The big hang-up was that he needed a huge, specialized rocket motor, which would have taken more years of research and development. They didn’t have that much time.” The Germans also aimed to attack the United States from offshore. According to James Duffy’s 2004 book Target America: Hitler’s Plan to Attack the United States, Bodo Lafferentz, a Nazi official who also had a hand in developing the Volkswagen (“people’s car”), concocted a secret plan to put V-2 missiles inside giant waterproof canisters and have U-Boats tow them to U.S. coastal waters. There, the canisters would be pointed skyward and opened, turning them into launch pads for missiles aimed at U.S. cities. The Germans actually began to build the canisters at a Baltic shipyard, but before they could be completed, the Russians captured the site in April 1945. Of the German secret weapons projects whose existence is documented, many never got past the drawing board—often for good reason. One such project was the solar mirror gun, devised by German scientists at a research center in Hillersleben, which would have been several miles long and mounted on an orbiting space station 5,100 miles up. According to a 1945 Time magazine report, the scientists, when questioned about the project by skeptical Allied officers, coolly assured them that it could have been accomplished—that is, within 50 to 100 years."

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview12#tab-nazi-secret-weapons-2

. . .to this. . .

8/28/2009 1:51:19 PM

Quote :

"Our greatest security against invasion is not from the military. It's from the second amendment. There are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Invasion may be possible, but occupation and victory is not."

bullshit

the reason we are so secure against foreign invasion are the two big ponds that sit to either side of us

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2009 1:56:37 PM

You believe that without our military forces protecting us our current way of life would not exist. You also have conceded that there has never been the means by any enemies to actually carry out these attacks. Now, this is where it becomes tricky. I understand that you believe that if we had not acted, we would have been attacked. And this is the gray area. How do we decide what constitutes an imminent threat? Was Adolf Hitler an imminent threat? Was Ho Chi Minh? Was Saddam Hussein?

8/28/2009 1:59:25 PM

I haven't read all this nonsense but the United States doesn't conduct military opperations based soley on "imminent threat". The military is often an arm of policy making and we protect our strategic interests in the world through them. We are not just one nation amongst many. We are the big dog on the playground, we know this and the others do as well. Luckly for the rest of the world we are realativly moral and fair but understand that our military is not just a defensive force.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2009 2:03:17 PM

You believe in sending soldiers to their death for policy interests?

8/28/2009 2:05:04 PM

It not about what I or anyones else "believes in". It's a matter of fact. We send soldiers to their death for policy interests. It's the very nature of a military. The debate become of extent. We're a superpower with interests across the entire globe so...

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2009 2:07:39 PM

Quote :

"Hell, the Germans didn't even invade the Swiss"

I very very doubt that Hitler's rationale for not invading Switzerland has anything to do with a bunch of angry Swiss militiamen causing too much trouble. While the sheer size of the US would make this variable relevant in this country, idiotic if you think a bunch of Militia men Swiss farmers would repel a panzer division or blitzkrieg.

Hitler would have had no problem invading. The only irritating part would be occupying Switzerland; where German troops would probably be annoyed by little mosquitoes constantly biting at their underside.

Quote :

" the reason we are so secure against foreign invasion are the two big ponds that sit to either side of us"

Exactly. The Mexicans are to lazy to do anything and Canada is frozen down half the year. England rose to power and remained dominant for this very reason after building the most modern and powerful Navy in the world starting during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

Quote :

" Was Adolf Hitler an imminent threat? Was Ho Chi Minh? Was Saddam Hussein?"

The first yes, the last a threat to our allies and oil buddies. The middle guy NO.

8/28/2009 4:28:58 PM

yeah, and England is a fucking stones throw from europe

Imagine transporting troops for up to a week for an invasion.

8/28/2009 4:39:40 PM

Quote :

"I very very doubt that Hitler's rationale for not invading Switzerland has anything to do with a bunch of angry Swiss militiamen causing too much trouble. While the sheer size of the US would make this variable relevant in this country, idiotic if you think a bunch of Militia men Swiss farmers would repel a panzer division or blitzkrieg. Hitler would have had no problem invading. The only irritating part would be occupying Switzerland; where German troops would probably be annoyed by little mosquitoes constantly biting at their underside."

Your second paragraph is exactly correct - and it's contradictory to your first paragraph. The little "mosquitoes" would have made the country incapable of being successfully occupied. And that is a repellent to invasion.

The militia is THE major deterrent to invasion - but that is not an assertion that it would repel an invasion.

I am in no way suggesting the initial strike would not have been successful. Of course it would have. But after a few days of easy success driving hard to the heart of Switzerland.....what then? It becomes a sinkhole for your money and your troops' lives because of the militia. That is a deterrent. You simply do not invade and conquer a country, hoping to rule it, when 100% of the populace is armed and will fight to the death. That is chasing the wind, and they knew it. The only way to successfully conquer the country is to kill some absurd percentage of them with weapons of mass destruction. And even then your successful rule after invasion is in doubt.

It is why Yamamoto would not consider invading us. That bit about "You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rife behind every blade of grass" is NOT a reference to the US Military. And it is not a statement doubting the possibility of success for an invasion. It is a resignation that even if successful, any forces would ultimately be driven out by the armed populace who would never submit to their rule.

8/29/2009 10:52:08 AM

Quote :

"but there's nothing "defensive" about the war in Iraq"

well, the entirety of your argument hinges on this statement. you'll need to make an argument for the implied premise that wars ought to be defensive.

[Edited on August 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : s]

8/29/2009 11:27:33 AM

Hitler didn't want to invade the Swiss because it was helping him more as a neutral country than it would as an occupied country.

If he forcibly occupied the swiss, where would he put the jew gold?

8/29/2009 3:22:46 PM

...

8/30/2009 2:40:04 AM

Quote :

"yeah, and England is a fucking stones throw from europe Imagine transporting troops for up to a week for an invasion."

Normandy without the fortresses?

8/30/2009 6:10:00 AM

Quote :

"Hell, the Germans didn't even invade the Swiss"

and it had nothing to do with some rusty bolt-action rifles hidden in their woodsheds.

had everything to do with that you don't invade the international bank that washes your money.

Quote :

"his [Hitler's] hatred of them [the Swiss]"

WTF are you on about? Germans dont hate Swiss, any more than we hate the Canadians. they all speak the same language.



[Edited on August 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2009 12:13:45 PM

Quote :

""yeah, and England is a fucking stones throw from europe Imagine transporting troops for up to a week for an invasion." Normandy without the fortresses?"

no, with the trip across the atlantic taking about a week

there is plenty of time to get your shit fucked up by ship, submarine, and bomber

8/30/2009 3:11:19 PM

Quote :

"when 100% of the populace is armed and will fight to the death"

I doubt 100% or even a majority would have grabbed their rifle to conduct guerilla operations against nazi germany. Most would
likely grump and complain about nazi rule but unless the nazi's were actively taking their possessions or raping their women they would
not act. A farmer with kids and a wife to feed has much to lose by fighting against the occupation force.

Quote :

"Yamamoto would not consider invading us."

Yamamoto was against war to begin with. In the years leading up to Pearl Harbor he had numerous death threats and assassination attempts
for his anti-war stance. He actually was placed as admiral of the pacific fleet to get him out of Japan where the cabinet officials
running the country feared he would get killed and end up being a martyr for the anti-war crowd.

Quote :

"Hitler didn't want to invade the Swiss because it was helping him more as a neutral country than it would as an occupied country."

Quote :

"had everything to do with that you don't invade the international bank that washes your money."

Exactly

8/30/2009 6:26:08 PM

you don't need a majority

you need a persistent group with the support and sympathy of the populous

against an occupation force this support comes as an almost absolute given

8/30/2009 8:34:49 PM

Quote :

"I suppose Soviet expansionism was simply a figment of neocon hawks' imagination, too?"

Our own expansionism may have influenced theirs and/or theirs ours, I suppose.


Regarding the OP reference to Chomsky's interpretation, I recently came across an address he gave to the United Nations General Assembly somewhat related to this topic.

I haven't read it in its entirety, but it appears to address a topic discussed at the beginning of this thread.

Address to the United Nations General Assembly Thematic Dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect, the United Nations, New York, 23 July 2009
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22227

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 12:06 AM. Reason : A++ thread; will view again]

8/31/2009 12:04:39 AM

Quote :

"Soldiers in Iraq are not protecting our freedoms. They are fighting a war, and are certainly braver than I for doing it, but there's nothing "defensive" about the war in Iraq."

Soldiers, by their very existence, are defending us from aggression. As a result, they are safeguarding American freedoms. What the soldiers are doing in Iraq is not defensive, I agree, except perhaps in some very abstract and possibly undesirable ways (such as demonstrating American fighting strength and spurring the development of new technologies).

But these are minor, of course. The reason it may be legitimate to see a surge of "support our troops" talk during a conflict isn't that the troops are suddenly pulling their weight in protecting us. It's because they're in a more difficult situation for which more support is in order.

Nobody is going to get teary-eyed about radar techs in South Korea who keep an eye on NK and China. From what I hear, Korea is a pretty sweet posting. The troops (well, airmen, anyway -- I haven't heard anything from any soldiers or marines) get to drink a lot and eat good food and aren't really at much risk of getting killed. That guy needs less support than someone doing basically the same job in Iraq, eating MRE's in the desert in a country where you can't buy booze.

8/31/2009 1:36:28 PM

^ Concerning service in South Korea, it had been referred to as a hardship tour--no families. Until recent years, it wasn't considered a great assignment at all--due to the isolation and other factors.

Some guys told me that you could get a house woman to clean up and wash your clothes for cheap, though. But that and the partying are hardly worth the trip--you can party a hell of a lot better in Europe.

8/31/2009 2:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Soldiers, by their very existence, are defending us from aggression."

This can be changed. If the soldiers are fighting an offensive, undeclared war that only serves to inflame our enemies against us, and create new enemies, then the soldiers are threatening, rather than defending, our freedoms.

If they cared about their oath and obligation to protect and defend the Constitution, then they would disobey what are plainly unconstitutional Presidential orders to fight an undeclared war. By obeying unlawful orders to fight an illegal war, they are part of the threat to freedom, not its defenders. As such, they deserve no support.

This is not to say the majority of the military is intentionally malicious toward our freedoms in any way. In fact, it's just the opposite. They genuinely believe they are protecting America and the Constitution. And in-line with that belief, they are displaying a good deal of courage and perseverance to do what they think is right.

The problem is that they are wrong, and good intentions do not sanctify bad conduct. I don't hope for any more military deaths in Iraq, and I don't want them to suffer or die for their ignorance. But I do want them to quit, and I don't have any real sympathy toward their plight when they fight.

If they are hurt or killed, I view it as no different than a robber entering a home, who then falls on a knife or is shot by the homeowner. They invade and occupy a country that was not a threat to us, without proper legal authority, and I'm supposed to wave a flag and shed a tear when that country's people (or its neighbors) fight back? The people in that country are only doing exactly as I would have, and they're not murderers or terrorists for resisting invasion and occupation.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 3:20 PM. Reason : a]

8/31/2009 3:18:20 PM

Quote :

"they would disobey what are plainly unconstitutional Presidential orders to fight an undeclared war"

Private Pile on the frontline is only supposed to follow orders; not question and hold philosophical debates within the barracks about rather or not they should pick up their guns tomorrow to go blow up Haj's in the desert.

Even officers while given a discretion on how to operate still follow orders. The issue of going to war or not is solely up to the people sitting in their padded office chairs, sipping wine, and smoking cigars in Washington DC.

8/31/2009 3:56:58 PM

Support our troops, even under Marshal Law, because not supporting our troops, is inconceivable.



[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 4:04 PM. Reason : -]

8/31/2009 4:02:57 PM

Quote :

"Private Pile on the frontline is only supposed to follow orders; not question and hold philosophical debates within the barracks about rather or not they should pick up their guns tomorrow to go blow up Haj's in the desert. Even officers while given a discretion on how to operate still follow orders. The issue of going to war or not is solely up to the people sitting in their padded office chairs, sipping wine, and smoking cigars in Washington DC."

Then let's hope people like you are not in the military when/if we get even crazier Presidents than we already have.

It IS up to the individual soldier to evaluate the lawfulness of the orders he receives. That is why we could prosecute at Neuremberg, and this is stated emphatically and repeatedly to every military recruit in basic training.

It is not high-minded, academic or philosophical to read what the Constitution says, and note that both Congress and the President have openly and plainly disobeyed it.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 4:51 PM. Reason : a]

8/31/2009 4:44:07 PM

Quote :

"It IS up to the individual soldier to evaluate the lawfulness of the orders he receives. That is why we could prosecute at Neuremberg, and this is stated emphatically and repeatedly to every military recruit in basic training. "

Are you trolling, a complete moron, or live in your dorm room at NCSU never stepping out to talk to people. Any grunt in the army that refuses to follow orders will likely face at BEST dishonorable discharge. If Private Pile decides to throw his gun down and argue the philosophical reasons of being in Iraq during the heat of battle or in the midst of a mission he will get thrown in the brig if not fucking Fragged by his comrades.

By the way Neuremberg (except for maybe a few specific examples of soldiers going out of their way to perform malice) was not a trial against Nazi solidiers or SS guardsman. Most of the people prosecuted in Neuremberg were the commanding officers who let, planned, and executed the genocide of the holocaust.

8/31/2009 5:29:20 PM