PDA

View Full Version : What we support and defend



Pages : [1] 2

Bob's World
06-02-2012, 03:17 PM
Every now and then I like to go back and review the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Growing frustration with how our government currently pursues the duties laid out by these founding documents I spent a little time this morning reviewing our National Security Strategy as well. Here are some observations I found interesting and feel are worth discussing here:

1. Article I lists the specified duties and responsibilities of the Congress. These two items under Section 8 of that article are worth studying word by word:

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

I confess I had never paid much attention to this before, even though I am a fairly vocal advocate for the position that the US does not need, nor do the people want, a standing army in times of peace. We were forced to carry an army into the peace following WWII because we decided to implement a Containment strategy of the Soviet union (yes, decided, there were other options on the table that were far less onerous to implement). Having a standing Army for the past several decades has, I believe, contributed significantly toward shifting the intended balance of power in our government from the Congress to the Executive. It has also enabled Presidents to start or expand wars without having to go to congress and ask the congress to perform their duty as described in item 12 above. Would there have been a Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, or expanded state building in Afghanistan but for this anomaly? We'll never know, but all would certainly have played out very differently.

Note the language of the constitution and the tremendous difference between Congress's duty regarding "Armies" (not "the Army, but Armies as in many different ones raised for specific conflicts and purpose.).

“Raise and Support” various “Armies” as needed is very different from “Provide and Maintain” an enduring “Navy” for reasons that are still valid and fundamental to our national ethos and geostrategic reality.

Today we plan equal cuts to the Army and the Marines, but the fact is that the entirety of those cuts should fall upon the Army if we follow the constitution. In fact, the Navy could make a case that to cut the Marines while leaving Army forces on the books is arguably unconstitutional.

Also interesting is that Army funding is not to exceed 2-years in duration, with no such constraint applied to Navy funding. This reinforces the framer's intent for those who find the specific language to subtle.


Second, in comparing these founding documents to our current National Security Strategy I searched and counted a few key words. Granted, the NSS is significantly longer than the other two documents, and these numbers are not normalized to take that difference into account, but they still serve to make a point.

It is my belief that at the strategic level the United States has a significant disconnect in the Ends-Ways-Means of our national level strategy. I believe this disconnect is the primary source of much of our security-based frustration that we have been dealing with in the post Cold War era.

Our Ends have become too ideological; our Ways have become too controlling; and our Means have become too militarized. This did not happen over night, but grew one decision at a time shaped by events and exacerbated by the changing global security environment. This word search highlights that a bit:

Ken White
06-02-2012, 05:14 PM
Great points! This bears repeating:
"Our Ends have become too ideological; our Ways have become too controlling; and our Means have become too militarized. This did not happen over night, but grew one decision at a time shaped by events and exacerbated by the changing global security environment..."We really need to reshape ourselves.

It would be nice if DoD became a leader in that reshape instead of remaining an amorphous deterrent to it...

Bill Moore
06-02-2012, 06:00 PM
Bob,

You make some strong arguments, yet I suspect our foreign policy won't change and we'll continue to become entangled in wars that aren't in our interest and in wars of necessity. More than likely an Army will be needed to decisively win those wars.

As you well know the Army we stood up in response to WWI and WWII took considerable losses during the initial months of those conflicts due to incompetence. The Army was not well funded, so the existing the Army was not well trained, and the conscripts had no experience. My counter argument is there are advantages to having a standing professional Army for the reason listed above, and that argument is even stronger now due to how technically sophisticated the Army is. You can't simply bring a much kids in off the street and train them how to fight (the way we fight) in three months anymore. I'm not sure about this, but I suspect the ability to deploy quickly with a standing Army also reduces risk (exploit a window of opportunity), that option will be removed from the table if we pursue your course of action. Maybe for good reasons, maybe not.

The Cold War was very much a real conflict that could have going hot at anytime, so the reason we kept a standing Army was rational. Your argument seems to be that since the end of the Cold War should we have maintained a large standing Army. What would have happened if we didn't?

Interesting argument, but one that in my opinion is full of risks that need to be weighed carefully.

carl
06-02-2012, 06:05 PM
We carried an Army into peace after WWI, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War and the War of 1812 too.

To argue that the Marines are constitutionally protected and the Army is not is sophistry. The Marines are an army in every sense of the word, they are just under the Navy in the organizational chart. Now if you wanted the cut back the Marines to just soldiers in the ship's company like the old days or place the Army under the Navy in the organizational chart too...

In your word search matrix, what would you come up with if you added the words legislature, legislative and legislation?

Bob's World
06-02-2012, 07:28 PM
Carl,

Actually we took very few losses in the initial months, or even the initial years, of both those conflicts. You have bought into the great "we need an army" lie. The reality is that because we had an appropriately sized army neither President Wilson or Roosevelt could have committed the US on a Presidential whim no matter how much they may have wanted to. Both instead had to turn to other forms of diplomacy and engagement to shape those conflicts from afar, and then, years later once the primary combatants had blunted themselves against each other, we were able to enter on our own terms and bring those conflicts to closures that advanced American influence, but at a savings of potentially millions of American lives.

Sure, early units fared poorly as they went up against experienced units. That is to be expected. We say "train as you fight" but the reality is that you will "fight as you trained, until the enemy trains you to fight otherwise." What you identify is our failure to train properly in peace, not our failure to maintain a standing army in peace.

In 1940 or 41 General Marshall declared that 5 German Divisions landing in the US could go all the way to the Rocky Mountains unchecked. True, and completely immaterial. At that time Germany couldn't even put 5 Divisions across the English Channel, let alone across the Atlantic Ocean.

We own the global key terrain. Everyone else may want it, but they simply can't get here. At least not any faster than we could identify the threat and mobilize the militia and begin building an Army for the pending threat. This is our birthright and we squander it when we build too large of a military and sustain it in peace. We not only overburden the American taxpayers, but we relieve our allies of their own duties to properly prepare to secure themselves based upon their own geostrategic reality. Germany and France should both have much larger armies than the US. But they don't because we have enabled them to pour that money into their civilian economies instead. Same is true in the Pacific. We are being played for fools by our friends and foes alike in this regard. China does not need a large navy now any more than we did in the last 80 years of the 1800s. Our commercial fleet sailed under British protection then, and Chinese merchants sail under US protection today. Don't expect a thank you note any time soon from any of these cats, and don't expect them to return the favor when we need the help some day either.

We wage wars of choice. We do this much more because we can than because we have to. That is a fact. Sequestration is a term used to scare Americans to keep funding this machine, but in fact it might be just what we need to make America much safer than we currently do with all this military capacity to send about on these little adventures.

Fuchs
06-02-2012, 07:43 PM
Isn't the last federal budget longer ago than two years already? Wouldn't that make the entire existence of the army and also the air force unconstitutional?

Bob's World
06-02-2012, 08:09 PM
Isn't the last federal budget longer ago than two years already? Wouldn't that make the entire existence of the army and also the air force unconstitutional?

Perhaps. I haven't explored the record of how this aspect of the constitution has been applied over time. I can say that I have spent much of the last 10 years in high-level joint commands and participated in a major way in the last QDR and have NEVER heard anyone say anything along the lines of "yes, but what about the constitutional distinction between how congress can fund the Army vs. the Navy."

But now I'm curious.

Kiwigrunt
06-02-2012, 08:27 PM
We say "train as you fight" but the reality is that you will "fight as you trained, until the enemy trains you to fight otherwise."

That made it to my quote list.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 12:28 AM
Isn't the last federal budget longer ago than two years already? Wouldn't that make the entire existence of the army and also the air force unconstitutional?There's a trend over the last 40 years or so to lengthen the budget cycles and go to multi-year budgets in most federal appropriations. The Navy has long been a proponent of multi year procurements / budgets and has had some success convincing Congress that it's not only desirable but necessary.

The Army has been less successful because of that clause in the Constitution and because Congress likes to micromanage. Many in Congress contend that multi year budgets and procurements lessen the ability of the Congress to manage the affiars of the Nation... :rolleyes:

In short, it's a mixed bag, the Army does get to buy and do some stuff on a multi-year basis because it has to do that in order for things to work nowadays but Congress does get dicey on it on occasion when it suits their purposes. :rolleyes:

Carl:

The fact that the Marines are constitutionally protected is not sophistry, its a ploy that they pull from time to time and it always works for them. The Navy -- and thus the Marines -- can and do, due to that clause in the Constitution, go to long term sustainment and funding in the budget. That is fact.

Congress mostly sees the Army as an organization that is perhaps marginally necessary but not socially acceptable. OTOH, Congress likes the Navy and Marines. A bunch. They also like the National Guard, in both cases as a counter to possibly restive Army and Air Force people -- think Seven Days in May -- so they get pride of place funding in comparison to the Army and AF (not that either are underfunded IMO, au contraire...* ). The Middle East and Dictatorships are not the only ones that are made nervous by Armies that are too strong, Democracies buy into that offsetting force routine as well. That's one reason why the inefficiencies and ineptitude you so often deplore are so thoroughly embedded -- Congress does not want the Army to be too good for a variety of reasons. Thus whenever a major Army screwup occurs, Congress goes "Tut-tut," slaps 'em on the wrist -- and immediately returns to business as usual. That's unlikely to change barring an existential problem -- none of which are visible at this time...

It is also fact that the Congress from time to time -- when it suits them -- can point to the Army clause to preclude multi-year contracts or activities (generally when the contract or action in question is to a corporation or effort not favored by some powerful Congroid) . So while this:
The Marines are an army in every sense of the word, they are just under the Navy in the organizational chart.is mostly but far from completely true as long as that location on the chart makes a difference to Congress and the laws they pass which perpetuate that arrangement, what you (along with a number of people in the Army :D ) think is sadly immaterial. :wry:

Note also that we have air vehicles in the Navy AND the Marines (as well as in the National Guard). Not solely to serve as a counterweight to the Army and Air Force -- but that factor is strongly considered...

Bill Moore:

I think Bob's World has some excellent points but like all attempts to restrain the politicians --Weinberger or Powell Doctrine, anyone? -- I believe you're correct in saying that it is not likely to succeed. Your final sentence is important:
Interesting argument, but one that in my opinion is full of risks that need to be weighed carefully.What Bob wants is doable if gone about properly. The likelihood of us going about much of anything in the political arena anywhere near properly is terribly slim, so yes, we need to weigh that risk very carefully indeed.

* Some of that overfunding is necessary to offset the tinkering of Congress, most is due to unintended consequences of inefficiencies and conflicting laws, most well intentioned, most very poorly thought out.

Bill Moore
06-03-2012, 12:34 AM
Posts by Bob,


You have bought into the great "we need an army" lie.

This must be one of the saddest statements you have made on SWJ.


We own the global key terrain. Everyone else may want it, but they simply can't get here. At least not any faster than we could identify the threat and mobilize the militia and begin building an Army for the pending threat.

Our militia is the National Guard, and they are hardly a reliable force despite some capable individuals. Most senior leaders wouldn't risk relying on the NG for our national security.

When the Constitution was written the threats that exist now didn't exist then, and whether you like it or not our role in the world changed after WWII. I don't think most Americans would want to return to be isolationists, though at times it does seem like a welcome relief from our current status of overly involved. Just a few changes since the U.S. Constitution was written call your logic into question, ships can cross the seas much quicker, we now have large planes that can cross the oceans within hours (hard to form, equip and train a militia within hours), Armies are increasingly lethal and capable, so it doesn't make much sense to dumb our defense down to a NG capability (if we're honest, a non-capability), some nations can launch missiles into the U.S. (nuclear and non-nuclear), and of course cyber threats. You implied it isn't possible to surprise us on our "key" terrain, so apparently 9/11 and Pearl Harbor didn't happen, those are all lies that we promote to justify maintaining a capable defense capability. I also recall the NG troops posted to commercial airports after 9/11 protecting our citizens without bullets, because they weren't trained well enough to carry loaded weapons in public.


We wage wars of choice. We do this much more because we can than because we have to. That is a fact. Sequestration is a term used to scare Americans to keep funding this machine, but in fact it might be just what we need to make America much safer than we currently do with all this military capacity to send about on these little adventures.

We wage war to pursue perceived national interests period. Some of those wars may be labeled wars of choice, but as you well know policy makers who determine the budget will continue to fund the means to wage their wars of choice, and I much rather participate in those wars with a capable military than a militia.

You, I, nor anyone else will ever no if our military capability deterred wars and prevent other nations from taking hostile action against us or our allies because they feared our credible capability to respond quickly. Yet I suspect maintaining a military that could respond quickly and effectively actually saved us billions of $$$ over the years and untold lives. It is a point that can't be argued, because the answer is unknown. Calling the need for a standing Army a lie is a great leap in logic based on assumptions that only had merit 200 plus years ago.

carl
06-03-2012, 01:41 AM
The fact that the Marines are constitutionally protected is not sophistry, its a ploy that they pull from time to time and it always works for them. The Navy -- and thus the Marines -- can and do, due to that clause in the Constitution, go to long term sustainment and funding in the budget. That is fact.

Well actually, using it as a ploy is sophistry. That is works doesn't make it less so. If you prefer, we have a parallel and redundant army through bureaucratic or legislative legerdemain, not sophistry. In any event in the Constitution mentions Navy, not a corps of marines.


Congress mostly sees the Army as an organization that is perhaps marginally necessary but not socially acceptable. OTOH, Congress likes the Navy and Marines. A bunch. They also like the National Guard, in both cases as a counter to possibly restive Army and Air Force people -- think Seven Days in May -- so they get pride of place funding in comparison to the Army and AF (not that either are underfunded IMO, au contraire...* ). The Middle East and Dictatorships are not the only ones that are made nervous by Armies that are too strong, Democracies buy into that offsetting force routine as well. That's one reason why the inefficiencies and ineptitude you so often deplore are so thoroughly embedded -- Congress does not want the Army to be too good for a variety of reasons. Thus whenever a major Army screwup occurs, Congress goes "Tut-tut," slaps 'em on the wrist -- and immediately returns to business as usual. That's unlikely to change barring an existential problem -- none of which are visible at this time...

You always say that, the Congress is afraid of the Army or Air Force too. Why do you say that? The founders were afraid of standing armies but in the last hundred or hundred and twenty years have any important politicians or major political parties stated that the Army must be kept weak and competing redundant forces must be kept in being to preclude the possibility of a Seven Days in May?

carl
06-03-2012, 02:05 AM
Actually we took very few losses in the initial months, or even the initial years, of both those conflicts.

Bob, you made this statement in reference to WWI and WWII. It is not true in the case of WWII. The Asiatic Fleet was wiped out, the Philippines and other islands were lost and the merchant fleet on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts was slaughtered by a handful of U-Boats. Most every place the Axis forces could get at us, they wiped us out.

Your belief that we were shaping WWI and WWII through engagement and other forms of diplomacy before our entry into those conflicts is silly. We were trying doing some things to influence the outcome as best we could, especially in WWII, but to say we were shaping things is silly.


China does not need a large navy now any more than we did in the last 80 years of the 1800s. Our commercial fleet sailed under British protection then, and Chinese merchants sail under US protection today.

Agreed. Cogently stated. I will use it, with attribution, over on the China and the South China Sea thread.

Bill Moore
06-03-2012, 02:54 AM
I'm not sure what wars Bob was referring to either when he mentioned relatively low casualties. My point on casualties is a poorly prepared Army, like the one that invaded North Africa to fight the Germans, Vichy French, and Italians during WWII will take higher casualties than need/acceptable due to incompetence. I believe we'll be asking for a repeat of history if we rely on the militia.

U.S. Killed:

War of 1812 (approximately 20,000 KIA)
Mexican American War (13,283 KIA)
Spanish American War (2,446 KIA)
WWI (116,516 KIA)
WWII (405,399 KIA)
Vietnam (58,209 KIA)
Iraq (4,484 KIA)

These include numbers for non-combat deaths due to disease, etc.

carl
06-03-2012, 03:06 AM
Bill M.:

I guess militia might work if somebody were intent on conquering and occupying the US. That would take a while, probably a long while and there may be time. But before anybody could even start to consider that, they would have thoroughly beaten the U.S. Navy and if they did that, they wouldn't have to occupy the US, they could just dictate what terms they chose.

In my view, in order to keep the Navy from being beaten, we have to fight overseas on land at times. Militia is no good at that at all, which may be a good point from some points of view if avoiding overseas fights on land is your primary objective. But if your primary objective is keeping the country safe, then you have to have a strong Navy; and to have a strong Navy you have to fight overseas on land sometimes and if you want to do that effectively militia won't cut it.

Bill Moore
06-03-2012, 03:27 AM
Posted by Carl,


But if your primary objective is keeping the country safe, then you have to have a strong Navy; and to have a strong Navy you have to fight overseas on land sometimes and if you want to do that effectively militia won't cut it.

Agreed, but don't forget our Air Force, or our intelligence capabilities, or potentially the requirement for a Cyber capability (guess that could become a service responsibility).

carl
06-03-2012, 03:32 AM
I did forget those. I shouldn't have and will try not to forget in the future.

Surferbeetle
06-03-2012, 03:43 AM
I guess militia might work if somebody were intent on conquering and occupying the US. That would take a while, probably a long while and there may be time.

Not sure where you are from Carl, but any invasion force would have great difficulty taking on America, National Guard or no National Guard. :wry:

Buddhist Packing Bond Pistol Shows American Embrace Of Guns (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/buddhist-packing-bond-pistol-shows-american-warm-embrace-of-guns.html), By Ken Wells - Dec 9, 2011 3:37 PM MT


Natanel is a Buddhist, a self-avowed “spiritual person,” a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She is 5-foot-1 (155 centimeters) and has blonde hair, dark eyes, a ready smile and a soothing voice, with a hint of Boston brogue. She’s a Tai Chi instructor who in classes invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.


The advent of the 24/7 news cycle and its steady thrum on violent crimes may also be helping to drive people to handguns. Deciding to acquire one is part of “a broader feeling of helplessness that doesn’t come out of any kind of thoughtful calculation of risk,” says Homsher. “People buy guns to get rid of their phantoms.”

Women, too, may be liberalizing gun attitudes, because of the unprecedented numbers of them who have trained on firearms in the military and law enforcement in the past 30 years. Some 250,000 women have served in combat zones -- and often in combat roles -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, returning with a familiarity of firearms their mothers never had.

The latest data from the National Firearms Survey, a telephone poll conducted by an arm of the Harvard School of Public Health, shows 40 percent of America’s 283 million privately owned firearms are handguns, up from the 34 percent the survey found in 1994. And while middle-aged white men own the most handguns of any demographic segment, according to federal data, other groups are arming up.

Also wanted to comment on your questions/comments regarding the perceived role of a military by a society. It was interesting to me to observe the militarization of professional/civilian roles in society in Iraq. The US modeled this behavior, our Iraqi counterparts followed our lead...and we were appalled by the outcomes. The lessons of the Rubicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon) are always something to think about.... :eek:

carl
06-03-2012, 03:54 AM
Not sure where you are from Carl, but any invasion force would have great difficulty taking on America, National Guard or no National Guard. :wry:

Denver. Can't disagree. We are one of those unique (pronounced you-ni-cue) countries that are so big and populous that it would be hard no matter what and the fact that we have a lot of guns helps.

But as big as we are, we are basically an island. The Navy gets beat and we are in a bad way.

I don't understand the second part of your comment.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 04:23 AM
Correction: Strike that 'q' after "Acta" above... :rolleyes:


You always say that, the Congress is afraid of the Army or Air Force too. Why do you say that? Read what I wrote, don't quote what you want to think I wrote. I did NOT say -- and never have said -- afraid. What I did say was:

""in both cases as a counter to possibly restive Army and Air Force people...The Middle East and Dictatorships are not the only ones that are made nervous by Armies that are too strong, Democracies buy into that offsetting force routine as well...""

Counter, leery of, nervous about, suspicious of -- none of those things equate to afraid. That's not just semantic, words are important. People who see one thing and escalate it are often afraid -- Congress isn't afraid, they just do not fully trust any of the Armed Forces and they trust the Army least -- it makes them nervous because of its size and cost and, truth be told, less than stellar social makeup (in the view of many). I have consistently said this:

""Congress does not want the Army to be too good for a variety of reasons.""

I've written it enough and said why enough that I don't need to do it again here and now. Just paying attention to what Congress does as opposed to what they say should convince anyone who pays attention of the potential for that to be quite true. It is what I very definitely believe because in Congressional Hearing, GAO Audits and in other ways I have seen firm evidence of the existence of that bias over the years.
The founders were afraid of standing armies...True and you, hopefully noted that I have generally applied that concern over Armies to all Democracies, not just the US. It's pretty plain to see if one just looks about.
but in the last hundred or hundred and twenty years have any important politicians or major political parties stated that the Army must be kept weak and competing redundant forces must be kept in being to preclude the possibility of a Seven Days in May?My suspicion is that in the US at least, yes, some have -- but I'm not concerned about it enough to go Googling. I think that one might need go back little further than the 60s to find examples...

After the debacle that was Viet Nam, the left leaners learned their lesson and will not denigrate the Troops so one is unlikely to find any instances of such distrust or disaffection cited publicly in the last 20 years or so. Still, as I Wrote, pay attention to what Congress does, even today and not to what they say.

Surferbeetle
06-03-2012, 04:26 AM
I don't understand the second part of your comment.

I am speaking to the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between Civil Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society)


The concept of civil society in its pre-modern classical republican understanding is usually connected to the early-modern thought of Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. However, it has much older history in the realm of political thought. Generally, civil society has been referred to as a political association governing social conflict through the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another.[18] In the classical period, the concept was used as a synonym for the good society, and seen as indistinguishable from the state. For instance, Socrates taught that conflicts within society should be resolved through public argument using ‘dialectic’, a form of rational dialogue to uncover truth. According to Socrates, public argument through ‘dialectic’ was imperative to ensure ‘civility’ in the polis and ‘good life’ of the people.[19] For Plato, the ideal state was a just society in which people dedicate themselves to the common good, practice civic virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, and perform the occupational role to which they were best suited. It was the duty of the ‘Philosopher king’ to look after people in civility. Aristotle thought the polis was an ‘association of associations’ that enables citizens to share in the virtuous task of ruling and being ruled.[18] His koinonia politike as political community.

The concept of societas civilis is Roman and was introduced by Cicero. The political discourse in the classical period, places importance on the idea of a ‘good society’ in ensuring peace and order among the people. The philosophers in the classical period did not make any distinction between the state and society. Rather they held that the state represented the civil form of society and ‘civility’ represented the requirement of good citizenship.[18] Moreover, they held that human beings are inherently rational so that they can collectively shape the nature of the society they belong to. In addition, human beings have the capacity to voluntarily gather for the common cause and maintain peace in society. By holding this view, we can say that classical political thinkers endorsed the genesis of civil society in its original sense.

...and Militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism)


Alternative definitions include "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force",[2] the "glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state"[3] (see also: stratocracy and military junta).

Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of several nations throughout history. Prominent examples include the Ancient Assyrian Empire, the Greek city state of Sparta, the Roman Empire, the Aztec nation, the Kingdom of Prussia, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (which would later become part of the Soviet Union), the Italian Colonial Empire during the reign of Benito Mussolini, Nazi Germany and American Imperialism.

Moderation in all things...;)

Ken White
06-03-2012, 04:55 AM
Let me put the ArNG and the USAR, all the Reserve Components (RC) in perspective. It is quite common for Active Component (AC) folks to dismiss them as incompetent.

That's a bad mistake. First and most importantly, there in no intent for them to be as competent as the active forces -- simple math and training time available show that. What the RC brings is the ability to field a trained competent force in LESS time than would be the case if they did not exist. It has been repeatedly estimated and actually shown that about 90 ± days training will produce an acceptably competent RC combat unit that is capable of deploying and performing its missions. That is about 30% of the time or less than it would take to recruit, equip and train a similar unit from scratch.

Note the 'equip' condition. An RC unit needs equipment. If it didn't exist, would Congress fund that equipment. Our history says they would not.

The second factor is that RC units are just like AC units. Some are better than others. The AC bias says they're all incompetent and that is simply not true. Some are very good, most are adequate for purpose and some are disasters -- just like AC units. Most RC Artillery units for example are better than many of their AC counterparts not least because it is not unheard of for the NCO Cadre to stay in the same positions for 10 to 20 years. They may not subscribe to 'up or out' but they do get proficient at their jobs. A Chief of Section with 12 or so years on the job in the RC versus an AC Sergeant who's been in the job three months in a unit that has a 25-30% per year personnel turnover??? An RC Company Commander who's 100 miles from his Battalion is almost certainly a better leader (and probably Commander if not as tactically and technically competent) than his AC counterpart who sits under the thumb of his Battalion Commander ...

Excessive 'professionalism' (a much misused word...) can blind one to the purpose of Armed Forces. That syndrome breeds excessive parochialism for own type unit and for service generally and, as Surferbeetle shows can lead one to forget why they're doing what they do.

Does the RC have limitations? Of course, one gets what one pays for and they cannot replace AC units on a one for one basis. No one contends that they should -- but they are not totally incompetent. I've been in 'big' Army (both Airborne and Earthling) and SF units that were at the time incompetent and not truly mission capable (and I've been in some of all that were quite competent) -- anyone with more than ten years active service who can't say the same has been incredibly lucky -- or is mildly deluded. :wry:

Dayuhan
06-03-2012, 04:56 AM
Women, too, may be liberalizing gun attitudes, because of the unprecedented numbers of them who have trained on firearms in the military and law enforcement in the past 30 years. Some 250,000 women have served in combat zones -- and often in combat roles -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, returning with a familiarity of firearms their mothers never had.

Women who smell like Hoppe's #9... something we can all support and defend!

Bill Moore
06-03-2012, 07:56 AM
Posted by Ken,


Let me put the ArNG and the USAR, all the Reserve Components (RC) in perspective. It is quite common for Active Component (AC) folks to dismiss them as incompetent.

Maybe incompetent is too strong a term, but then again maybe it isn't. We all come to this forum with our own histories, and my experiences with National Guard and Reserve units in combat and training has been less than impressive, and often sadly comical. There are reserve units that have great reputations, unfortunately I didn't get to work with them. Regardless, they are not an adequate replacement for a standing professional Army in my opinion. Were there good individuals in those units? Certainly.

You correctly point out that there are active duty units that are poorly led and not combat ready, which is also true, but the percentage of those is lower in the active ranks, but the fact that any such units exist is unacceptable. We still have units coming back from combat (SF included) where the leadership was so poor you have a mass exodous when they get back, and the piss poor leaders continue to move up through the ranks, so the toxic leader syndrome is alive and well.

One of the SF ODA I was on in the early 80s was not combat ready due to inadequate equipment and training due to being poorly funded, so basically I agree, but still think our nation's security for an immediate response is in much better hands with the active duty force. Over time the reserves and NG can be honed into effective units, but rarely is that the case from a cold start.

Bob's World
06-03-2012, 11:38 AM
I'm not sure what wars Bob was referring to either when he mentioned relatively low casualties. My point on casualties is a poorly prepared Army, like the one that invaded North Africa to fight the Germans, Vichy French, and Italians during WWII will take higher casualties than need/acceptable due to incompetence. I believe we'll be asking for a repeat of history if we rely on the militia.

U.S. Killed:

War of 1812 (approximately 20,000 KIA)
Mexican American War (13,283 KIA)
Spanish American War (2,446 KIA)
WWI (116,516 KIA)
WWII (405,399 KIA)
Vietnam (58,209 KIA)
Iraq (4,484 KIA)


These include numbers for non-combat deaths due to disease, etc.

Come Bill, just step back and open the aperture a bit. All history does not evolve around the US, nor does the clock on conflicts begin and end with the arrival and departure of the US Army.

Yes, WWI was a bloody hell. It was a bloody hell that began on 29 July 1914, and that ended with the Armistice on 11 November 1918. Four years and 3+ months of heavy fighting. Many powerful voices, such as the very popular former President Teddy Roosevelt began clamoring for the US to enter the fighting from the very start. But we did not have a large army, and we were able to hold off on declaring war until 6 April 1917. I hate to think how many European died in their war between Aug 1914 - May 1917, in those nearly 3 years of war many millions were killed and many millions more were wounded. Few Americans were.

By June 1918 American units began gaining experience fighting under allied commands, and it was not until September 1918 that Pershing led Americans as a separate command in the final, decisive, fighting of the war. About 5 months of combat total, 2 months of combat as an American force.

How can you say that our lack of a standing army did not save lives in WWI? Yet we sat at the final table as a victorious signatory.

WWII was very similar. The war did not begin on 7 December 1941. Japan took Manchuria virtually unopposed in 1931, and began active combat against China proper in 1937. Germany went into Poland in September of 1939. The US Army landed in North Africa in November 1942. I won't belabor the historical facts, but write this only to point out that our interpretation of the facts is highly skewed.

We argue how a lack of a standing army made it slow for the US to arrive in a fighting form in these wars. True and moot. The US was also never significantly threatened in those wars, certainly not of ground invasion, and the US was the decisive total force of military power (industry, naval, air, land) in both. But we avoided years of fighting the fights of others, and millions of casualties in the same. That is just smart. Today's strategy is not smart. It is not American.

The Army made the same arguments between every war for why they needed to stay large, and the Army lost those arguments. Today, with 60+ years of Cold War and post Cold War bias under our belt we have a hard time remembering who we are and the whys and hows of that. It is time to get back to basics and return to our geostrategic roots. This was not "Isolationist" it was just not overly arrogant and adventurist. We need to step away from the false historical arguments and the name calling and apply sound, calm, informed strategic logic.

This will make our allies squirm. They love not having to secure their own interests and have been pissing away the American peace dividend like drunken sailors while we fore go that dividend and outspend the world on a system of global defense funded solely by us. This is illogical and unsustainable. This is the worst kind of leadership as well. We need to lead by example, not by physically jumping into every conflict, not by setting moral standards, not by providing all the hardware and most of the manpower.

Oh yeah, and our current approach is also arguably unconstitutional.

carl
06-03-2012, 12:49 PM
Read what I wrote, don't quote what you want to think I wrote. I did NOT say -- and never have said -- afraid. What I did say was:

Counter, leery of, nervous about, suspicious of -- none of those things equate to afraid. That's not just semantic, words are important. People who see one thing and escalate it are often afraid -- Congress isn't afraid, they just do not fully trust any of the Armed Forces and they trust the Army least -- it makes them nervous because of its size and cost and, truth be told, less than stellar social makeup (in the view of many).

Sorry Ken, that semantic thicket you are hiding in provides thin cover. When you write a paragraph that includes references to Seven Days in May, countering possibly restive Army and Air Force people and not the only ones being made nervous by armies that are too strong, you are writing about a Congress that you say is afraid of the Army or what it might do. If somebody says he won't get into the ring with that guy because he suspects, is suspicious of, leery of or concerned (I added concerned on my own) about the outcome, I'd say he is afraid even though he didn't come out and say it. So I fairly read what you wrote, you wrote that Congress is afraid of an Army that is too strong.


I've written it enough and said why enough that I don't need to do it again here and now. Just paying attention to what Congress does as opposed to what they say should convince anyone who pays attention of the potential for that to be quite true. It is what I very definitely believe because in Congressional Hearing, GAO Audits and in other ways I have seen firm evidence of the existence of that bias over the years.True and you, hopefully noted that I have generally applied that concern over Armies to all Democracies, not just the US. It's pretty plain to see if one just looks about.My suspicion is that in the US at least, yes, some have -- but I'm not concerned about it enough to go Googling. I think that one might need go back little further than the 60s to find examples...

After the debacle that was Viet Nam, the left leaners learned their lesson and will not denigrate the Troops so one is unlikely to find any instances of such distrust or disaffection cited publicly in the last 20 years or so. Still, as I Wrote, pay attention to what Congress does, even today and not to what they say.

You say the Congress acts like it does because it is afraid of an Army that is too strong and the evidence of that is the actions of the Congress. That may be if there is only one possible explanation for those actions, but there is not. Simple incompetence is an alternative and I believe very definitely a more plausible explanation in my view.

Well if you can't cite any statements by important politicians or political parties that support your contention that Congress is afraid...oops..."leery of, nervous about, suspicious of" a strong Army and acts in such a way to keep it weak, then we are left with your opinion. Which, in my opinion, is wrong.

I did note your words about all democracies. I just disregarded them because we aren't talking about all of them, only one.

Bob's World
06-03-2012, 01:16 PM
All,

Our Constitution was a document uniquely written by Americans for Americans. Written by men after much debate as to how to ensure stability in a fledgling country made up of to that point by 13 distinct and sovereign states. Written by men who had grown to maturity as oppressed citizens of a government they deemed as illegitimate to govern them, held in check by the regular army of that government. An army they were forced to house and feed in their very homes; and in an environment where they were denied fundamental rights to gather and express their discontent, and a government that felt no compulsion to hear or respond to their reasonable concerns.

These same men then became rebels and insurgents, and fought to free themselves and this land and these people from such oppression; then in the summer of 1786 with the Confederation crumbling in disarray around them, they came together to design a system of governance that would allow such a diverse mix of sovereign states to work together as one, and to prevent the forms and actions of government that they knew first hand to be so destructive to human dignity and liberty.

This is no less true today than it was then. We do well not to forget what makes us stable. Today many argue that the key to our stability at home rests in our ability to go forth and attempt to force stability abroad. This is the result of generations of sliding slowly, but surely, down what is known in the law as "the slippery slope."

So, here we are today, not at the base of that slippery slope, and God forbid we allow ourselves to slide that far. But we are far down from the crest as well. Perhaps so far that many cannot recall where we once were, or see what we once could see. Climbing back up a slippery slope is far more difficult than sliding down it. Many prefer that easy path. But that path is wrong and that path is un-American, and that path ignores the issues, the intentions and the goals of the framers of our system of governance. It is time to ignore the loud voices of ignorance who seek to stir up unreasonable fears of what others do that might some day or in some small way affect us, while neglecting to focus on what we do to so severely affect ourselves. It is time to take that proverbial hard right over the easy wrong.

America must secure her interests. But as I said at the start, our Ends have come to be defined in far too ideological of terms. Our Ways have become far too controlling over the lives of others. Lastly, our Means for securing our interests have come to be far to reliant on military action; this leading us to believe we must sustain a warfighting army to secure our peace. When one must have an Army at war to keep a Nation at peace, I suspect one is probably going at it in the wrong way. Just my perception.

My oath is to support and defend the Constitution. Not just the parts I find convenient. But to support and defend something, one must first understand what it truly stands for, and current interpretations on key aspects, such as role of the military, have become very biased by events of the past 60 years. Those years are a part of our past, but they do not define our future. We need to look a bit farther back to find those insights.

carl
06-03-2012, 01:59 PM
Bob:

Nice speech. Doesn't change the fact that we have had a standing army and will have a standing army. The world and its events insure that will happen. We, as a matter of fact, have two standing armies, one of which we call the Marine Corps. We could get away with delusions that we could do without one in the late 1700s, times changed, and they changed pretty quick. They won't change back.

I observe that you are in the habit of wrapping your opinions in the flag by repeatedly using "un-American" as a label to discredit courses of action you disapprove of. How very intolerant of you, why it positively un-American.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 02:39 PM
Sorry Ken, that semantic thicket you are hiding in provides thin cover.I don't hide.
...Simple incompetence is an alternative and I believe very definitely a more plausible explanation in my view.That's certainly a factor but it doesn't explain the political power of either the Navy and Marines or of the National Guard, does it?[
Which, in my opinion, is wrong.Dueling opinions --as usual, others will make up their own minds. Fortunately.
I did note your words about all democracies. I just disregarded them because we aren't talking about all of them, only one.What's this "we" stuff. You may be talking about one of them, I am talking and have consistently talked about all or certainly most of them in this context. However, I acknowledge that "disregarding" the inconvenient helps give your opinion a slightly enhanced position. ;)

carl
06-03-2012, 02:49 PM
I don't hide.

Fair enough. Carefully concealed then.


That's certainly a factor but it doesn't explain the political power of either the Navy and Marines or of the National Guard, does it?

Actually I think it does, rather nicely, at least as far and the Marines and the National Guard go. The Navy should have the influence it has or even more (maybe) seeing as how we are an island nation.


[Dueling opinions --as usual, others will make up their own minds. Fortunately.

I fully agree.


What's this "we" stuff.

You may be talking about one of them, I am talking and have consistently talked about all or certainly most of them in this context. However, I acknowledge that "disregarding" the inconvenient helps give your opinion a slightly enhanced position. ;)

Sorry, I got confused since this thread is about the US Constitution and the standing army in the US, why I just naturally figured we were talking about the US.

Bob's World
06-03-2012, 02:50 PM
Carl,

Name a single situation, other than the deterrence of the Soviet Union in Western Europe during the Cold War, that has demanded our possession of a large standing peacetime Army in the history of the US. Just one.

I strongly encourage those who have an interest in this topic to read the two histories of the American Army written by Edward M Coffman. He gives a very detailed account of the peacetime history of our Army and the nature and outcomes of these debates over time.

Now, I do not believe that we need no standing Army, but the Army is a warfighting force, so not much is needed in peace of that type of capacity. The Marines are another story, and they are not "another Army," they are part of our Naval forces and perform the land component supporting role to our peacetime naval forces you have described in earlier posts.

The Marines to expeditionary interventions. Yes, in times of war they are a competent warfighting force, but their primary purpose is to ensure we have the capacity in times of peace to perform these types of limited operations as necessary to secure our interests.

In peace the USMC should probably be comparable in size to the Active Army, if not larger. Total Army will always be larger, but in times of peace will be made up predominantly of unmobilized militia.

Be clear on this, I do not question the patriotism of those Americans who so strongly advocate for a large Army and the continuous employment of it in times of peace in military adventures around the globe. I simply point out that this is not in step with the principles that our nation is founded upon, and therefore "un-American."

As to the requirement for such adventures today? You and others deem them to be inevitable, the reality of the world we live in today. But please Carl, name for me a single existential threat to the United States and our role in the world. Just one. We do not act out as we do because we are in danger, we act out because we have defined our strategy in such outrageous expansive terms of ideological Ends and overly controlling ways that the only way we can get others to conform with what we want them to do is by applying excessive Military Means. That too, I argue, is un-American.

Yes you are a patriot. But that does not save you from reasonable assessments that what you think is necessary to preserve America is also un-American. I merely make the argument that one can be both patriotic and promote approaches more in-synch with our founding principles than those we currently pursue. That is an argument that makes many uncomfortable. Those people need to be uncomfortable. My son was not "comfortable" during his two tours as a Combat Infantryman in Iraq. I was not comfortable during my deployments as a Special Forces officer and 26 years of service either. We have ramped up the military optempo to unsustainable rates to prop up an unsustainable strategy. That is the bad news. The good news is that that strategy can be easily updated to a much more sustainable one that is more in synch with both our principles and our challenges; and that we do not need a military in a perpetual state of conflict to support such a strategy. This is the essence of the wisdom found in works such as Sun Tzu.

So, show me where my understanding of our founding is wrong.
Show me the existential threats to our nation today.
Show me where America ever suffered more than a black eye for not having a large standing army ready to fight.
Show me.

Otherwise, I have little choice but to dismiss you as one very passionate, very uninformed Chicken hawk. Quick to see dangerous threats where none exist, and just as quick to call for others to go out and do something about those minor threats and challenges to appease your fears. Such fears and such positions, granted, held by many, currently weaken our nation. You are in large company, but I do not find it to be particularly good company.

Now is the time for more thought and reflection as to how we best secure our nation into the future. Einstein once said, "If given an hour to save the world, I would spend 59 minutes thinking about how to save the world, and 1 minute saving it." Sadly, that too is "un-American." We prefer the opposite. Spend a month preparing a CONOP telling the President how we can solve a problem by throwing our standing army at it, and then a decade attempting to make that solution work. We can do better.

carl
06-03-2012, 03:29 PM
Bob:

Remember when Reagan said "There you go again."? Well there you go again. I am not only un-American (still-though patriotically un-American), I am also a "Chicken hawk" and an uninformed one to boot. I will get back to you on some things but right now I have to go cry in the corner. Tell me though, when evaluating the term "Chicken hawk", should I put more emphasis on "Chicken", "hawk" or should they be given equal weight?

Done crying now and can get back to something. In your first post you said "We were forced to carry an army into the peace following WWII because we decided to implement a Containment strategy of the Soviet union (yes, decided, there were other options on the table that were far less onerous to implement)."

In your last post you said this "Name a single situation, other than the deterrence of the Soviet Union in Western Europe during the Cold War, that has demanded our possession of a large standing peacetime Army in the history of the US."

So in your first post, you said there were other, better options to the Containment strategy that required a large Army to implement. Then in your last post you say a large Army was demanded in order to deter the Soviet Union in western Europe. My chicken, no, Chicken (I forgot to capitalize Chicken) heart is gratified to see that you have come around to opening your apertures and seeing that those old guys weren't so dumb after all when figuring what to do.

Stay tuned folks, more to come.

Bob's World
06-03-2012, 03:52 PM
Once the containment strategy was embarked upon, the force was necessary.

I served under President Reagan and spent '86-'88 backing his hand and prepared to defend my small section of the Fulda Gap.

I don't recall seeing you there.

Nor did I see you when I took my ODA out into the Saudi Desert to link up with the Egyptian Ranger BDE to begin creating a "Arab Coalition" to stand up to the play of Saddam to take Kuwait, nor in the subsequent land operation supporting the lead BDE of that same Arab Coalition in operations in Western Kuwait.

Nor in the Philippines or Afghanistan in support of OEF operations.

I'm staying tuned, but it appears we are on different channels.

Cheers.

carl
06-03-2012, 04:11 PM
I served under President Reagan and spent '86-'88 backing his hand and prepared to defend my small section of the Fulda Gap.

I don't recall seeing you there.

Nor did I see you when I took my ODA out into the Saudi Desert to link up with the Egyptian Ranger BDE to begin creating a "Arab Coalition" to stand up to the play of Saddam to take Kuwait, nor in the subsequent land operation supporting the lead BDE of that same Arab Coalition in operations in Western Kuwait.

Nor in the Philippines or Afghanistan in support of OEF operations.

Now these are very interesting comments. They bring to mind a question that I will ask you. Here is the setup to the question. You have two American citizens. One has an outstanding military service record. The other American citizen has no military service record at all. When it comes time to vote for representatives, should the vote of the citizen with the outstanding service record count more than the vote of the citizen with no military service record at all? I think they should count equally. What do you think?

Also we have the same two citizens and they have differing ideas. Should the ideas of citizens be weighed upon the merits of the ideas, or should the ideas be weighed upon what the citizens have done in the past? I think the variant ideas should be weighed upon the merits of the ideas themselves, not the rep of those who hold them.

In Desert Storm we moved a very large force very quickly half way around the world because the civilian leaders thought that is what we should do. That was made easier because we had a large standing army already in being, I think anyway. Now that didn't demand the possession of a large standing army, but it was easier because one was around. Or maybe it did demand a large standing army if you use the word demand to mean that it could not have been done without one. I do remember reading that it was a good thing the big army from the cold war was still around.

I almost made it to Germany in 86-88. I was going to go to Octoberfest but I couldn't find anybody to go with me so I didn't go. Does that count?

Ken White
06-03-2012, 04:51 PM
Fair enough. Carefully concealed then.Nor that for sure. There's nothing here to warrant seeking concealment and I'm lazy so I don't bother. :D
Actually I think it does, rather nicely, at least as far and the Marines and the National Guard go. The Navy should have the influence it has or even more (maybe) seeing as how we are an island nation.We do understand that's your opinion. Others may differ. The "maybe" is a nice touch. A little introduction of a shade of gray. Does that mean your black and white outlook is changing for the better? :cool:
Sorry, I got confused since this thread is about the US Constitution and the standing army in the US, why I just naturally figured we were talking about the US.Selective omission? The thread does discuss the US, I introduced the fact that other Democracies have a particular attribute as that IMO had and has a bearing on the discussion. As I said, you can disregard the inconvenient.;)

I suspect that 'distrust' does not equate to 'afraid' in the minds of most but I think 'conceal' probably does equate to 'hide.' As a minor point of which I'm sure you're aware, imprecision or carelessness in word use in this medium can lead to a perception of misquoting at worst, misunderstanding at least. Either way, it seems to lead to voluminous posts of little real merit... :wry:

carl
06-03-2012, 04:54 PM
Either way, it seems to lead to voluminous posts of little real merit... :wry:

For sure.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 05:25 PM
...we have the same two citizens and they have differing ideas. Should the ideas of citizens be weighed upon the merits of the ideas, or should the ideas be weighed upon what the citizens have done in the past? I think the variant ideas should be weighed upon the merits of the ideas themselves, not the rep of those who hold them.I'd opt for basing the decision on the merit of the ideas. Thus, you lose. Bob's idea is to return in large measure to a formula that worked well for the US for the bulk of our 225 years. Yours, as nearly as I can ascertain, is to maintain the status quo -- a status you continually denigrate -- and / or expanding the Navy.

Personally, I think both your ideas have merit but I also think neither is in accord with political reality... :wry:

The likely outcome is a melding of both ideas with a slight tilt towards the Bob solution.

That's all an aside, I intruded due to this misperception:
In Desert Storm we moved a very large force very quickly half way around the world because the civilian leaders thought that is what we should do....I do remember reading that it was a good thing the big army from the cold war was still around.Your recall of part of what you read is, as always, correct but your summation as occurs frequently is not. That BTW is not an insult nor is it an indication of lack of sophistication or even of ignorance, it is an indicator IMO of nothing more than a lack of experience in the mechanical aspects of fighting wars.

The bulk of the troops in DS/DS came from Europe as the to be disbanded VII Corps was moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia. It bears mentioning that the Corps was inactivated immediately after DS/DS and the large Cold War Army largely disappeared very quickly. That Army continued to disappear in smaller increments for the next nine years plus, the decline in numbers being halted only by the attacks of 9/11/01

However, your major error is "quickly" though I acknowledge that word is relative -- in the context of DS/DS, it was 'quick' only because Saddam Hussein was not very smart. Had he attacked early on and in force, even with the Iraqi Army in the sad state that it was, the outcome might have been very different. It was nice of him to allow us over six months to get deployed, train and organize for the limited objective attack . To any military guy, that six months is not quick. Picture, for example, the difference in actions during the six months from December 1941 until June 1942... :rolleyes:

carl
06-03-2012, 06:14 PM
I'd opt for basing the decision on the merit of the ideas. Thus, you lose.

Yes I do, in Ken's opinion. But "as usual, others will make up their own minds. Fortunately."


That's all an aside, I intruded due to this misperception:Your recall of part of what you read is, as always, correct but your summation as occurs frequently is not. That BTW is not an insult nor is it an indication of lack of sophistication or even of ignorance, it is an indicator IMO of nothing more than a lack of experience in the mechanical aspects of fighting wars.

The bulk of the troops in DS/DS came from Europe as the to be disbanded VII Corps was moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia. It bears mentioning that the Corps was inactivated immediately after DS/DS and the large Cold War Army largely disappeared very quickly. That Army continued to disappear in smaller increments for the next nine years plus, the decline in numbers being halted only by the attacks of 9/11/01

However, your major error is "quickly" though I acknowledge that word is relative -- in the context of DS/DS, it was 'quick' only because Saddam Hussein was not very smart. Had he attacked early on and in force, even with the Iraqi Army in the sad state that it was, the outcome might have been very different. It was nice of him to allow us over six months to get deployed, train and organize for the limited objective attack . To any military guy, that six months is not quick. Picture, for example, the difference in actions during the six months from December 1941 until June 1942... :rolleyes:

Like you say, quickly is relative. It took a lot longer to move sufficient forces to invade Normandy to England, and that is a shorter distance. A large part of that time was taken in up in creating the forces that didn't exist. VII Corps existed. And also that big pre-existing cold war army used to practice moving as fast as it could (fast of course being reletive) from one continent to another as best it could. So having that big about to be reduced army in existence was a bit of an advantage I think.

Six months was a long time in 1942. So it was lucky we had started to build up forces well before then. Existing forces helped us a lot then just as they helped us a lot in 1991.

Saddam was kind of dopey.

I you are having trouble ascertaining my position, you should ask me.

carl
06-03-2012, 06:33 PM
Note the language of the constitution and the tremendous difference between Congress's duty regarding "Armies" (not "the Army, but Armies as in many different ones raised for specific conflicts and purpose.).

“Raise and Support” various “Armies” as needed is very different from “Provide and Maintain” an enduring “Navy” for reasons that are still valid and fundamental to our national ethos and geostrategic reality.

Bob:

I wanted to comment to you about this.

Right after the part about providing for a Navy it says "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces;". It doesn't say "land forces" and "the naval force" so that seems to me sort of hazy, not the clear distinction you make. Then right after that it talks about calling forth the Militia to do things. It seems to make a distinction between the Militia and land forces.

Then later on it says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,". It doesn't say Armies it says Army. Again it seems the Constitution is recognizing the existence of an Army. Then right after that it says "and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;". So the Constitution seems to be making a distinction between the Army and the Militia as if they are two different things.

Then in Amendment V the Constitution speaks again of "the land and naval forces, or in the Militia,". So all in all, I am not so sure the Constitution doesn't recognize the that there will not be an Army.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 07:29 PM
I (sic) you are having trouble ascertaining my position, you should ask me.However, your penchant for making analogies from history that bear only a superficial resemblance to each other and then drawing conclusions for the future from those analogies sure muddies a lot of water... :wry:

Comparing Normandy to DS/DS other than that both involved the US and others and each entailed an invasion is not particularly advantageous to your position -- whatever it is. :o

Ken White
06-03-2012, 08:27 PM
Maybe incompetent is too strong a term, but then again maybe it isn't.You can't compare AC and RC units directly. You could compare an RC unit that half way through a combat tour in Iraq with a nearby AC unit that'd been there the same length of time. Folks tell me there was little difference -- and both of them were almost certainly different in a matter of months due to personnel rotation... :rolleyes:
You correctly point out that there are active duty units that are poorly led and not combat ready...I suspect that a fair testing would indicate only a very slight tilt toward the AC but we're not going to test -- or relieve poor commanders (which would provide a comparison statistic of sorts) -- because to do so would upset the Personnel system which by Congressional direction is skewed to give virtually everyone remotely qualified a shot at command. :mad:

Thus, there's no way to know.
...so the toxic leader syndrome is alive and well.

One of the SF ODA I was on in the early 80s was not combat ready due to inadequate equipment and training due to being poorly funded...After my time. During my time, most SF and other units suffered from marginally competent Officers and NCOs far more so than from equipment or funding problems. In units, SF and conventional I later worked with as a DAC, I saw the same thing through out the 80s and 90s. My Son and his friends, most of whom have been at it more than 20 years contend its still true. Both AC and RC units suffer from that.

My observation has been that AC units are generally not nearly as tactically and technically competent as they like to think they and say they are. Proof of that? Read combat award citations -- almost invariably they cite a series of screwups that led to the action. Or just cruise You Tube... :D
...so basically I agree, but still think our nation's security for an immediate response is in much better hands with the active duty force. Over time the reserves and NG can be honed into effective units, but rarely is that the case from a cold start.And I agree with that. We need both, the mix is the issue. We'll see what sorts out...

Both components suffer from excessive parochialism internally between Branches and communities and externally between the components. That parochialism is not helpful to anyone...

carl
06-03-2012, 08:39 PM
However, your penchant for making analogies from history that bear only a superficial resemblance to each other and then drawing conclusions for the future from those analogies sure muddies a lot of water... :wry:

Comparing Normandy to DS/DS other than that both involved the US and others and each entailed an invasion is not particularly advantageous to your position -- whatever it is. :o

Is there a question in there somewhere or don't you want to ask me what my position is?

Superficial resemblance to each other only if you take a superficial gander at it. Allow me to guide your gaze. See in 1942 there wasn't a well equipped fairly well trained military force available to send to England. We had started working on it but basically it didn't exist. We had to create it and equip it before we could send it to England. That took time. If there had been a big, well equipped, fairly well trained force available in 1942 we could have sent it to England a lot sooner where it might have done some good, sooner. In 1991 there was a big well equipped, fairly well trained military force available courtesy of the cold war. So we could send it to the area in only a few months and it was able to do good a lot sooner than if we had to train up and equip almost from scratch, thereby illustrating an advantage of having a large, well equipped, fairly well trained force hanging around.

Ken White
06-03-2012, 09:05 PM
Is there a question in there somewhere or don't you want to ask me what my position is?Nah, no question, merely a statement -- and no, not particularly
Superficial resemblance to each other only if you take a superficial gander at it. Allow me to guide your gaze...So we could send it to the area in only a few months and it was able to do good a lot sooner than if we had to train up and equip almost from scratch, thereby illustrating an advantage of having a large, well equipped, fairly well trained force hanging around.Gee, really? Who knew... :eek:

As point of minor interest, while your basic point is acknowledged -- indeed, it was never in question -- the fact remains that the only similarities were US involvement and an invasion was to occur. The differences in number of troops involved, the scale of combat to be undertaken, the resources and supplies available and provided, transportation and communication improvements and the global political and military situations make that analogy not only superficial but suspect and sorely subject to misinterpretaion. Not least that you left out North Africa where a large US military force was operating in 1942 -- and you apparently ignored the geopolitics that made that the case...

If, however, you believe there's a lesson to be learned there, by all means go for it. Good luck with convincing others. I can't help with that, I'm too busy chuckling. :D

carl
06-03-2012, 10:15 PM
As point of minor interest, while your basic point is acknowledged -- indeed, it was never in question -- the fact remains that the only similarities were US involvement and an invasion was to occur. The differences in number of troops involved, the scale of combat to be undertaken, the resources and supplies available and provided, transportation and communication improvements and the global political and military situations make that analogy not only superficial but suspect and sorely subject to misinterpretaion. Not least that you left out North Africa where a large US military force was operating in 1942 -- and you apparently ignored the geopolitics that made that the case...

Well lets see. Maybe the difference, logistical that is, were not all that great and there are valid comparisons to be made. The Iraqis attacked in the beginning of August and by the end of September there were around 200,000 American troops of various kinds in Saudi Arabia to prevent further attacks. That was quite an accomplishment, a fast accomplishment no matter what time frame you are working with. When the ground war got going there were almost 700,000 Americans hanging around over there ready to do harm to Saddam. I don't know if that figure includes Navy and USMC people hanging around offshore. That is a lot of people. Even more force when you consider how much firepower they had.

Now we can't exactly compare a quick little war fought mostly with what we had on hand to WWII when the entire nation mobilized for years but it is useful to compare some things. Operation Torch started in Nov. 1942 almost a year after the war started and there were about 60,000 American troops landed. Many more followed of course but we couldn't put an especially large force on the beach even almost a year after the war started. And they were not very good at what they did. So that big army in being was able to put an immensely greater amount of combat power much more rapidly than the Army could do in WWII. Which was my point.

As far as Normandy goes, I just read that on D+11 there were about 326,000 Allied troops onshore. That 200,000 troops in Saudi Arabia by the end of Sept compares quite favorably to that. So maybe you can compare to a small extent the numbers of men and amount of resources deployed especially when you consider the time frames, years on the one hand, months on the other, involved. The point being again that it helps to have a large Army in being if you want to invade a place quick.


If, however, you believe there's a lesson to be learned there, by all means go for it.

Obviously the situations were not exactly parallel, but if you insist on exact parallels you will never be able to learn anything from history.


Good luck with convincing others. I can't help with that, I'm too busy chuckling. :D

I wander the world spreading joy and merriment. It is what I do. :D

Bill Moore
06-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Ken,

You're right about the foolishness of comparing RC and AC units, and furthermore you are correct about some AC units not being as tactically proficient as they claim (we already had those discussions about good infantry units, and unfortunately not all AC infantry units are good due primarily to leadership).

Also true that SF had and continues to have many officers and NCOs who provide less than stellar leadership, and I'm not sure that will ever change. Special only applies to the type of warfare, it doesn't magically endow those with the title with leadership ability. It was suggested by a few trusted friends that the NG SF during a short period in the late 70s and early 80s was superior to AC SF because many of the battle hardened vets from Vietnam couldn't put up with the peacetime BS in the AC and went into the NG SF. No longer the case, but I suspect the NG and RC had periods, especially post conflict where they retained a greater percentage of combat vets. Still doesn't mean the units are ready to blow out on short notice, nor are they designed to, so as you wrote:


And I agree with that. We need both, the mix is the issue. We'll see what sorts out...

Posted by Bob,


WWII was very similar. The war did not begin on 7 December 1941. Japan took Manchuria virtually unopposed in 1931, and began active combat against China proper in 1937. Germany went into Poland in September of 1939. The US Army landed in North Africa in November 1942. I won't belabor the historical facts, but write this only to point out that our interpretation of the facts is highly skewed.

Bob you are absolutely correct about skewing history, much like your interpretation of historical facts spinning the facts about the effectivness of Ghandi ousting the British from India with non-violent action. Facts are the U.S. entered WWII after December 7, 1941. In both WWI and WWII we lost personnel prior to our official entry into the war, especially merchant marines, but the war for us started when it started. The U.S. entered the conflict in Afghanistan in 2001, but the Afghans have been fighting for decades, but it wasn't our war until we entered it, so in sum your spin is irrelevant. What you tried to say is that moving slow is to our advantage, which in some cases may be true, but in others we may miss out on a critical window of opportunity to win decisively and with less losses. We should have the choice of deploying quickly, slowly or not at all, and having a standing Army doesn't take that choice away, it makes it possible.


We argue how a lack of a standing army made it slow for the US to arrive in a fighting form in these wars. True and moot.

We also talked about the effectiveness of a standing Army compared to a militia, a point you conveniently fail to address. During the NW Indian wars in Ohio the militia performed terribly, and President Washington had to authorize a larger standing Army, because the Regulars were the only ones fighting well. This has happened throughout history, so the value of the standing Army has proven its worth. However, you recently changed your argument from no standing Army to a smaller standing Army, that is major change and most would agree we can and will downsize.


The US was also never significantly threatened in those wars, certainly not of ground invasion, and the US was the decisive total force of military power (industry, naval, air, land) in both.

That is your opinion, I'm not exactly sure what would have stopped the Japanese or Germans from crossing the ocean to reach the U.S. once they secured victories in Asia and Europe. We certainly crossed the oceans to get their lands, and both had very lethal Armies that were eventually defeated. To think that Japanese and Germans weren't capable of defeating our militia if they invaded is a bit of a stretch, especially with the tactics they used. Even if it turned into a long bloody resistance the Japanese and Germans eventually lost it surely was in our best interests to win the fight far away from our shore. Additionally, since when did our national interests get reduced to defending the homeland?


The Army made the same arguments between every war for why they needed to stay large, and the Army lost those arguments.

Not without reason, the TF Smith argument isn't a myth even it is does involve some spin. Again your original argument was no standing Army period, but now that your argument is more reasonable and focused on the appropriate size and mix of the Army, that can and will be debated.


This will make our allies squirm. They love not having to secure their own interests and have been pissing away the American peace dividend like drunken sailors while we fore go that dividend and outspend the world on a system of global defense funded solely by us.

So you're advocating making our allies squirm as good policy? I guess if we don't need those allies you would be right, but if it is in our interests to maintain those alliances, then maybe making them squirm isn't such a good option?


This is illogical and unsustainable. This is the worst kind of leadership as well. We need to lead by example, not by physically jumping into every conflict, not by setting moral standards, not by providing all the hardware and most of the manpower.

Where have we done this? You are confusing Bush Junior policy with American policy, but his approach to Iraq and Afghanistan was and remains an abberration in our history. There are many prior and ongoing conflicts that we refuse to get involved in despite requests from our citizens and the global community to get involved in, so it is a great exaggeration and even a lie to claim we jump into every conflict.

As for providing the hardware to others, unfortunately that is good business for the death merchants and we won't overcome their lobbies in D.C.. They'll simply argue if we don't provide the weapons someone else will, and unfortunately it is true. You cautioned already that we should pursue our interests, not ideology, so are you now arguing that our interests should be based on ideology?


Oh yeah, and our current approach is also arguably unconstitutional.

Perhaps, but again the Constitution was written over 200 years ago in a much different world. By no means do I concur with our current approach, but I'm not sure the unconstitutional argument will carry much weight in today's world.

Ken White
06-04-2012, 01:14 AM
When the ground war got going there were almost 700,000 Americans hanging around over there ready to do harm to Saddam. I don't know if that figure includes Navy and USMC people hanging around offshore. It does and it also includes the USAF and USCG and further includes all those near but not in the theater who were supporting -- to include the VII Corps Rear Detachments in Germany... :rolleyes:

For comparison purposes, the Army's Troop Basis for 1942 was 2M initially and that was raised in March to 5M. The Army ended the year in December 1942 with 5,397,674. There were at the time 74 Divisions for the two ocean - two front war and a little less than half, about 30 Divisions (a net of of a little over 1.5M soldiers counting Division slices) were nominally combat ready.

On 30 September 1991, the Army's total strength, worldwide, was 725,445. US on the ground troop strength in Kuwait (and Sailors and Marines afloat in the Gulf) as well as the large USAF contingent never exceeded 500K; the Amy provided about 375K (about 140.000 RC) and was only able to do that because of the 'availability' of VII Corps. Had their continued presence been required in Europe, things would have been different. It is noteworthy that the DS/DS troop strengths were about double Operation Iraqi Freedom strengths.

As an aside and FYI, DS/DS was a total aberration in all aspects of combat. It is not a good example to use for hardly anything pertaining to warfare -- or military logistics. That's not a Ken White opinion, it's a stated Army position that few disagree with.
Now we can't exactly compare a quick little war fought mostly with what we had on hand to WWII when the entire nation mobilized for years...You're a master of understatement. :D
...but it is useful to compare some things.Always -- but which things are selected is important.
Operation Torch started in Nov. 1942 almost a year after the war started and there were about 60,000 American troops landed. Many more followed of course but we couldn't put an especially large force on the beach even almost a year after the war started. And they were not very good at what they did. So that big army in being was able to put an immensely greater amount of combat power much more rapidly than the Army could do in WWII. Which was my point.That's an example of what not to do. As you mentioned above but apparently forgot:
Even more force when you consider how much firepower they had.Your comparison, even though you mentioned it, really suffers from that major difference. Further, the Troop numbers for Torch are a function of both the requirement and of available lift more than of trained persons available. Conversely DS/DS deliberately went for 'overkill' -- far more Troops than were really deemed necessary simply because VII Corps was available -- it had already been slated for inactivation...

An added factor is training. We do not yet train as well as we could or should -- but in 1990, training was literally light years ahead of WW II (particularly in the early days before the Germans and Japanese undertook to train us more properly).

Different wars, different Armies, different training, different weapons -- Vastly different in all cases. There is really almost no comparison.
The point being again that it helps to have a large Army in being if you want to invade a place quick.That's a statement of the obvious and no one is disputing that -- or at least I certainly do not dispute it. What I'm trying to point out is that while your end point is logical to the point of self evidence, the route you follow or lay out to arrive there is rather illogical and quite flawed in concept.
Obviously the situations were not exactly parallel, but if you insist on exact parallels you will never be able to learn anything from history.No one is existing on exact parallels but some congruity would generally be beneficial... :wry:

carl
06-04-2012, 02:22 AM
For comparison purposes, the Army's Troop Basis for 1942 was 2M initially and that was raised in March to 5M. The Army ended the year in December 1942 with 5,397,674. There were at the time 74 Divisions for the two ocean - two front war and a little less than half, about 30 Divisions (a net of of a little over 1.5M soldiers counting Division slices) were nominally combat ready.

That is a big force alright. How many were actually combat ready and deployed in March of 1942? Not many. The point as it has been, is that a large standing well trained army can get you more forces to a spot in a shorter time. I don't see how anything in this paragraph goes counter to that.


On 30 September 1991, the Army's total strength, worldwide, was 725,445. US on the ground troop strength in Kuwait (and Sailors and Marines afloat in the Gulf) as well as the large USAF contingent never exceeded 500K; the Amy provided about 375K (about 140.000 RC) and was only able to do that because of the 'availability' of VII Corps. Had their continued presence been required in Europe, things would have been different. It is noteworthy that the DS/DS troop strengths were about double Operation Iraqi Freedom strengths.

Their continued presence in Europe wasn't required so they could go and things were as they were.


As an aside and FYI, DS/DS was a total aberration in all aspects of combat. It is not a good example to use for hardly anything pertaining to warfare -- or military logistics. That's not a Ken White opinion, it's a stated Army position that few disagree with.

I guess so. But it was a pretty good demonstration of an advantage of having a large well trained standing army available if you want to go some place quick and fight somebody effectively.


You're a master of understatement.:D

Well at least there is one thing I get right.


Always -- but which things are selected is important.

"Gee, really? Who knew... :eek:"


That's an example of what not to do.

You lost me on that one.


As you mentioned above but apparently forgot:Your comparison, even though you mentioned it, really suffers from that major difference. Further, the Troop numbers for Torch are a function of both the requirement and of available lift more than of trained persons available. Conversely DS/DS deliberately went for 'overkill' -- far more Troops than were really deemed necessary simply because VII Corps was available -- it had already been slated for inactivation...

An added factor is training. We do not yet train as well as we could or should -- but in 1990, training was literally light years ahead of WW II (particularly in the early days before the Germans and Japanese undertook to train us more properly).

Different wars, different Armies, different training, different weapons -- Vastly different in all cases. There is really almost no comparison.

That is the point isn't it. There really is almost no comparison between a large standing army that is well equipped and trained vs. a smaller army that is not.

Just as an aside, doesn't total military power include available lift? I should have said at the beginning "a large standing military force" rather than army. My mistake.


That's a statement of the obvious and no one is disputing that -- or at least I certainly do not dispute it. What I'm trying to point out is that while your end point is logical to the point of self evidence, the route you follow or lay out to arrive there is rather illogical and quite flawed in concept.

I don't think so. In any event I got to the right place didn't I? If you get to the right place, maybe the route isn't so flawed.


No one is existing on exact parallels but some congruity would generally be beneficial... :wry:

Absolutely, which is why I brought it up. :wry:

This is fun.

Ken White
06-04-2012, 02:45 AM
Well at least there is one thing I get right.Note it was not a military assessment...
"Gee, really? Who knew... :eek:"Knowing and not doing could lead others to think someone didn't know...
That is the point isn't it. There really is almost no comparison between a large standing army that is well equipped and trained vs. a smaller army that is not.Sigh. Yes, that's true and it's also self evident -- yet you continue to try to compare the DS/DS force to an Army seven times its size but less well equipped and trained -- and that well equipped is based on weapon quality, not quantity. You're mixing Watermelons and Kiwi Fruit. It is Fruit Salad -- but it sure ain't good Fruit Salad...
Just as an aside, doesn't total military power include available lift? I should have said at the beginning "a large standing military force" rather than army. My mistake."Imprecision in choice of words..." :D
I don't think so. In any event I got to the right place didn't I?Of course you don't, you never do. As usual you got to a place that isn't terribly wrong -- that's not the same thing as the right place.
Absolutely, which is why I brought it up. :wry:Eh? I sure missed any congruity in this...
This is fun.In thy opinion, perhaps. To me it's wasted effort undertaken only to preclude others from adopting your illogical IMO forays to strange ends by providing an alternative view to let them make up their own minds... :wry:

carl
06-04-2012, 03:02 AM
Note it was not a military assessment...

I'll take what I can get when I can get it.


Knowing and not doing could lead others to think someone didn't know...Sigh.

I guess, but the not doing part is an opinion.


Yes, that's true and it's also self evident -- yet you continue to try to compare the DS/DS force to an Army seven times its size but less well equipped and trained -- and that well equipped is based on weapon quality, not quantity. You're mixing Watermelons and Kiwi Fruit. It is Fruit Salad -- but it sure ain't good Fruit Salad...

You know it never occurred to me that a well crewed Abrams tank was qualitatively better than a much larger number of Grant tanks poorly crewed. It really didn't.


"Imprecision in choice of words..." :D

Yep, I was imprecise, absolutely.


Of course you don't, you never do. As usual you got to a place that isn't terribly wrong -- that's not the same thing as the right place.

Well actually that is not what you said the first time. You said "That's a statement of the obvious and no one is disputing that -- or at least I certainly do not dispute it. What I'm trying to point out is that while your end point is logical to the point of self evidence, the route you follow or lay out to arrive there is rather illogical and quite flawed in concept." You said my end point was logical to the point of self evidence which I assumed was the right place since you said it was logical to the point of self evidence.


Eh? I sure missed any congruity in this...

I can explain it to you in detail if you like.


In thy opinion, perhaps. To me it's wasted effort undertaken only to preclude others from adopting your illogical IMO forays to strange ends by providing an alternative view to let them make up their own minds... :wry:

It is indeed a noble path you follow, but somebody has to walk the hard road.

This is still fun.

gute
06-04-2012, 03:03 AM
Man, oh man, this thread is hot! I'm in.

Actually, I probably don't have much constructive to add to this debate, but I'll try, maybe a little METT-TC posting.

Since I am one who believes in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution I agree with Bob, but also feel Carl's position has merit. Does one have to be murdered to have the right to believe in the death penalty? What I try to do is heed the experience of others. I'm not gonna tell Bob or Ken how or what it's like to fight a war as I'm sure they would not try to tell me how to conduct drug investigations?

We have one side supporting a large standing army and the other side opposed - break glass in time of war. We know what the large standing army looks like, but what would the alternative look like, how organized, etc? How do we justify active Special Operations forces, the Air Force?

I believe this country is capable of building a large, strong(er) reserve that is both reserve and professional. What's to prevent RC offcers from going to the service academies (if one bases professionalism on the academies)? I think with modern communications and transportation, one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer could be expanded.

There was an article here at the SWJ a couple of years ago about a fictional SecDef telling the country that due to debt the active land forces would consist of the Marine Corps, SOF and a large Army National Guard. For the life of me I am unable to remember the name of the article, but I'm sure somone here remembers.

Personally, I think sequestration will force people to pull their heads out of their butts. The country is broke. Sure, I'd rather be broke than dead, but I don't see dead happening anytime soon. Either we start making these changes now or the changes will be made for us and not at our speed.

The Marine Corps is talking about getting back to being a middle weight force so do we need 24 AC battalions of Stryker vehicles which is the Army's middle weight force? So, we reduce the Army by 24 battalions - why not? Or, we eliminate 24 Marine infantry battalions, basically three divisions and its stuff. I believe the Army could be just as capable conducting amphibious assaults and MEU(SOC) missions with time. Of course one has to change the law. Being a former Marine I would rather see the Strykers go and I like the fact that we have two branches that fight on land. This way we avoid group think.

That's my two scents for what it's worth.

carl
06-04-2012, 03:12 AM
Bob (of Bob's World):

Bill M. already said most of the things I wanted to say and he said them better than I could have. Like him I am glad to see that you now acknowledge the need for a standing army.

I have a comment about the following that you said.


Now, I do not believe that we need no standing Army, but the Army is a warfighting force, so not much is needed in peace of that type of capacity. The Marines are another story, and they are not "another Army," they are part of our Naval forces and perform the land component supporting role to our peacetime naval forces you have described in earlier posts.

The Marines to expeditionary interventions. Yes, in times of war they are a competent warfighting force, but their primary purpose is to ensure we have the capacity in times of peace to perform these types of limited operations as necessary to secure our interests

The Marines are just a duplicate Army. The support they give to the Navy is what an army of a maritime power normally does. Everything you say is unique to the Marines is what the Army did before the Marines got big and it was what the British Army did for a very long time. You can call the standing army we will have the Marine Corps or you can call it the Army or whatever. It will be the same thing and will fulfill the same function.

Signed:

Carl (the ill informed, un-American Chicken hawk.)

Ken White
06-04-2012, 05:22 AM
You know it never occurred to me that a well crewed Abrams tank was qualitatively better than a much larger number of Grant tanks poorly crewed. It really didn't.I'm sure someone in the Army has worked up a figure but I haven't seen it. Aside from Troop quality -- because that's relative to not only training but even more to combat experience -- I recall we once rated an M60 RISE Battalion as equal to three Battalions of M4 Shermans. I suspect an M1 Bn would almost double that. A 1960 Rifle Company had organic or on call the firepower equivalent to 2.5 WW II Rifle Companies and I'd guess that the 1991 variant was probably up to four.
Well actually that is not what you said the first time...You said my end point was logical to the point of self evidence which I assumed was the right place since you said it was logical to the point of self evidence.Sigh...

Imprecision is a two way street.:wry:
I can explain it to you in detail if you like.Not tonight -- I have a headache... :D

Ken White
06-04-2012, 05:39 AM
The Marines are just a duplicate Army...It will be the same thing and will fulfill the same function.

Signed:

Carl (the ill informed, un-American Chicken hawk.)I dunno about the un-american or the Chicken Hawk bit but that comment is quite ill informed with respect to what Marines are and do. And can do -- legally under US Law and International norms. There's also a significant difference in support, equipment, training and capabilities. Successive Congresses have expanded the post WW II Marine Corps of 100K to its current size for some good (and bad...) reasons. :cool:

There's also a reason they get to have and keep their own fixed wing combat aviation elements, something the Army would dearly like to have but does not.

Yet again, you need to do more research and think harder. This stuff isn't nearly as simple as you seem to wish it to be... :(

slapout9
06-04-2012, 09:07 AM
1. Article I lists the specified duties and responsibilities of the Congress. These two items under Section 8 of that article are worth studying word by word:

[B][I]12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;




It means the Army should be turning a profit within 2 years or the operation should be shut down.

Bob's World
06-04-2012, 09:32 AM
Carl,

While it is true the Marines became more "Army-like" to deal with the scale of their opertions in WWII, and to tailor to the Soviet threat of the Cold War, the USMC is a very different organization with a very different purpose than the Active Army. Particularly in times of peace (and yes, though we have troops in combat in several locations fighting wars of choice currently, our nation is indeed at peace).

How much USMC we need in times of peace is a wholly different equation from how much Army we need in times of peace. My point is that too many, to include yourself, see them as essentially being the same thing. They aren't.

The Active Army's peacetime mission is essentially to be "seed corn" for the next war. Maintain a cadre of professional to build a war fighting army around, write doctrine, and maintain a small number of "ready to go now" units trained, organized and equipped for major land warfare. We would be foolish to in effect "eat our seed corn" by totally disbanding the army, but equally foolish to maintain too large of an Army for several reasons, many listed above.

I don't know how we can accurately assess the damage done to our system of balance between the Executive and the Congress due to the possession of a standing Army over the past 60 years. But power has indeed shifted, and any such shift is also a shift of power from the American people to the the American President. If we want a powerful executive who can disregard the Congress and the American people to commit the nation to conflicts that he or she personally thinks is important, then having a large Army on the self serves that purpose. But if instead we are still a nation that believes the voice and will of the people is important in such matters, then we have gotten off track.

There is value in a President having to go to Congress, hat in hand, and make a successful argument for why he or she believes it is so vital to the national interests that we fund, recruit, train and deploy an Army to wage warfare against some foreign state or populace. Often the Congress will reply "No." At which point the service chiefs will be required to develop more sophisticated military COAs, and the Sec State will have to resume lead for foreign policy once again. Maybe we will learn to lead with something other than a right cross.

This will also empower our Allies to step up to secure their own interests. Does anyone think that the Saudis, Japanese, South Koreans, Europeans or Taiwanese are any less capable of funding their own national security than we are? Does anyone think this bill should be subsidized primarily by American debt rather than by the current resources of the countries affected most?

America is not made stronger by having a large standing peacetime Army, but it has made us more of a bully.

The world is not made safer by having a large standing peacetime Army, but it has enabled our allies to invest in their own economies while we subsidize their collective defense.

Larger question is where does the Air Force fit in? As a son of the Army, the Air Force arguably fall under the same line of logic. That Naval air covers peacetime requirements for tactical operations, and the Air Force focus on strategic missions and on being prepared to expand to produce a warfighting Air Force.

It is time to hit that "re-set button" the President keeps talking about here at home first, and DoD is a good place to start. Congress should demand it, as it is the restoration of Congressional power that will be a primary effect of such a rebalancing.

slapout9
06-04-2012, 12:24 PM
It means the Army should be turning a profit within 2 years or the operation should be shut down.


Link to Army Corps of Engineers and their long history of building our Nation in Peace and War right from the beginning of the country.

http://www.mendonet.com/588th/engrhist.htm

carl
06-04-2012, 02:42 PM
I dunno about the un-american or the Chicken Hawk bit but that comment is quite ill informed with respect to what Marines are and do. And can do -- legally under US Law and International norms. There's also a significant difference in support, equipment, training and capabilities. Successive Congresses have expanded the post WW II Marine Corps of 100K to its current size for some good (and bad...) reasons. :cool:

There's also a reason they get to have and keep their own fixed wing combat aviation elements, something the Army would dearly like to have but does not.

Yet again, you need to do more research and think harder. This stuff isn't nearly as simple as you seem to wish it to be... :(

It ain't so simpl? Well, golllleee. I thote sure it were. Durn. I tri to think good bute it harder than it were yesturdei. I try over agin.

The Marenes have diffarunt trainings and supperts and theer contraptiuns and guns be diffarunt then ourn Army but I saw in Life magazeen once whur the guns and trainings and such was diffarunt in the Redcote army but they was caled an army. Them Frenchies was all differunt in their army thun ourn army but it wer an army 2. I giss I jist doan get why. I membur 2 onct in skool they say that ther laws can be changin just bye some of the fellers in Warshintun takin a vote on 'er. I thing that kool ting. Laws can bee changeded in these US states. Nother ting I member abote ourn army and ourn guys who fly the reallly speedy planes. Some feller told me ourn army used 2 have all those speedy planes but they was snookereded by the pilots. He said pilots was sneaky. He said to the Mareenes were even sneakier than them pilots and the Mareenes got to keep ther speedy planes.

I tries 2 figure it rite but so hards it b.

I knowed a guy named Norm onct. Do you tink he b kin to International norms?

Ken White
06-04-2012, 03:13 PM
I knowed a guy named Norm onct. Do you tink he b kin to International norms?Probably not.

Fuchs
06-04-2012, 03:16 PM
The world is not made safer by having a large standing peacetime Army, but it has enabled our allies to invest in their own economies while we subsidize their collective defense.


That's a popular myth among Americans.


Fact is that the U.S. military is so suboptimal for defence of U.S. allies an, so wasteful and so oversized that only a fraction of your military budget is really relevant to the security of U.S. allies.


Furthermore, implicit assumption that Allies would spend more if the U.S. spent less is in stark contrast with the demonstrated irrationality of military spending dimensioning in the world.
Greece has recently cut its military budget by much. I have no idea what threat disappeared, so I have to assume that the budget was irrationally oversized previously.

Governments appear to design the military budget in order to maximize it up to a certain pain threshold in most situations. Economy tanks? Pain threshold goes down, military spending goes down. no relation whatsoever with threats or allies. And so on.

The only area where the U.S. really substituted for its allies' military power is in regard to former axis great powers' (Germany, Italy, Japan) nuclear weapons. I am strongly assuming that this price was one that the U.S. paid happily and fully in its own interest.



Last but not least: The U.S. Army, three quarters of the U.S. Navy plus the last quarter of its amphibious warfare ships, two thirds of the U.S. Air Force, all U.S.Marines and even 90% of U.S. nukes could disappear today and the security situation of the European allies would not have changed substantially. It's all surplus.

carl
06-04-2012, 04:37 PM
Bob Jones:

All of the points you raise are the points that are raised, and should be raised, when there are one of those times when we are winding down a military effort and want to reduce military spending and have to decide how to split up the money. Some of the things you say I would disagree with more or less as with some of the phenomanon (sic) you identify, but the points are all valid starting places for argument.

As far as the Marines go, I know they have done their best to carve out a different place and identity for themselves in the US over the last 100 years. They have done a very good job of it too. But to me I think of it as I imagine a foreigner would think of if. If US Army disappeared tomorrow and the US Navy was then designated the US Army, the foreign observer would say no, that's not an army, that's a navy. If you did the same thing with the Army and the Marines, that foreign observer may not even notice. I think that is accurate now. Whether to change all that and what big Army does is one of those things that needs to be worked out.

I agree with the people who say serious consideration should be given to doing something different than what is sometimes done, just cutting everybody equally to equalize the squalling and wait till the budgets get bigger again. We should actually think about re-organizing radically and see what kind of cuts might come from that.

The thing i would really like to see change that may have nothing to do with budget allocations is to effect a change in the command culture of the American military. From my viewpoint it doesn't seem to be a very good one. Maybe hard times caused by budget woes could be used as a tool to do that.

One more thing, we have gone over some of the advantages of having a big standing Army. But there is something that is lost that may have to do with the Army being big. I think it is the ability to adapt to circumstances, to adapt. When the Army was little it was able to adapt to wholly different types of fighting so that they were able to do good enough. Frontier fighting in the 1850s, big big war in the 1860s, frontier fighting again till the 1890s, then conquering islands and subduing insurrections, then big big big overseas industrial war, then back to overseas insurrections, then WWII, all these were fought by guys who made the transition from the one to the other to the other. Maybe our inability to adapt as well as we did in the past doesn't have to do with military being huge, but maybe it does.

wm
06-04-2012, 09:00 PM
In another post in this thread, Bob's World chastises another for skewing history. I tend to believe that much of what follows in the first quoted passage is also a skewing of history.
Our Constitution was a document uniquely written by Americans for Americans. Written by men after much debate as to how to ensure stability in a fledgling country made up of to that point by 13 distinct and sovereign states. Written by men who had grown to maturity as oppressed citizens of a government they deemed as illegitimate to govern them, held in check by the regular army of that government. An army they were forced to house and feed in their very homes; and in an environment where they were denied fundamental rights to gather and express their discontent, and a government that felt no compulsion to hear or respond to their reasonable concerns.

These same men then became rebels and insurgents, and fought to free themselves and this land and these people from such oppression; then in the summer of 1786 with the Confederation crumbling in disarray around them, they came together to design a system of governance that would allow such a diverse mix of sovereign states to work together as one, and to prevent the forms and actions of government that they knew first hand to be so destructive to human dignity and liberty.


My oath is to support and defend the Constitution. Not just the parts I find convenient. But to support and defend something, one must first understand what it truly stands for, and current interpretations on key aspects, such as role of the military, have become very biased by events of the past 60 years. Those years are a part of our past, but they do not define our future. We need to look a bit farther back to find those insights.
I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution as well. However, if nothing else we have the issue of strict versus loose constructionism to address. In other words, exactly what did we swear to support and defend? Is it the words on the page of those pieces of paper in the National Archives or is it some interpretation of those words that may have changed over time? If the latter, which interpretation(s) is/are binding?

I like to view the two framing documents as something like an operations order for Operation USA. The Declaration of Independence is Paragraph 1 of that Op Order: Situation. A significant (and I think greatly overlooked) piece of the Constitution is its Preamble. I view this as the Mission statement for Operation USA. The remainder of the basic document constitute the opord's remaining three paragraphs while the various amendments serve as fragos that modify the operation due to changes in the situation. The various laws of the US Code might well be viewed as the various specialized Annexes that turn most opords into such ponderous works.

If you like this analogy, then reflect that never has the Preamble been modified. In other words, we the people of the United States still have a mission to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Doing that is what "supporting and defending the Constition" meant to me when I took my oath and is what that phrase still means to me today.

Bob's World
06-04-2012, 11:24 PM
Well, I don't want to be too obtuse. My points are simple:

1. The constitution specifies very different duties to congress for raising and funding Armies vice sustaining a Navy. I don't see where that distinction is given much notice in modern debates.

2. Our Ends-Ways-Means of national strategy are IMO way off base in each of those categories and need to be reined back in to be less ideological, less controlling, less militarized.

3. Power has shifted over the years from the Congress to the Executive, most notably in terms of the modern Cold War and post Cold War conflicts that the existence of a large peacetime standing army has enabled.

4. Historically our peacetime Army has been very small and the US has never suffered due to that. Yes, "first fights" have often been difficult, but the US has never been seriously threatened by an armed foe. On the other hand, by having a large army on the shelf ready to go it has allowed the US to dive into all manner of wars of choice, from Vietnam to Iraq. The President can launch the force and then put huge pressure on the Congress to "support the troops" in combat to keep funding what the President started.

This disrupts our historic balance where a President was required to go to Congress and ask for the Congress to fund and raise an Army in order to go on such an adventure. This allows time for a national debate to occur, for emotions to stabilize, and for more appropriate COAs of full DIME to be developed and employed.

Yes, the US needs a small peacetime Regular force. This was a force that varied from 25,000 to 28,000 during the period from the Civil War to the Spanish American War. Of note, the Indian tribes fought on the frontier were a far greater threat, conducting far more egregious atrocities against American citizens and interests than anything AQ has been able to muster. The Comanche (corrected from Cheyenne) alone make AQ look like a bunch of Girl Scouts.

As I recall this number bumped up to closer to 90,000 during the next peace time era leading up to WWI. Britain with their vast Empire is better model for the US today, with around 225,000. France and Germany were well over 500,000, and Russia was something like 6 million (probably including reserves).

Bottom line is that regardless of what the final number is for the Army in peace, lets get the mission right, lets be in synch with Constitution, lets re-empower Congress and let's get serious about coming to a more appropriate overall strategy for the world as it exists today. We exaggerate VEOs and "rogue states" and are falling quickly into new era of Containment with China that completely ignores their own sphere of influence and clearly stated Red Lines.

We have 60 years of inertia pushing us on a crash course with reality, and the sooner we seek to regain control over that the better.

ganulv
06-04-2012, 11:48 PM
The Cheyenne alone make AQ look like a bunch of Girl Scouts.

I won’t claim to be an expert on the Prairies and the Plains but that just doesn’t ring true to me. While the Cheyenne were by no means peacemongers, I think you might be thinking of the Comanche (and/or Kiowa and Apache).

gute
06-05-2012, 12:55 AM
Well, I don't want to be too obtuse. My points are simple:

1. The constitution specifies very different duties to congress for raising and funding Armies vice sustaining a Navy. I don't see where that distinction is given much notice in modern debates.

2. Our Ends-Ways-Means of national strategy are IMO way off base in each of those categories and need to be reined back in to be less ideological, less controlling, less militarized.

3. Power has shifted over the years from the Congress to the Executive, most notably in terms of the modern Cold War and post Cold War conflicts that the existence of a large peacetime standing army has enabled.

4. Historically our peacetime Army has been very small and the US has never suffered due to that. Yes, "first fights" have often been difficult, but the US has never been seriously threatened by an armed foe. On the other hand, by having a large army on the shelf ready to go it has allowed the US to dive into all manner of wars of choice, from Vietnam to Iraq. The President can launch the force and then put huge pressure on the Congress to "support the troops" in combat to keep funding what the President started.

This disrupts our historic balance where a President was required to go to Congress and ask for the Congress to fund and raise an Army in order to go on such an adventure. This allows time for a national debate to occur, for emotions to stabilize, and for more appropriate COAs of full DIME to be developed and employed.

Yes, the US needs a small peacetime Regular force. This was a force that varied from 25,000 to 28,000 during the period from the Civil War to the Spanish American War. Of note, the Indian tribes fought on the frontier were a far greater threat, conducting far more egregious atrocities against American citizens and interests than anything AQ has been able to muster. The Cheyenne alone make AQ look like a bunch of Girl Scouts.

As I recall this number bumped up to closer to 90,000 during the next peace time era leading up to WWI. Britain with their vast Empire is better model for the US today, with around 225,000. France and Germany were well over 500,000, and Russia was something like 6 million (probably including reserves).

Bottom line is that regardless of what the final number is for the Army in peace, lets get the mission right, lets be in synch with Constitution, lets re-empower Congress and let's get serious about coming to a more appropriate overall strategy for the world as it exists today. We exaggerate VEOs and "rogue states" and are falling quickly into new era of Containment with China that completely ignores their own sphere of influence and clearly stated Red Lines.

We have 60 years of inertia pushing us on a crash course with reality, and the sooner we seek to regain control over that the better.

I agree 100% - well said.

Sven,

We will never know if its a myth. The United States supposedly subsidizing European powers is probably like many other 'myths' - over stated, but not untrue.

carl
06-05-2012, 01:20 AM
...China that completely ignores their own sphere of influence and clearly stated Red Lines.

At the risk of David moving this:D Done!, I ask the following questions.

What is Red China's sphere of influence?

What does is encompass exactly, on land and at sea?

Does it have hard bounderies (sic) or does it exist in various zones of increasing or decreasing influence?

Who determines what their sphere of influence is?

Is the sphere of influence fixed forever or does it change?

If it changes, who determines what changes it?

Should changes be recognized?

What powers does Red China have within its sphere of influence?

Who determines what those powers are?

Do any people living within that sphere of influence have any say in that?

Do Red Chinese powers within the sphere change depending on what part of the sphere is in question or are they fixed everywhere?

Would any and all power Red China claimed within its sphere of influence be legitimate or would there be certain things that would be beyond the pale?

These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. More will follow. And then on to the red lines.

Bob's World
06-05-2012, 01:35 AM
I won’t claim to be an expert on the Prairies and the Plains but that just doesn’t ring true to me. While the Cheyenne (later corrected to Comanche) were by no means peacemongers, I think you might be thinking of the Comanche (and/or Kiowa and Apache).

Good catch, yes, I meant Comanche. (I'll claim mental fatigue from sitting next to a 300lb man for four hours on a cross country flght. Talk about being terrorized...)

gute
06-05-2012, 01:38 AM
Good catch, yes, I meant Comanche. (I'll claim mental fatigue from sitting next to a 300lb man for four hours on a cross country flght. Talk about being terrorized...)

You are lucky he did not eat you.

Bob's World
06-05-2012, 01:46 AM
Carl,

Countries determine their own spheres of influence, their own interests, their own red lines etc. No one else gets a vote on what others think theirs are, but everyone gets a vote on how they are operationalized.

China actually posts their on their Embassy web page in pretty clear terms, and lay them out on occasion with great consistency. I was researching that a bit a couple weeks ago and can share some links. No surprises.

Unique to China is their "100 years of humiliation" and being forced to accept violations of their sphere of influence and red lines that at some point they will step up and call "foul." The US selling arms to Taiwan is one of those red lines that is clearly communicated that we cross routinely, as an example. One day China will determine that the time is right to enforce that position and we will likely take it with great surprise and indignation. Maybe even see it as an act of war. I am not saying they are right or wrong on this matter, but it is how they see the issue according to various open sources I read.

What I find interesting is that there are about 9-12 important regional powers, all with their own take on their spheres, interests and red lines. Many of these overlap. Obviously smaller nations live within these spheres and zones of overlap. It maps out where future conflicts are likely, particularly when one also takes into account geostrategic key terrain and resources. IMO this is far more important to appreciate than the latest intel report on what wadi some AQ chucklehead is camped out in last night. But that is the difference between Strategy and Intel. One provides a map for the future, while the other is just a snapshot of today. We need to wean off the snapshots and start reading the map.

carl
06-05-2012, 02:18 AM
Bob:

Posting those links here would be helpful. Though from the nature of your response they post their interests. That is not what I am interested in.

So, we have one question answered. Red China determines what their sphere of influence is. None of the other questions were answered though. Statements about what their interests are do not define the nature and extent of a sphere of influence. It is important that you define what you mean, pretty exactly, when you say sphere of influence. It is important because from what you write, it seems to me that you think it proper that the Red Chinese expect us to defer to them within their sphere of influence so we had better have a good idea of what that means.

So, I restate my questions, except the one about who determines what Red China's sphere of influence is. Your answer on that one is Red China.

Entropy
06-05-2012, 03:18 AM
Interesting thread so far. A few points:

Bob's World,


12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;


and


1. The constitution specifies very different duties to congress for raising and funding Armies vice sustaining a Navy. I don't see where that distinction is given much notice in modern debates.

This part of the Constitution is OBE today because of modern budgeting. Congress appropriates money annually (mostly), so the two-year limit is never reached. Even though the Congress hasn't passed a budget, it did pass a Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 31 2011.

The purpose behind the distinction is to give Congress firm control over the size of the Army - it doesn't disallow a standing Army and it doesn't disallow a large standing Army (however one defines "large). It simply means that in order to have a standing Army (of whatever size - size is irrelevant here), the Congress must come back at least every two years and appropriate money for it. I'm speculating here, but I suspect it isn't a coincidence that Congressional elections are also every two years.


Today we plan equal cuts to the Army and the Marines, but the fact is that the entirety of those cuts should fall upon the Army if we follow the constitution. In fact, the Navy could make a case that to cut the Marines while leaving Army forces on the books is arguably unconstitutional.

I think you're reading something into the Constitution that isn't there. The only restriction is that funds for an Army expire after two years and must be reauthorized. There's nothing specific to suggest the the Navy must be bigger or have more resources than the Army or anything else actually.

I think the reality is that the US population isn't as fearful of a standing Army as it once was and Congress is reflecting that reality.


Having a standing Army for the past several decades has, I believe, contributed significantly toward shifting the intended balance of power in our government from the Congress to the Executive.

and


3. Power has shifted over the years from the Congress to the Executive, most notably in terms of the modern Cold War and post Cold War conflicts that the existence of a large peacetime standing army has enabled.

Nonsense. The balance of power appeared to shift because the Congress often defers to the President and rarely brings out its "big guns" against the Executive. Secondly, the Army is a creation of Congress, lent to the Executive and can, therefore, be taken away by Congress. If I buy a car and and let my brother drive it would anyone suggest that the car "contributed significantly toward shifting the balance of power" between me and my brother? No, it's still my car and I could sell it or get another one.

One relatively recent example shows that Congressional authority hasn't gone anywhere. Specifically, Congress shut-down the President's plan (and campaign pledge) to close Gitmo and transfer the detainees to the US. IIRC, both the House and Senate passed amendments to the Defense Authorization Act specifically forbidding the spending of any money to close Gitmo or to transfer detainees to the US. Those amendments passed by substantial veto-proof majorities.

Finally, I think there's a big piece missing from your analysis and this discussion more generally - namely our alliances with other nations. We didn't need a large standing army in the early 19th century because we weren't obligated by treaty to come to the military aid of several dozen different nations. Today we are and for those treaties to have any credibility, the US must have the capability to meet their intent. Yes, the US could greatly reduce the size of the Army and Air Force, but that is putting the strategic cart before the horse. If that is something we choose to do then we need to reevaluate our strategic position and renegotiate our alliances.

To put it another way, we can talk about tearing out a few bedrooms and knocking down some walls to make our house smaller, more affordable and more efficient, but it's probably a good idea to coordinate that with our friends living in those bedrooms be plan on tearing down.

Not that I disagree with the idea (since I think we could, in theory, put the bulk of the Army and Air Force into the reserve as a true strategic reserve), but first things first. ;)

Fuchs,


That's a popular myth among Americans.


Fact is that the U.S. military is so suboptimal for defence of U.S. allies an, so wasteful and so oversized that only a fraction of your military budget is really relevant to the security of U.S. allies.


and


Last but not least: The U.S. Army, three quarters of the U.S. Navy plus the last quarter of its amphibious warfare ships, two thirds of the U.S. Air Force, all U.S.Marines and even 90% of U.S. nukes could disappear today and the security situation of the European allies would not have changed substantially. It's all surplus.

Those are grand, sweeping claims which would, I think, require some pretty substantial evidence before they're taken seriously. I think the Balkans and Libya, to name two examples, would seriously challenge your assertions.

slapout9
06-05-2012, 03:26 AM
3. Power has shifted over the years from the Congress to the Executive, most notably in terms of the modern Cold War and post Cold War conflicts that the existence of a large peacetime standing army has enabled.




And that is the real problem. Power hasn't shifted it has been stolen! The Presidents "Primary Responsability is to be the Chief Executive" War from the original American viewpoint was an exception or special condition requiring a Declaration from Congreess where upon the the Chief Executive becomes the Commander In Chief. But Power freaks don't usually care about the Law in the first place.

slapout9
06-05-2012, 03:32 AM
Oh yea and while I am ranting.... at least according the History I have been reading the Primary Purpose of the "peacetime Army" was to run West Point:eek: To study War and upon Declaration be prepared to raise and train the Continental Army to win and then go back to being Citizen Soldiers.... only the Officer Corps and a small cadre at West Point should be on the permanent payroll. The Marines are probabaly supposed to do the rest, with the help from some Navy guys.

Fuchs
06-05-2012, 06:53 AM
I think the Balkans and Libya, to name two examples, would seriously challenge your assertions.


Neither was a threat to us. Moreover, what Americans never seem to get is that their involvement in Bosnia was first and foremost about doing something together for the sake of doing something together.
It's similar with Libya; the European forces weren't even involved enough to move some fighters to forward airfields in Southern Sicily - no wonder that additional aerial refuelling etc was required.
No joint intervention was ever a real stretch for European capabilities. They hardly ever left our comfort zone ever since the French gave up Algeria.


On the other hand, Europe is being defended by two European nuclear power with SSBNs, faces no serious military in its South and a still weakened and rotten Russian/Belorussian military in its East. Even the quickest check of numbers reveals that we're dominating our periphery with a vast military superiority without taking into account a single U.S. soldier.

wm
06-05-2012, 12:10 PM
On the other hand, Europe is being defended by two European nuclear power with SSBNs, faces no serious military in its South and a still weakened and rotten Russian/Belorussian military in its East. Even the quickest check of numbers reveals that we're dominating our periphery with a vast military superiority without taking into account a single U.S. soldier.

I suspect that the two nuclear powers mentioned are not defending Europe with their SSBN. Rather they are defending theior own countries, and the rest of Europe just happens to benefit from that fact. The rest of Euiope benefits from French and British nukes in a way similar to that by which the whole of Europe benefits from the US strategic nuclear triad. Whether the French or British would be willing to use their nukes to protect other European nations when either nation was not itself directly threatened is an open question. But, I think an example from history worth considering is the nature of the "defense" of Poland by the French and British from the 1939 German invasion.

By the way, numbers do not in themselves demonstrate dominant capability. Consider, for example, the Modoc Indian War in which the Modoc warriors held off a US force over 10 times its size for about a year. Marathon, Plataea, and the Greco-Persian Wars also come to mind.

Bob's World
06-05-2012, 12:13 PM
Neither was a threat to us. Moreover, what Americans never seem to get is that their involvement in Bosnia was first and foremost about doing something together for the sake of doing something together.
It's similar with Libya; the European forces weren't even involved enough to move some fighters to forward airfields in Southern Sicily - no wonder that additional aerial refueling etc was required.
No joint intervention was ever a real stretch for European capabilities. They hardly ever left our comfort zone ever since the French gave up Algeria.


On the other hand, Europe is being defended by two European nuclear power with SSBNs, faces no serious military in its South and a still weakened and rotten Russian/Belorussian military in its East. Even the quickest check of numbers reveals that we're dominating our periphery with a vast military superiority without taking into account a single U.S. soldier.



Fuchs points are fare in their rationale, but I question the reality. I do not propose that the US pays for the militaries of foreign nations; but rather that many nations do not take on the full burden of fielding the military they need based upon their geostrategic realities as they rely upon the US to continue to make excessive guarantees of support in treaties designed for a Cold War threat, that as Fuchs points out no longer exists, and for the US to continue to pay for and field far more military capacity than our geostrategic reality demands as we seek to sustain a zenith of post Cold War power, that realistically was beginning to recede to more balanced levels from the very day it was first achieved.

By having excessive views of our own sphere of influence and fielding excessive capacity and strategies (A2/AD; more carriers, F35, etc) to enforce those excesses; we provoke our most powerful competitors by crossing their clear read-lines as we overly work to compress their regional spheres of influence as we seek to expand our own; and we equally enable our most powerful allies to under-invest in their own security.

The end result is an overly burdened US economy, powerful states pushed into war-like postures against what they perceive as US aggression; and allies il-prepared to fight their own fights, let alone assist us in ours. We are not playing this very smart and the entire thing needs a massive overhaul, but instead we simply massage the edges, leaving it largely unchanged.

We continue to race toward some future precipice, chasing our fears and pursued by our demons, we will arrive there all alone, in an unnecessry, fight beyond our capacity in some far corner far from home, with no chance to win. We will not be the first Empire to run up against such a reality, but that historic company will be cold comfort.

ganulv
06-05-2012, 12:47 PM
By the way, numbers do not in themselves demonstrate dominant capability. Consider, for example, the Modoc Indian War in which the Modoc warriors held off a US force over 10 times its size for about a year. Marathon, Plataea, and the Greco-Persian Wars also come to mind.

Terrain can be a multiplier, it is true. [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Jack%27s_Stronghold)] [2 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Thermopylae_shoreline_changes_map.png)]

Bob's World
06-05-2012, 01:17 PM
Those Modocs were good Southern Oregon, Northern California men. The Army should have known better...


Oh, and just back from a needed workout, I have to toss Fuchs a point. I may have to agree with him in large part in regards to Europe. The Russian threat is nowhere near the Soviet threat of old. Europe may well have the military it needs for the threats those nations see to their interests based upon their geostrategic realities.

The frustration for the US is that we are on this Global Sphere of influence mission driven by a powerful ideological message that Europeans do not share, seeking to exercise control over outcomes that Europeans see as none of their interest-based business; and applying a brand of militarism that they are unwilling to endorse.

Perhaps Europe is playing this just right. I don't think that is as true in the Pacific. Old documents signed under extremely different conditions must be updated for the world we live in today. Japan, for example, is a great ally, but our agreement with them was made between a victor and a vanquished, while nearby China and Russia were our allies in the region. Times and the situation have changed significantly. Agreements must evolve as well.

Fuchs
06-05-2012, 02:13 PM
I suspect that the two nuclear powers mentioned are not defending Europe with their SSBN. Rather they are defending theior own countries, and the rest of Europe just happens to benefit from that fact. The rest of Euiope benefits from French and British nukes in a way similar to that by which the whole of Europe benefits from the US strategic nuclear triad. Whether the French or British would be willing to use their nukes to protect other European nations when either nation was not itself directly threatened is an open question. But, I think an example from history worth considering is the nature of the "defense" of Poland by the French and British from the 1939 German invasion.

By the way, numbers do not in themselves demonstrate dominant capability. Consider, for example, the Modoc Indian War in which the Modoc warriors held off a US force over 10 times its size for about a year. Marathon, Plataea, and the Greco-Persian Wars also come to mind.

Regarding numbers and geography; the no-threat across the Med is held off by the Med. Regarding quality of troops: This time the Germans are with the big alliance, not against it. :D

Regarding the nuclear umbrella: The French nuclear deterrence is a more credible defence for Europe than is the U.S. one. The U.S. is not involved in an ideologicals truggle concerning Europe any more; distances, culture and economic connections have become more important regarding shared interests than before. The U.S. would likely more easily sacrifice Romania than France would.
On top of that, the Lisbon Treaty has a much stronger choice of words regrding collective defence than the North Atlantic Treaty and the U.S. is a serial violator of the North Atlantic Tretay anyway, remembering it only when it suits its intents.

davidbfpo
06-05-2012, 02:33 PM
Just realised this thread is in the 'Strategic Compression' venue, how fitting that Rob should choose this.:wry:

Plus the sub-title 'The compression of roles and effects. The Strategic Corporal meets the "turn left" National Security Advisor'.

gute
06-05-2012, 03:39 PM
Terrain can be a multiplier, it is true. [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Jack%27s_Stronghold)] [2 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Thermopylae_shoreline_changes_map.png)]

I've been to the museum and walked Captain Jack's Stronghold when I was kid. Not so much with regards to Thermopylae.

wm
06-06-2012, 11:51 AM
Terrain can be a multiplier, it is true. [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Jack%27s_Stronghold)] [2 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Thermopylae_shoreline_changes_map.png)]

Terrain is not the only item worth considering. Plataea and Marathon were won by better tactics and command. Nothwithstanding that, generally, a force using interior lines (like the Modocs in the lava beds, the Texicans in the Alamo, or any other force undergoing a seige) may be much smaller than its opponent and still be quite effective. And interior lines need not be on a small scale. The Germans had a similar advantage when they went on the defensive during the later parts of the European portions of both world wars. (As did they in Tunisia during the last of the WWII North African campaign.)

Interior lines can also provide an offensive advantage. Much as the Germans were able to shift forces back and forth between the Eastern and Western fronts during WWI to mount successive offensives, the US is naturally disposed to be able to use interior lines to shift between Atlantic-facing and Pacific-facing operations. This potential geographical advantage might be the basis for an argument for withdrawal from forward basing and downsizing, provided, of course, that US policy makers choose to eschew the Truman doctrine and return to something more like the Monroe Doctrine. But, as noted in Entropy's post, such a move would require revisiting/rewriting many currrent treaty obligations.

Entropy
06-06-2012, 01:28 PM
Neither was a threat to us. Moreover, what Americans never seem to get is that their involvement in Bosnia was first and foremost about doing something together for the sake of doing something together.

Wasn't a threat to whom? Maybe not Germany, but it's hard to argue that a civil war in the Balkans wasn't a threat to Italy and bordering nations. Could Europe simply ignore what what's happening on their doorstep, or even in the foyer?



It's similar with Libya; the European forces weren't even involved enough to move some fighters to forward airfields in Southern Sicily - no wonder that additional aerial refuelling etc was required.

The reasons more fighters weren't deployed to southern Italy had to do with airbase capabilities. The bulk of tacair went to Aviano for a reason.

Regardless, European military leaders recognize there are significant gaps in European capabilities that make it very difficult for them to conduct operations like Libya and Bosnia/Kosovo. It's not just a question of "doing something together."




On the other hand, Europe is being defended by two European nuclear power with SSBNs, faces no serious military in its South and a still weakened and rotten Russian/Belorussian military in its East. Even the quickest check of numbers reveals that we're dominating our periphery with a vast military superiority without taking into account a single U.S. soldier.

I don't think there's any question that Europe is able to defend itself from invasions and such (and to deter the same). What's at question is Europe's capability to utilize military force in Europe's near-abroad to defend Europe's interests and there European capability is lacking.

Bob's World
06-06-2012, 01:44 PM
A futurist advised:

"Look back twice as far as you intend to look forward": So to prepare for the next 50 years we'd be wise to look back at the past 100; for the next 100 the past 200. Most don't look into the past any deeper than the middle of the Cold War. I went to a RAND presentation of their recommendations for the future force and they stopped in the paper at the end of WWII and advised we build a force IAW what Ike faced as President in the mid-50s, at something like 3.5 % GDP. When I observed that that was a Cold War force for the threat that no longer exists, and that the emerging world looks much more like the one that existed pre-WWI than the one that existed post WWII it turns out they had run those numbers, 1.5% GDP, but apparently didn't think the customers they were courting at DoD would like them.

Lesson: Being too short sighted or ignoring inconvenient truths are both dangerous.

"Kill your own products and flee into the future" This is the advice on how Apple stays in front of technology pirates and legal rivals. They are unafraid of killing successful products and making a leap to the next thing. We too have many "successful products" such as these alliances and treaties and aircraft carriers and large standing armies, and bombers, and GCCs and rangers that now look like JSOC-lite rather than like amped up infantry, etc.

Here is our query: What must we "kill" of these dated products that served well in their time in order to "flee into the future"?

This is a scary concept, that is why there is only one Apple. Apple also always remembers their roots as they make those bold leaps forward.

We do the worst of both. We forget our roots and cling to obsolete products and concepts built for a world that no longer exists. We are no Apple when it comes to our national security.
.

Fuchs
06-06-2012, 01:59 PM
Wasn't a threat to whom? Maybe not Germany, but it's hard to argue that a civil war in the Balkans wasn't a threat to Italy and bordering nations. Could Europe simply ignore what what's happening on their doorstep, or even in the foyer?

Slovenia had almost no civil war symptoms, we didn't intervene in Croatia - Bosnia and Kosovo can hardly be counted as neighbours.
The Greeks were not exactly favourable of the Kosovo intervention, so it was apparently not in their interest.

Yugoslavia could have burned down to the last man and the European NATO would not have been affected substantially. No-one from there was about to invade us, ever.

Well, save for the Kosovo-Albanian organised criminals who poured into our countries together with legitimate refugees. We only got them under control when we reduced the police pressure on domestic organised criminals who had better manners.



The reasons more fighters weren't deployed to southern Italy had to do with airbase capabilities. The bulk of tacair went to Aviano for a reason.

Utter complacency.
There were enough roads and enough civilian airports in Sicily. Close that ####, use it for the military. That's MUCH less stupid than to pay billions for additional mid-air refuelling aircraft "just in case".



Regardless, European military leaders recognize there are significant gaps in European capabilities that make it very difficult for them to conduct operations like Libya and Bosnia/Kosovo. It's not just a question of "doing something together."

Yes, European politicians want more toys to play with in stupid adventure games. That's not indicative of our security needs, of course!



What's at question is Europe's capability to utilize military force in Europe's near-abroad to defend Europe's interests and there European capability is lacking.

The total, utter 10000%, obvious, proven cost-inefficiency of such stupid political adventures means that this 'incapability' is EXACTLY as it should be. 'capability' is in this regard = stupidity.

Bob's World
06-06-2012, 02:16 PM
Gotta agree with Fuchs on this.

The US is quick to label our concern of the day as "vital" and "universal" and then tell our NATO allies that it is their interest as well and that they must come join us on some grand adventure. That is a song that grew old long ago, and at this point I suspect many are simply starting to tune out altogether.

We declare things as threats and interests that do not even pass the common sense review looking thorugh US lenses; let alone those of our allies. We are making ourselves irrelevant in many regards by this tendency.

davidbfpo
06-06-2012, 03:45 PM
Entropy posted:
What's at question is Europe's capability to utilize military force in Europe's near-abroad to defend Europe's interests and there European capability is lacking.

As if to order Bob advises all:
So to prepare for the next 50 years we'd be wise to look back at the past 100; for the next 100 the past 200.

A bit of history first. In 1956 the USA opposed (rightly) the last big external operation by two European nations, the Anglo-French intervention in Egypt, usually called the Suez crisis. If you exclude Bosnia & Kosovo then Europe, which is wider than NATO & the EU, has not mounted any defence of Europe's interests. The only special case that comes to mind is Cyprus, when individual nations under UN auspices contributed and today very few Europeans want to be there - Cyprus going way beyond it's best by date, as boredom set in.

Incidentally I don't think European leaders (within NATO & EU) should be forgiven for their crazy policies over Bosnia and it was a trilateral-only mission that broke the Bosnian Serbs at Sarajevo. The Dutch, French and British with heavy artillery & mortars being placed on Mount Igman.

Given the generally agreed poor state of a European capability to intervene, the best illustration of this comes with maritime border control; yes, often not a military responsibility. It is common knowledge that the Mediterranean is a major route for illegal migration, well illustrated during the Tunisian and then Libyan crises on the Italian island of Pantelleria. Fast forward to Greece and the ten of thousands of known illegals and refugees stuck in limbo there.

Border control is a European issue - using a broader definition of security.

To Bob's point to look back. Europe is no longer the fulcrum of international politics, as a continent it is "drawing in" and shrinking in many measures of power - with military coercion to the fore. It does have many non-coercive instruments of influence and power, but these remain largely used at a national level.

In some respect Europe and I exclude Russia in this - is in a very similar position to the years before 1914. Other powers were advancing, note Russia was the fastest developing economy pre-1914 and these powers were often in competition with the largest European nations: France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain. With the exception of a handful of countries, yes, the Imperial ones with far-flung and nearby colonies, Europe looked inwards and outwards in very similar proportions. Emigration was then a huge factor and remained so until 1939, for e.g. Italians going to Argentina.

Entropy
06-07-2012, 01:51 AM
Yugoslavia could have burned down to the last man and the European NATO would not have been affected substantially.

and


The total, utter 10000%, obvious, proven cost-inefficiency of such stupid political adventures means that this 'incapability' is EXACTLY as it should be. 'capability' is in this regard = stupidity.

Ok, is your opinion shared by most Europeans? Doesn't appear that way to me. If you go back and look at polling at the time, the European consensus doesn't even approach letting Yugoslavia "burn to the last man." Europe was more divided on Libya, which showed in the various restrictions put on member forces, but it seems to me that most of the European public doesn't share your view. So it seems likely, to me at least, that Europe will probably want to engage in what you'd consider to be stupid adventures.


Utter complacency.
There were enough roads and enough civilian airports in Sicily. Close that ####, use it for the military. That's MUCH less stupid than to pay billions for additional mid-air refuelling aircraft "just in case".

Let's assume for a minute it's at all practical to close southern Italy to allow for the military transport of fuel, munitions, maintenance equipment etc. to save a few hundred miles of flight time. I think your assertion that this would somehow be cheaper than IFR is questionable at best, as is the assumption that IFR wouldn't be necessary if all coalition aircraft could be based in, for instance, Sicily.

Regardless, the problem wasn't simply refueling. More than that was ISR and stocks of adequate munitions. There was also the European inability to stand up a fully-staffed and capable air operations center in a timely manner, among other things.

But my point here isn't to take sides in a debate over whether and when Europe should intervene and under what circumstances. That is for Europeans to decide. I'm simply pointing out a discrepancy between what appear to be European desires to militarily influence their near-abroad and actual European military capabilities.

Bob's World,


The US is quick to label our concern of the day as "vital" and "universal" and then tell our NATO allies that it is their interest as well and that they must come join us on some grand adventure. That is a song that grew old long ago, and at this point I suspect many are simply starting to tune out altogether.


I agree, but in Libya it was the other way around.

I also personally agree with a lot of what you've said in this thread regarding where we should be headed. The problem is those proposals don't appear likely to occur anytime soon, if ever. As I get older, I increasingly find it futile to spend time debating what are probably fantasies rather than deal with difficult and unpleasant realities and probable futures. Perhaps that's unhealthy cynicism, but my tolerance for wishful thinking is pretty low.


David,

Good historical perspective, thanks.

Bob's World
06-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Go to the link to see this chart of active military size (total and by service) since 1940

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

I'll paste the data as well, but it is easier to read in the chart at the link.

We had to carry a large military on the peacetime books to implement a Containment Strategy. If we had chosen a different strategy we would not have needed this large of a military over the years. But because we had it for so long we have grown used to having it, and have created an entirely new military culture in the US as a result. Within DoD, and within our government and society as a whole in regards to the use of military force to enact our foreign policies.

"Global Leadership" that requires the world's most powerful military to promote and enforce is not a very sophisticated brand of "leadership." Arguably the right numbers for the Army and the Air Force today are at about 250K each in the active force. Yes, that would mean many things would have to change. But that is the point. Many things need to change. Crack addicts don't get better with a big bag of crack in their pocket.

But we'll need a new strategy to go with this new military. Containment must go. Even the new "containment-lite" we are applying to China. Rebublicans and Democrats a like need to get behind such a sea change. Don't wave your pocket copy of the Consttitution at me Congressman, READ IT instead. Then do your duty. Bring home the troops, kill the unnecesary programs and resize the force. But do it will making equal cuts to the "entitlements" audiances, bloated bureaucracies, and failed domestic policies such as "the war on drugs" and "no child left behind."



Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–20111




Year

Army

Air Force

Navy

Marine Corps

Total



1940

269,023



160,997

28,345

458,365



1945

8,266,373



3,319,586

469,925

12,055,884



1950

593,167

411,277

380,739

74,279

1,459,462



1955

1,109,296

959,946

660,695

205,170

2,935,107



1960

873,078

814,752

616,987

170,621

2,475,438



1965

969,066

824,662

669,985

190,213

2,653,926



1970

1,322,548

791,349

691,126

259,737

3,064,760



1975

784,333

612,751

535,085

195,951

2,128,120



1980

777,036

557,969

527,153

188,469

2,050,627



1985

780,787

601,515

570,705

198,025

2,151,032



1990

732,403

535,233

579,417

196,652

2,043,705



1991

710,821

510,432

570,262

194,040

1,985,555



1992

610,450

470,315

541,886

184,529

1,807,177



1993

572,423

444,351

509,950

178,379

1,705,103



1994

541,343

426,327

468,662

174,158

1,610,490



1995

508,559

400,409

434,617

174,639

1,518,224



1996

491,103

389,001

416,735

174,883

1,471,722



1997

491,707

377,385

395,564

173,906

1,438,562



1998

483,880

367,470

382,338

173,142

1,406,830



1999

479,426

360,590

373,046

172,641

1,385,703



2000

482,170

355,654

373,193

173,321

1,384,338



2001

480,801

353,571

377,810

172,934

1,385,116



2002

486,542

368,251

385,051

173,733

1,413,577



2003

490,174

376,402

379,742

177,030

1,423,348



2004

494,112

369,523

370,445

177,207

1,411,287



2005

488,944

351,666

358,700

178,704

1,378,014



2006 (June)

496,362

352,620

353,496

178,923

1,381,401



2007 (Aug.)

519,471

337,312

338,671

184,574

1,380,082



2011 (Sept.)

565,463

333,370

325,123

201,157

1,468,364


NOTE: Figures for 1998 through August 2007 include cadets/midshipmen.

1. Military personnel on extended or continuous active duty. Excludes reserves on active duty for training.

Source: Department of Defense.


Read more: Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–2011 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html#ixzz1xTaHiQ9r

Fuchs
06-11-2012, 12:48 PM
Ok, is your opinion shared by most Europeans? Doesn't appear that way to me. If you go back and look at polling at the time, the European consensus doesn't even approach letting Yugoslavia "burn to the last man."

There were polls about pop music, best beer and many other things. Opinions voiced in polls do not necessarily prove that something is a necessary act of defence.

As harsh as it may sound; getting involved in Yugoslavia was for entertainment, not a necessity. Maybe we needed involvement (for entertainment), but we didn't need it for security.

Entropy
06-11-2012, 04:15 PM
Bob,

The thing is, we don't have a containment strategy anymore, but we still have the system of global military alliances which is, only in part, a legacy of containment. But the alliances aren't and weren't simply about defending against the Soviets and they serve a lot of other purposes. Again, the point I would make is that if one is going to have a global system of active military alliances (for whatever purpose), then one needs ready forces to give those alliances credibility. This isn't to suggest we are stuck with a large military - rather, we need to be cognizant of the likely effects of a reduced military force and plan our foreign policy and change our alliances accordingly.

Fuchs,

I get that you don't think intervention in Yugoslavia was necessary. Most of your neighbors in Europe disagree with you.

Bob's World
06-11-2012, 04:34 PM
I wish you were correct, but the fact is we are running on about "Containment 6.0" and have never made a serious effort to do more than slap an occasional patch on that dated product(yes, this strategy is now old enough to draw full Social Security benefits...ironically, as the funding of this strategy will likely prevent any of us from some day doing the same).

Hell, we even attempt to contain AQ in the FATA (ideologies and networked, non-state actors do not "contain" well), Russia, Iran and China influence ("We don't recognize spheres of influence - Sec Clinton) to name but a few examples. The recent shift to the Pacific may not be a physical containment in name, but it is certainly being approached as a defacto physical containment by the US and China alike. We employ a very controlling approach to foreign policy, where the US freely imposes strict red lines on others, but refuses to recognize any long established by others that we either disagree with or simply find to be inconvenient to our actions in a particular time and place.

As to the adequacy of our force, one must first come to grips with the reality of their mission before they can acurately assess their capacity for the same. We seek to sustain our military "Means" because our Policy and Strategy "Ends" and "Ways" are growing increasingly irrelvant, inappropriate, and unsupportable. When all Generals and Admrials feel they can do is salute and execute, they have little choice but to ask for more capacity. If we were to apply design theory to assessing the situation it would allow the military to come back with a more pramatic and helpful response than a simple "Yes sir!"

Bill Moore
06-12-2012, 03:39 AM
Bob,

The shift to the Pacific is not about containment and great efforts are being made to prevent that perception. It isn't in our interest to contain, and as you pointed out it isn't possible. Detering aggression, protecting the commons, both enable economic growth which is in ours and other nations' interests.

I agree we have stated multiple times we are trying to contain AQ, which as you correctly pointed out is impossible. We won't deny safehaven, we won't easily, if ever, "counter" their ideology, etc., but in lieu of a better construct (help requested) we'll continue to default to those terms and the associated mentality. For AQ what are your recommendations? Defeat? Disrupt?

Fuchs
06-12-2012, 08:48 AM
Fuchs,

I get that you don't think intervention in Yugoslavia was necessary. Most of your neighbors in Europe disagree with you.

One should never confuse preferences with necessities.

Fuchs
06-12-2012, 08:55 AM
For AQ what are your recommendations? Defeat? Disrupt?

Grow up.

NATO boasts more than 600 million population and whatever AQ can do isn't even a real scratch on our surface.
It's at most a microscopic and temporary scratch on the surface, next to real cratches and even deep cuts.


We should begin to ignore them and everytime they actually succeed to kill some people we should take notice of it as a crime and put it into perspective. For example, we could report on a bus accident or the last month's influenza death statistic or the death rate from smoking before mentioning -ONCE- in the news that some criminals killed someone or a few people because of political hate.


Treat them as they deserve and they have already lost.

Meanwhile, everytime some fool suggests some expensive adventure or budget, make a counter-proposal, compare how many lives can be saved by investing in actual safety measures or medical research and then spend the money EVERY TIME on the more rational choice. Don't forget to expose and reprimand the fools who wanted to squander taxpayer money afterwards.

Bob's World
06-12-2012, 09:28 AM
Bill,

Perception is fact, and the perception inside the PACOM headquarters is not the one that matters most.

Any US strategy in the Pacific that is designed to work against China rather than with China is a form of containment, in fact if not in name.

Just type a simple Google search of "Containment, Pacific, China" and see what comes up. We've been applying some form of containment (or regime change to spice it up a bit) to virtually every problem since 1947. We have come to see the lesser forms of it as just doing business as usual and not being containment at all, but as I said, our perception is not the one that matters most.

I understand the President's decision to refocus America from Europe toward Asia; but he was talking primarily commerce, not threats. How do we shed the inertia of decades of containing China as part of the Cold War, to a future of working with China as the primary security and trading partner to keep the future of that region vibrant? I don't know. Just as old allies in the Middle East keep us spun up about Iran, old allies in the Pacific keep us spun up about China. Time for the US to reach out to both on our many shared interests, rather than simply fixating on the 2-3 issues we will agree to disagree about.

If the US is the global leader we claim to be, we should be taking lead on diplomatic solutions to the sharing of duties and rights in the South China Sea; or the timeline for peaceful reintegration of China-Taiwan. Ramping up a light version of containment seems to me to be more of an obstacle than a help in getting at resolution of such points of friction and potential conflict.

China is the trading partner of choice in the region. That will not change.

The US is the security partner of choice in the region. That will not change either.

All of our partners are playing that balancing game, with their economic future tied to China, and their security future tied to the US. This is reasonable and logical. But they also fear being caught in the middle of two super powers bumping chests over matters that are not of their interest. Taiwan independence is surely a keen issue for Taiwan, but for every other state that would be affected by a conflict over that issue it is not an issue they would risk fighting over or spoiling their relationship with China over. We too need to learn how to play a balancing game, and how to recognize that our global influence is trumped in certain places by the regional influence of others, and that that can be a good thing.

Truth is, we never stopped containing China, and the latest changes increases the energy and focus behind that effort. Call it what you want at PACOM, but it walks and quacks like a duck.

Sigaba
06-13-2012, 04:14 PM
@Bob's World--

I agree with your core argument that the United States needs to have a an overdue debate over America's role in the world. I also agree that Congress needs to do a better job at checking the executive branch of the federal government.

However, I am not convinced that military policy is both the cause of and cure for the present imbalance. Moreover, I respectfully disagree with your use of American history buttress what is essentially a political argument. A few examples follow.

Our Constitution was a document uniquely written by Americans for Americans. Written by men after much debate as to how to ensure stability in a fledgling country made up of to that point by 13 distinct and sovereign states. Written by men who had grown to maturity as oppressed citizens of a government they deemed as illegitimate to govern them, held in check by the regular army of that government. An army they were forced to house and feed in their very homes; and in an environment where they were denied fundamental rights to gather and express their discontent, and a government that felt no compulsion to hear or respond to their reasonable concerns.

These same men then became rebels and insurgents, and fought to free themselves and this land and these people from such oppression; then in the summer of 1786 with the Confederation crumbling in disarray around them, they came together to design a system of governance that would allow such a diverse mix of sovereign states to work together as one, and to prevent the forms and actions of government that they knew first hand to be so destructive to human dignity and liberty.Unfortunately, this interpretation of the War of American Revolution and the founding of the United States is greatly out of step with decades of historiography. In brief, the founders did not write the Constitution for all Americans, they wrote it for some Americans while excluding others (in particular, women) and establishing mechanisms that would maintain others--as well as their descendants-- in a state of slavery for the foreseeable future.


But that path is wrong and that path is un-American, and that path ignores the issues, the intentions and the goals of the framers of our system of governance. Did the framers broadly agree on the direction America should take? The growing cleavages among different cohorts of Americans that saw the country at the edge of ruin by the 1850s suggest otherwise.


America must secure her interests. But as I said at the start, our Ends have come to be defined in far too ideological of terms.Is the ideologically-driven national security policy of contemporary America really less ideologically driven than the national security policy of nineteenth century America? IMO, a survey of America's entry into the Second Anglo American War, to the Mexican American War, and to the American Civil War suggests that statesmen, given the choice between interests (in a geopolitical sense) and ideology, have frequently favored the latter.
We do not act out as we do because we are in danger, we act out because we have defined our strategy in such outrageous expansive terms of ideological Ends and overly controlling ways that the only way we can get others to conform with what we want them to do is by applying excessive Military Means. That too, I argue, is un-American.How does this current approach to global affairs differ from America's approach during the nineteenth century? Was James Madison was out of touch with the principles of the founders when he ordered the invasion of Canada during the Second Anglo American War?
Name a single situation, other than the deterrence of the Soviet Union in Western Europe during the Cold War, that has demanded our possession of a large standing peacetime Army in the history of the US. Just one.

Show me where America ever suffered more than a black eye for not having a large standing army ready to fight.Although this question wasn't directed at me, the clear answer is: Reconstruction. The premature demobilization of the American army not only had catastrophic consequences for freedmen and their descendants, the "Compromise of 1877" set the stage for the metastization of white supremacy on a global scale.

[Additionally, as David F. Trask argues persuasively in The AEF and Coalition Warmaking 1917-1918 (1993), the U.S.'s tradition of wartime mobilization not only hampered the AEF's initial operational effectiveness, it also impacted negatively America's ability to shape the end of the war. Moreover, America's wartime mobilization during the Second World War adversely impacted the U.S.'s ability to shape grand strategy as well as our relationship with the USSR.]
I strongly encourage those who have an interest in this topic to read the two histories of the American Army written by Edward M Coffman. He gives a very detailed account of the peacetime history of our Army and the nature and outcomes of these debates over time.Are you referring to The Old Army (1986) and The Regulars (2004)? MOO, the works of Russell Weigley and ongoing scholarship of Richard Kohn provide a better starting point for your line of argument.
So, show me where my understanding of our founding is wrong.MOO, your understanding of the founding--and other chapters of American history--harkens back to a trajectory of historical inquiry that was a by product of the Second World War. This trajectory argued that from the jump, Americans broadly agreed on core values, means, and ends. This "consensus" was, according to many historians, the foundation of American Exceptionalism. However, over time, subsequent generations of historians have demonstrated convincingly that there was no "consensus," and that conflict has always characterized American history. (MOO, they've been markedly less successful at disproving American Exceptionalism.)

Bob's World
06-13-2012, 06:51 PM
Good input, but I find your own interpretations of history to be as off base as you believe mine to be.

There was one major topic that was quite intentionally not debated, or even discussed, during the summer of 1786. Everyone in the room knew that the issue of slavery was unsolvable and that to discuss it at all would put the entire enterprise, and thus the nation, at risk. So they ignored it. I understand why they did not take it on, but I wish they would have at least addressed it to the degree of recognizing the institution and setting a date at some agreeably distant point in time to resolve it, say 100 years. This would have allowed a low-threat dialog to take place over time and I think could have prevented the war that almost destroyed us.

As to peacetime armies, do you really think we needed a large army to impose our will on the people of the South? Nations who use military force to make populaces comply are not my model of success. As to wars, it is not who wins the first battles that matters, it is who wins the final battles. The American approach has served that end well without subjecting our populace to excessive burden of the wars of others.

Also I believe you confuse "Principles" and "Values." Principles are enduring and fundamental, but values evolve over time. We espoused principles, such as "all men are created equal" while clearly our values at the time were hardly equal, and certainly not fair. But they were in synch with the culture of the populace at that time. Much of our success is that we created a principle-based framework that allowed our values to evolve along with our cultural. But now we seek to deny other cultures that same opportunity by pushing values designed for us upon cultures that are in a very different place in their own evolutionary journeys.

I simply suggest that we are better served by holding ourselves to our espoused values better than we currently do, and save our evangelical efforts to simply promoting the much more universal principles we demanded for ourselves. Other cultures need time to evolve as well, and such evolution can not be forced by outsiders, but we can provide a better example (true leadership), and perhaps help hold off those who would work to prevent such evolution from being able to occur. In short, to help others to be more like themselves, rather than working to make them more like us.

Cheers!

Bob

Sigaba
06-13-2012, 11:03 PM
Good input, but I find your own interpretations of history to be as off base as you believe mine to be.Okay, then the next question to ask is: What are your sources and how do they fit in the ongoing historiographical debates?

As an example, the interpretation that slavery was "intentionally not debated, or even discussed" during the constitutional convention of 1787 has withered in the face of recent research by David Waldstreicher and George William Van Cleve (among others) who have demonstrated that, as ratified, the U.S. Constitution was a document that protected slave holders' interests. (FWIW, I never debate history with a QP without a few dozen bankers' boxes of books nearby and Google Desktop Search pointed at the 31k or so history-related files on my HDD. Sometimes, being an egghead has its advantages.:D)

As to peacetime armies, do you really think we needed a large army to impose our will on the people of the South? It depends upon which people of the South matter. Those who wished to live by the rule of law or those who wished to supplant the rule of law with economic dominance, political exclusion, extralegal violence, and terror to advance notions of white supremacy. (Counterfactually speaking, where might America be today if the federal army had been used better during Reconstruction and the freedmen and their descendants had been allowed to integrate politically, economically, and legally into the mainstream of American society before the turn of the century? Would the First and Second Great Migrations have occurred? Would black Americans have left the Republican party? Would America have fought two world wars with segregated armies? Would Americans still be as focused on the politics of race and racial identity as they were during the 2008 national election cycle?)


As to wars, it is not who wins the first battles that matters, it is who wins the final battles. The American approach has served that end well without subjecting our populace to excessive burden of the wars of others.I respectfully disagree with you on both of these points. For example, Central and Eastern Europe was a slaughterhouse in the last years of the Second World War in no small part because the Germans sought a racial war of annihilation.

As for your second point, the absence of a large enough standing professional army has proven remarkably disruptive to the way of life you want America to practice. The mobilization of American society for modern warfare and widespread use of propaganda stemmed from the need to raise, to equip, and to train an army of citizen soldiers during World War I.

Also I believe you confuse "Principles" and "Values." Principles are enduring and fundamental, but values evolve over time. We espoused principles, such as "all men are created equal" while clearly our values at the time were hardly equal, and certainly not fair. But they were in synch with the culture of the populace at that time.I will accept your correction on the differentiation between principles and values. However, I respectfully reject your interpretation of the "culture of the populace at that time." That view is sustainable ONLY if one disregards significant cohorts who were systematically denied the opportunity to voice their views.


Much of our success is that we created a principle-based framework that allowed our values to evolve along with our cultural. But now [emphasis added] we seek to deny other cultures that same opportunity by pushing values designed for us upon cultures that are in a very different place in their own evolutionary journeys.How is now any different from then?


I simply suggest that we are better served by holding ourselves to our espoused values better than we currently do, and save our evangelical efforts to simply promoting the much more universal principles we demanded for ourselves. Other cultures need time to evolve as well, and such evolution can not be forced by outsiders, but we can provide a better example (true leadership), and perhaps help hold off those who would work to prevent such evolution from being able to occur. In short, to help others to be more like themselves, rather than working to make them more like us.I think a core difference between our viewpoints is that you see present day America's conduct in international affairs as markedly different from the best practices of a fixed interval in the past. By contrast, I am of the view that we're just living through another episode in an established narrative. That is, America has always struggled to balance its ideas with interests and has left a lot to be desired when it comes to matching ends to means.

I also think that debates over policy preferences should not be situated in historical interpretations of the early Republic. Saying we should adhere to our values is different than saying we should adhere to our values like we used to. That is, a 'more perfect union' lies in our future, not in our past.

Bill Moore
06-14-2012, 05:40 AM
Posted by Fuchs


NATO boasts more than 600 million population and whatever AQ can do isn't even a real scratch on our surface.
It's at most a microscopic and temporary scratch on the surface, next to real cratches and even deep cuts.

While I don't disagree with your recommendation to not over react, yet I very much disagree with your quote above. Case in point, the attacks on 9/11 created the political conditions that led to two wars. The attack in Madrid determined the outcome of a national election, and the attacks in London on 7/7 were more than a scratch. These groups and individuals over time will acquire new technologies and innovate in ways that enhances their lethality, so the threat will likely increase over time. That doesn't mean the answer is to invade other nations in the naive pursuit of eliminating safe havens, but it doesn't mean ignoring the threat is the best option. I think it will require constant effort from law enforcement, intelligence and special operations to protect "our" people, but this can largely be done in the shadows. Our last administration used the war on terror for political gain instead of keeping it in the shadows, and it has only gotten worse with this administration. Of course after the 9/11 attacks we were obligated to show the American people something was being done and the attack was being revenged, not sure we needed to keep it in the press for 10 plus years.

Bill Moore
06-14-2012, 05:55 AM
Posted by Bob's World,


Just type a simple Google search of "Containment, Pacific, China" and see what comes up. We've been applying some form of containment (or regime change to spice it up a bit) to virtually every problem since 1947. We have come to see the lesser forms of it as just doing business as usual and not being containment at all, but as I said, our perception is not the one that matters most.

It is 2012 and there are hundreds of blogs, along with hundreds of think tanks and their associated websites, and individuals who post on these sites, so typing containment and China into Google is hardly an indicator of what our policy or strategy is.


How do we shed the inertia of decades of containing China as part of the Cold War, to a future of working with China as the primary security and trading partner to keep the future of that region vibrant? I don't know. Just as old allies in the Middle East keep us spun up about Iran, old allies in the Pacific keep us spun up about China. Time for the US to reach out to both on our many shared interests, rather than simply fixating on the 2-3 issues we will agree to disagree about.

I think the USG is reaching out to and working well with China on a number of issues, but of course only the sexy issues get the headlines. I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that we were focused on containing China during the Cold War because China wasn't interested in expanding, it was too busy killing its own people by the millions. China has only recently (at least in the past three centuries) aggressively expanded its influence beyond its borders.


If the US is the global leader we claim to be, we should be taking lead on diplomatic solutions to the sharing of duties and rights in the South China Sea; or the timeline for peaceful reintegration of China-Taiwan. Ramping up a light version of containment seems to me to be more of an obstacle than a help in getting at resolution of such points of friction and potential conflict.

Beyond Google, where is the containment effort? If you find it, it will only be figment of Google's imagination.


China is the trading partner of choice in the region. That will not change.

The US is the security partner of choice in the region. That will not change either.

Both comments are true currently, but there is no reason why this will not change, everything changes over time.

Bob's World
06-14-2012, 10:31 AM
Bill, I am talking perception, not express intent. The very fact that you see our Cold War activities as not actively working to contain China in that era demonstrates how much such activities have become part of the American fabric for how we approach the world in general.

The widely held perception is that we were working to contain China before, and that we have just initiated a major effort to increase that program. Agree or disagree with that perception, fine. But to simply ignore it because the official policy is that we are not doing that is very dangerous. We only delude ourselves if that is the case, and self-delusion rarely leads to a good result.

Sigaba, my sources are many, some directly on point and many other merely indirectly reinforcing. Perhaps one of the best ones on the formation of our Constitution is David Stewart's "The Summer of 1787" for those who only have the time or inclination to read a single book to explore that fascinating time and event. But I recognize we all study history through the lens of our background, training, experience, and purpose for study. Most of my study in recent years has been in pursuit of greater understanding of insurgency, and what makes some societies inherently stable, while others remain inherently unstable. As a nation we make as many mistakes as any in our execution of policy, but we got the foundation right, and that sustains us.

But, please, save me from examples of suffering in Eastern Europe in the trailing years of WWII as an example for why the US should have a warfighting army on the books at all times. How was sustaining the capacity of somehow deterring such events from happening possibly in the vital interests of a United States struggling to get through the hard economic years of the great depression? Bad things happen in the world. The purpose of the American Army is to fight and win America's wars on terms so that those bad things don't happen to us

Reconstruction is not the brightest chapter in American history, but in the big scheme of things compared to other such conflicts around the world over time, it went amazingly well. In that same era we implemented a campaign of genocide to remove the native Americans from the West, another dark chapter that we prefer to ignore, but that ultimately served to consolidate the US as a continental nation. We have done hard things to good people, we have made mistakes, in short, we are in many respects just like everyone else. But we also have some unique differences and we put ourselves at unnecessary risk when we ignore our unique strengths or weaknesses either one.

Our foundation of governance and our geography are strengths. Our belief that our actions are inherently benign is a weakness. Ignoring both puts us at risk.

One thing that does not change (at a rate that matters) is geography. We are blessed with global key terrain. We piss away that advantage when we act like we are a landlocked nation trapped between powerful competitors. We have the luxury of time and space. Certainly with space and cyber enabled weapons the factor of "time" is greatly reduced, but those types of attacks are not attacks deterred or defeated by a large army.

Entropy
06-14-2012, 05:12 PM
Bob,


The widely held perception is that we were working to contain China before, and that we have just initiated a major effort to increase that program. Agree or disagree with that perception, fine. But to simply ignore it because the official policy is that we are not doing that is very dangerous. We only delude ourselves if that is the case, and self-delusion rarely leads to a good result.


What are we containing China from exactly? How exactly has that effort supposedly increased?

Bob's World
06-14-2012, 05:48 PM
Bob,



What are we containing China from exactly? How exactly has that effort supposedly increased?

Better yet, you tell me how we haven't. I don't have time to lay out the post WWII history of US policy in the Pacific, nor to explain the latest defense strategic guidance to you line by line. But I am happy to discuss any aspect of it you have questions about.

But just a single tangible, why do you suppose we are shifting our fleet distribution from 50/50 to 60/40 weighted toward the Pacific? How is India a better security partner in the Pacific than China? Why not both?

Again, call it what you want, it is what it is, and perceptions are what they are. As to the many senior leaders coming on record to say we are NOT containing China in response to many reasonable queries, I "think they doth protest too much" in their defense.

Entropy
06-14-2012, 07:43 PM
I don't have time to lay out the post WWII history of US policy in the Pacific, nor to explain the latest defense strategic guidance to you line by line.

It's a simple question, I'm not asking for regional history nor a monograph. Here's the DSG:


Over the long term, China’’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a variety of ways. Our two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a cooperative bilateral relationship. However, the growth of China’’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region. The United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations and with international law. Working closely with our network of allies and partners, we will continue to promote a rules-based international order that ensures underlying stability and encourages the peaceful rise of new powers, economic dynamism, and constructive defense cooperation.

The containment strategy for the USSR was designed to limit the spread of communism. The underpinning assumption behind Soviet containment was the belief that the USSR was an expansionist power. As Kennan said about the Soviets:


Its political action is a fluid stream which moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a given goal. Its main concern is to make sure that it has filled every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power."

Containment was:

...designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world.

And here's how you've described containment of China:


The recent shift to the Pacific may not be a physical containment in name, but it is certainly being approached as a defacto physical containment by the US and China alike.

and


Any US strategy in the Pacific that is designed to work against China rather than with China is a form of containment, in fact if not in name.

I think the question of containment hinges on whether or not China is an expansionist power. I don't think it is, not like the Soviets were.

Additionally, our East Asia strategy contains two main themes:

1. Maintain our alliances in the Pacific.
2. Ensure freedom of the seas.

With an expansionist China these policy options will be a de facto policy of containment, but as I said, I don't subscribe to that view. I subscribe to the alternative of peaceful coexistence with a non-expansionist China. In that case there is no containment.

Bob's World
06-15-2012, 07:05 AM
Ok, so you remember in about 1950 when we extended containment to include the entire Sino-Soviet alliance once Nationalist China fell? Also Communist, the domino theory in SEA, etc.

All those mechanisms put in place, our support to S. Korea and that ensuing alliance, with Taiwan, S. Vietnam, all to contain China. Any of this ringing a bell? Much of that is still in place, even though our relationship with China should be evolving.

No we waged containment every bit as hard in Asia and perceived China's communist influence to be every bit as expansive as that of the Soviets. Now we fear their economic expansive influence every bit as much, if not more and seek to contain still. But yes, our message does not match our actions. We have a bad habit of that and it costs us influence. We act in one way and say we are acting in other ways. Seems we only fool ourselves when we do that, as we buy into our self-image as a benign force for good and rule of law. Others see us differently.

Dayuhan
06-15-2012, 09:49 AM
Ok, so you remember in about 1950 when we extended containment to include the entire Sino-Soviet alliance once Nationalist China fell? Also Communist, the domino theory in SEA, etc.

Of course by 1960 the Sino-Soviet alliance was history and they were at each other's throats, though many Americans clung to the fiction that Communism was a united force.

Containment was as much about the perceived need to contain an ideology perceived as expansionist as it was about a perceived need to contain any given power. In practice of course that meant the Soviets, as the Chinese were not nearly so aggressive about supporting Communism in faraway places.

I don't see current moves as containment per se, more an announcement that expansionism can be met with containment if that's deemed necessary. The Chinese are doing something very similar on their side, it's not at all a one-sided picture. All the dogs, big and small, are out growling and pissing on trees, none seem very interested in a serious confrontation. Hopefully the US will not feel obligated to disrupt that status quo. That's not to say the Chinese (or someone else) might not disrupt it; no status quo lasts forever, but the US has little to gain by rocking the boat.

Entropy
06-15-2012, 12:31 PM
All those mechanisms put in place, our support to S. Korea and that ensuing alliance, with Taiwan, S. Vietnam, all to contain China. Any of this ringing a bell? Much of that is still in place, even though our relationship with China should be evolving.

So as long as have alliances with all those nations we are containing China? Does that correctly describe your view? Well, then what would a policy of non-containment look like?

Look, as I've said before here many times I think we really need to reexamine our alliances and try to reduce our overseas commitments. But, like Dayuhan, I don't think the status quo in East Asia is at all equivalent to the Cold War containment policy where we went to war to try to stem the spread of communism in Asia. Nor is it anything close to what we did to Russia with NATO expansion. My reading of the NSG indicates concern over China's long-term goals, nothing more, along with a desire to ensure we have access to our allies. I do not see it as a strategy to roll-back China's influence, nor stem the non-existent expansion of Chinese communism. Again, a strategy of containment is predicated on preventing an adversary from accomplishing some goal - what is it WRT China?

Bob's World
06-15-2012, 01:43 PM
Dayuhan,

I agree that neither side is aggressively pushing the other right now, but these things tend to happen in degrees, and both sides have increased the degree of chest bumping against each other, without increasing the degree of interaction with each other.

In no way should we "abandon" our allies in the region. Equally, in now way should we continue to define those relationships by perspectives overly shaped by a world that no longer exists. Is this pivot or shift the right flavor of change for the emerging world, or is it simply a move to put more energy into old concepts based on old perspectives?

Entropy asks what would an alternative to containment look like. A good friend of mine co-wrote a paper as "Mr. Y" that suggests a grand strategy of "sustainment," and it has some good ideas in it. I published a paper that took a slightly different tact and branded it "empowerment."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=a%20grand%20strategy%20of%20empowerment&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkms1.isn.ethz.ch%2Fserviceengine% 2FFiles%2FISN%2F128426%2Fipublicationdocument_sing ledocument%2Ff6345092-ed21-4c93-b38f-a033835c849e%2Fen%2FDefense-Concepts-Winter-2011.pdf&ei=kTnbT9i4H6bg2AWDycTdDQ&usg=AFQjCNGTCuWIFjPVreun6jEINkzKIoQfuw

(If that link does not work, google "A Grand Strategy of Empowerment") Not intended to be the definitive answer, but merely to note that we need to make a major course change in terms of our strategic approach and to offer one new (old) concept to help shape that dialog.

Dayuhan
06-15-2012, 10:10 PM
I agree that neither side is aggressively pushing the other right now, but these things tend to happen in degrees, and both sides have increased the degree of chest bumping against each other, without increasing the degree of interaction with each other.

I'd say interaction with China has increased quite a bit in the last few decades, particularly economic interaction.


Entropy asks what would an alternative to containment look like. A good friend of mine co-wrote a paper as "Mr. Y" that suggests a grand strategy of "sustainment," and it has some good ideas in it. I published a paper that took a slightly different tact and branded it "empowerment."

How would a grand strategy of empowerment be applied to today's Asia-Pacific region? Whom do you propose to empower? Certainly an empowered populace is less liable to embark on a Communist led revolution (I'd question the degree to which the US is actually capable of empowering anyone else's populace, but that's for another thread), but the Chinese aren't promoting revolution or subversion. Empowering the Chinese populace would be wonderful but it's not the most practical of objectives.

What exactly do you propose that we do in Asia?

I find the whole Asian pivot concept less than convincing, just because I don't see what assigning more ships to the Pacific is actually meant to accomplish, other than posing an assertive and Presidential-looking alternative to the withdrawal (some will say retreat) from Afghanistan. I don't necessarily see that as containment, but if you're going to propose an alternative, I'd be curious about what the alternative would look like in actual application.

Ken White
06-15-2012, 10:50 PM
I find the whole Asian pivot concept less than convincing, just because I don't see what assigning more ships to the Pacific is actually meant to accomplish, other than posing an assertive and Presidential-looking alternative to the withdrawal (some will say retreat) from Afghanistan. I don't necessarily see that as containment, but if you're going to propose an alternative, I'd be curious about what the alternative would look like in actual application. (emphasis added / kw)We've had up to 70% of the Fleet in the Pacific several times over the last 100 years. The preponderence of the ships go where they can best be used. This Admin wants to edge Europe into doing more for itself than most of the last few. Nothing wrong with that. :wry:

Nothing earth shaking, either... :cool:

Not to mention an upcoming election and a need to look busy with some justification -- but with little to no probability of major malfunctions. :rolleyes:

Bob's World
06-15-2012, 11:54 PM
We can empower Japan and South Korea to take on greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than primarily expecting them to serve as bases for our own containment.

We can empower China to work with us to ensure the safe sailing of the commercial fleets of the region.

We can empower the Philippines to actually work to resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces.

There is no logical rationale for greater call to US military action in the Pacific, and to do so merely enables bad behavior by allies and competitors alike, rather than empowering positive actions.

Ken infers that our shift works to empower Europe to stand up more for their own interests, but we can do that by bringing capacity home and standing down excesses; it does not require we shift it to the Pacific to keep it at work where no extra work need be done. But Fuchs raises a good point earlier as well, that the Europeans may not field the force we wish the did so as to better be able to join us on our exaggerated adventures around the globe, but they are fielding the force they need for the actual threats they face to their own interests as they define them.

As America looks to the future, it needs to build that foundation on our pre-Cold War past. To build it upon the crumbled and irrelevant foundation of the remains of our Cold War posture is illogical at best, and sets the stage for the further decline of our national influence at worst.

Dayuhan
06-16-2012, 12:52 AM
We can empower Japan and South Korea to take on greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than primarily expecting them to serve as bases for our own containment.

We can empower China to work with us to ensure the safe sailing of the commercial fleets of the region.

We can empower the Philippines to actually work to resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces.

How exactly do you propose to empower any of the above? Beyond generalities, what do you propose that we actually do.

All the nations you mention above are independent sovereign states, and they make their own decisions. They are going to do what they want to do, not what we want them to do; they will not ask our permission and they do not need us to empower them to do anything. If they aren't doing any given thing, it's because they don't want to do it, not because we haven't empowered them. The notion that we are in a position to "empower" the Chinese or Koreans or Japanese or Filipinos seems, in all honesty, a bit pretentious to me, and I don't see how exactly we're supposed to do it.


There is no logical rationale for greater call to US military action in the Pacific, and to do so merely enables bad behavior by allies and competitors alike, rather than empowering positive actions.

Agreed, but I haven't seen any proposal for military action, just for a military presence... and even there I'd say the program is more politically motivated talk than anything else.

Ken White
06-16-2012, 05:18 AM
Ken infers that our shift works to empower Europe to stand up more for their own interests, but we can do that by bringing capacity home and standing down excesses; it does not require we shift it to the Pacific to keep it at work where no extra work need be done. But Fuchs raises a good point earlier as well, that the Europeans may not field the force we wish the did so as to better be able to join us on our exaggerated adventures around the globe, but they are fielding the force they need for the actual threats they face to their own interests as they define them.Ken didn't mean to infer that, Ken meant to say that's what the Admin would like. Not the same thing...

Like you I don't believe that will happen and for the same general reasons.

You are correct that no extra work needs to be done in the Pacific area -- but I think incorrect on the "require" aspect -- our system requires it; Congress, the National Security and Foreign Policy establishments Require it for self justification... :mad:

Dumbbb -- with three 'bs.' We have indeed lost the bubble. :eek:

Ulenspiegel
06-16-2012, 09:33 AM
Posted by Fuchs



While I don't disagree with your recommendation to not over react, yet I very much disagree with your quote above. Case in point, the attacks on 9/11 created the political conditions that led to two wars. The attack in Madrid determined the outcome of a national election, and the attacks in London on 7/7 were more than a scratch. These groups and individuals over time will acquire new technologies and innovate in ways that enhances their lethality, so the threat will likely increase over time. That doesn't mean the answer is to invade other nations in the naive pursuit of eliminating safe havens, but it doesn't mean ignoring the threat is the best option. I think it will require constant effort from law enforcement, intelligence and special operations to protect "our" people, but this can largely be done in the shadows. Our last administration used the war on terror for political gain instead of keeping it in the shadows, and it has only gotten worse with this administration. Of course after the 9/11 attacks we were obligated to show the American people something was being done and the attack was being revenged, not sure we needed to keep it in the press for 10 plus years.

Or 9/11 created conditions a US government needed to start two wars, of which at least one was in reality totally disconnected to 9/11.
BTW the coversion of the first war into a large soccial experiment - instead of retreating after two years- was neither connected to 9/11.

AQ had a success because of the disproportional reaction the USA, not because of AQs clever long-term strategy. One side effect was that most of the US soft power became useless.

Therefore, I agree that AQ should be seen and prosecuted as criminals, not more. Let us not give them a political stage that converts them into a political power.

MikeF
06-16-2012, 11:33 AM
I've long thought that we needed a Serenity Prayer for our Foreign Policy. As it turns out, the author of that prayer was one of the moral forces/grandfather to 20th century thoughts to include containment.

Y'all might find this of interest.

Finding Niebuhr (http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2012/04/24/finding-niebuhr/#ixzz1xxGgUTPh)


The Serenity Prayer was penned by Reinhold Niebuhr, the most influential American theologian of the 20th Century. Originally a German-American socialist and pacifist who spent his youth striving for social justice for factory workers of Detroit’s auto plants, Niebuhr in his middle years became a liberal interventionist.

He advocated armed American intervention to defeat the evil of Nazi Germany. In his silver years, he also provided the philosophical and moral bedrock of America’s containment policy against the Soviet Union. As such, the Calvinist evangelical preacher helped to articulate the meaning of our nation’s new-found political, economic, and social power in the mid-20th Century.

For a generation of Cold Warriors, Niebuhr became a trusted counsel, explaining to them just war theory, the meaning of freedom and the need for social justice, both here and abroad.

A key architect of the Truman Doctrine, American diplomat George Kennan rightly proclaimed Niebuhr “the Father of us all.” The Rev. Martin Luther King wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail that Niebuhr’s gift to us was the terse reminder that ultimately “groups are more immoral than individuals.”

Bob's World
06-16-2012, 12:43 PM
military presence is military action. Particularly in times of peace such as our nation enjoys now.

Specific action?

Less presence and less bases on the far side of the Pacific, not more.

Renegotiate all of the defense treaties of the region to reflect the world as it exists today, but with a general trend of the US taking a much smaller direct role in the security events of the region, and China taking a larger role. With the US serving more as a distant reserve and counter-balance to prevent China from abusing the sovereignty of her neighbors.

Delegate. We want to be the "global leader" according to our NSS, well it is time for a more sophisticated form of leadership. Currently we abuse the sovereignty of China to accomplish that same task through containment strategy, Empowerment strategy recognizes China's status as the most powerful nation in East Asia, and India in South Asia and reinforces their sovereignty as it supports their lead in the regions of their issue. We also abuse the sovereignty of several nations in our efforts to contain AQ in the FATA and to defeat, disrupt, deny them in many nations elsewhere. A definition of global leadership that means US direct action on US terms for US interests regardless of the impact on the countries and populaces it impacts, that is no type of leadership we really want our "USA" brand applied to, IMO. It is time for the US government to learn delegated leadership.

Lead a major reorg of the UN to make it in fact what it is supposed to be in principle. Rebalance what and how countries have a voice to make it more equitable and better tuned to the post Cold War world. Consider regional groupings with regional leadership that have primary responsibility for security and disaster and economic relief in their respective regions. Couple this with a logical plan to keep such regional bodies within certain limits, and to reinforce them as necessary for larger events.

BLUF is we need to reassess the entire kit bag of programs, organizations, treaties, etc, etc, etc, designed by the West to contain the East, and convert them to things designed by the entire world for the entire world. The US may lose some control, but we will gain a whole lot of leadership and influence.

This is not retrenchment or isolationist at all. This is just being a smart leader for others without overstepping important boundaries that we demand for ourself, but too often ignore for others. Somethings will happen that we won't like or approve of. But when did anyone annoint the US as having to hit the "like" button on every action, or give other nations our approval to act??

Sigaba
06-17-2012, 03:24 AM
Bill, I am talking perception, not express intent. The very fact that you see our Cold War activities as not actively working to contain China in that era demonstrates how much such activities have become part of the American fabric for how we approach the world in general.

The widely held perception is that we were working to contain China before, and that we have just initiated a major effort to increase that program. Agree or disagree with that perception, fine. But to simply ignore it because the official policy is that we are not doing that is very dangerous. We only delude ourselves if that is the case, and self-delusion rarely leads to a good result.

Sigaba, my sources are many, some directly on point and many other merely indirectly reinforcing. Perhaps one of the best ones on the formation of our Constitution is David Stewart's "The Summer of 1787" for those who only have the time or inclination to read a single book to explore that fascinating time and event. But I recognize we all study history through the lens of our background, training, experience, and purpose for study. Most of my study in recent years has been in pursuit of greater understanding of insurgency, and what makes some societies inherently stable, while others remain inherently unstable. As a nation we make as many mistakes as any in our execution of policy, but we got the foundation right, and that sustains us.I agree with you on the different approaches to history. Because of these different approaches, I don't think that using history to "prove" why one contemporaneous policy preference should be supported over another is politically or intellectually sustainable.

Here's why. Those, such as yourself, who study history for utilitarian purposes (that is, for the "lessons" of history) are likely to have a drastically different approach to the past than those who study history largely for its own sake. For example, professional academic historians are driven by a different set of sensibilities. These sensibilities allow for the reinterpretation of historical events over time as more primary source materials come available and as questions and answers are debated.

In contrast, those who take a "lessons of history" based approach to the past do not have the same flexibility because they're basing their policy preferences upon the "lessons" of the past. If the "lessons" end up being unsustainable, then the intellectual foundation of the preference is compromised.

This current thread provides two good examples of this dynamic in action. While you and carl are on different sides of the issue you've raised, you both use of anachronistic (and/or ahistoric) interpretations of the past to support your positions. A moderately-well trained historian could play serve and volley to raise enough doubts about the "lessons" you two have presented and to raise doubts on your respective views on contemporaneous military policy.
But, please, save me from examples of suffering in Eastern Europe in the trailing years of WWII as an example for why the US should have a warfighting army on the books at all times. How was sustaining the capacity of somehow deterring such events from happening possibly in the vital interests of a United States struggling to get through the hard economic years of the great depression?With respect, I believe you're misreading my posts. I offering any totalizing generalizations about what the United States should do "at all times." I'm merely taking issue with your use of history to support your central argument, not with your central argument.

In regards to the Second World War, I believe that you're conflating two separate counterpoints to two points that you made.
As to wars, it is not who wins the first battles that matters, it is who wins the final battles. The American approach has served that end well without subjecting our populace to excessive burden of the wars of others.By my reading, you offered a historical interpretation of military history and a historical interpretation of American military history. In my reply, the use of the Eastern front was in reply to your first interpretation to provide an example of how the shape and tone of a war's initial battles does matter even if the victor in those initial engagements ends up losing the war.

Neither that point and the historiographically sustainable interpretation that the U.S.'s military effectiveness was undermined in World War II because it did not maintain a large (enough) standing army during the 1930s do not mean that there's a "lesson" to be learned for the present and near future. The two points simply mean that you're using interpretations of the past to support your policy preferences, that these interpretations are historiographically controversial, and that by using such controversial interpretations, you shift the focal point of debate from the present to the past. And by making this shift, you weaken unnecessarily an otherwise eloquent argument.

Another, and perhaps more problematic, example of your use of historical interpretations is your discussion of "containment." In a number of posts, you characterize American policy towards the PRC of "containment" without differentiating among different interpretations of that word. (For example, George Kennan's vision of containment was strikingly different than John Foster Dulles's.) Nor do you square your interpretation "containment" with America's pre-existing (and continuing) support for the Open Door, or America's post World War II aim of maintaining a "preponderance of power" that predated the Cold War against the USSR and re-emerged after the Soviet Union's collapse.

Consequently, when you say:
Again, call it what you want, it is what it is, and perceptions are what they are. As to the many senior leaders coming on record to say we are NOT containing China in response to many reasonable queries, I "think they doth protest too much" in their defense. You raise as many questions about your perception of what "it is" as you do of the "many senior leaders."

Our foundation of governance and our geography are strengths. Our belief that our actions are inherently benign is a weakness. Ignoring both puts us at risk.MOO, these points--not a collection of highly controversial interpretations of the past-- should be the foundation of your argument.

My $0.02

Bob's World
06-17-2012, 03:02 PM
Sigaba,

There is nothing "controversial" about my interpretation of history, as I change no facts, I just highlight certain aspects that are important for better understanding how the events of those times relate to events of our times based upon my trained, education and experience. You can find value in that or not as you chose as you interpret these insights from your own training, education and experience. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but nor does your disagreement with me make me wrong.

I'm comfortable with my assessment, and refine it constantly as new, helpful ideas and information are presented. So far you haven't helped me refine it much.

Containment is an effect, and end. It has gone through multiple official variations and certainly has been interpreted uniquely by literally billions of people over the past 65 years. What we do currently in the Pacific is layered upon what we have historically in the Pacific post 1949 to contain China. China (and many other observers around the world) perceive recently announced US strategy and actions as an escalation of US-led containment of China. Those are facts. What everyone perceive or intends? That is another thing altogether.

I don't think working to contain China is unconstitutional, I just think it is unwise and unnecessary. I do think that thinking about and resourcing the Navy and the Army equally is unconstitutional as well as unwise and unnecessary. We are caught up in a great inertia of foreign policy that is driving us in a form designed for a short, anomaly of time known as the Cold War into a bold new era of empowered populaces and non-state actors and a greater balancing of regional power among a dozen states. How we thought about ourselves and how we engaged the world prior to WWII is more appropriate for this emerging world than how we came to think about ourselves and how we engaged the world during the Cold War and post Cold War era. Problem is we have short memories and have a hard time differentiating between the two.

Fuchs
06-17-2012, 03:51 PM
Dunno if talk about "non-state actors" really makes sense. The 60's and 70's were full of them, too. See all those counter-imperialist uprisings in Africa.

And yes, they were regularly called "terrorists".

Bob's World
06-17-2012, 03:53 PM
Others look at these things from their own perspectives as well.

From the former Pakistan Ambassador to the UN:
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/03/13/comment/columns/containment-of-china/

A Russian perspective:
http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/society/item/10340-americass-policy-of-containment-of-china.html

A variety of perspectives:
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_06_15/78229791/

A Turkish perspective
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/135850/is-a-policy-of-%C3%ABmaritime-containment%C3%AD-being-formulated-in-the-south-china-sea.html

Just few of many

Bob's World
06-17-2012, 03:57 PM
Dunno if talk about "non-state actors" really makes sense. The 60's and 70's were full of them, too. See all those counter-imperialist uprisings in Africa.

And yes, they were regularly called "terrorists".

Fuchs,

Agree best not to exaggerate nor to under estimate. The ability of NSA such as AQ to conduct global UW to attempt to leverage individuals and movements around the globe to their cause with modern information tools is new. This used to be the realm of states, now non-state groups play too, and being non-states hold no infrastructure that the states they compete with can hold at risk, contain or otherwise apply leverage to. That frustrates states.

So, yes, NSAs are a new empowered type of group that must be accounted for. Be it legal NSAs such as corporations who increasingly owe their loyalty to no state, or illegal NSAs such as AQ.

Fuchs
06-17-2012, 04:08 PM
Really? I think I remember some earlier ideology that used to "to leverage individuals and movements around the globe to their cause with modern information tools". They were intent on something called "world revolution" or similar.
The then-modern information tools were not the same as today, but noting this as only substantial difference means that the whole thing is trivial.


On another note, some privateers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Drake) circumnavigated earth in the 16th century already.


I also recall having read about condottieri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottiere), mercenary captains who basically took over almost the entire warfare business in Italy for quite some time.


There was also an international anarchist movement that played a role in kicking off the First World War.


China was repeatedly ravaged by sects and other non-state actors, including in what was likely the second most-deadly war ever, the Taiping Rebellion (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2009/09/relevant-chinese-history.html).


There were also ocean-spanning "East India Trade companies" and other at times quite violent and war-making trade groups, including the Hanse.



I recommend to delete "non-state actors" and "leverage" from the vocabulary. They trigger my BS alert far too often.

ganulv
06-17-2012, 06:46 PM
but I would argue that it encompasses many kinds of institutions rather than a single type. And it might be worth thinking about whether we have seen the rise of some new kinds of them over the past decade or two. Right off the top of my head, I cannot think of any post-Englightenment groups of note previous to AQ sharing their mix of anti-secularism and anti-nationalism. And there now exist corporations seemingly distinct from the East India Trading Company vis-à-vis their relationship to/with sovereign states (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/books/private-empire-steve-colls-book-on-exxon-mobil.html?pagewanted=all).

Fuchs
06-17-2012, 07:51 PM
Right off the top of my head, I cannot think of any post-Englightenment groups of note previous to AQ sharing their mix of anti-secularism and anti-nationalism.[/B][/URL].

I think I can, this one came to my mind before I had completed reading your sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ahmad

ganulv
06-17-2012, 08:45 PM
I think I can, this one came to my mind before I had completed reading your sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ahmad

Eschatological ideology is by definition global, but the (or at least this) Mahdi’s military and political goals were about Sudan. I do believe it fair to characterize AQ as transnational in character.

Dayuhan
06-17-2012, 10:03 PM
military presence is military action. Particularly in times of peace such as our nation enjoys now.

Specific action?

Less presence and less bases on the far side of the Pacific, not more.

Renegotiate all of the defense treaties of the region to reflect the world as it exists today, but with a general trend of the US taking a much smaller direct role in the security events of the region, and China taking a larger role. With the US serving more as a distant reserve and counter-balance to prevent China from abusing the sovereignty of her neighbors.

Delegate. We want to be the "global leader" according to our NSS, well it is time for a more sophisticated form of leadership. Currently we abuse the sovereignty of China to accomplish that same task through containment strategy, Empowerment strategy recognizes China's status as the most powerful nation in East Asia, and India in South Asia and reinforces their sovereignty as it supports their lead in the regions of their issue.

That's a little better, but still far from specific.

How exactly does the US "abuse the sovereignty of China"? The US at present seems to be doing exactly what you say, trying to be a "counter-balance to prevent China from abusing the sovereignty of her neighbors". It doesn't look like it's working. How does one respond if the idea of being a distant counterbalance is clearly ineffective? Move closer? Give up?

Going back to the previous...


We can empower Japan and South Korea to take on greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than primarily expecting them to serve as bases for our own containment.

We can certainly pull forces back from these countries if we decide that it's in our interest to do so. That's not "empowering" anyone to take more responsibility for their own defense, they already have the power to do that if they choose to do it. We'd be forcing a choice, not empowering: two entirely different things.


We can empower China to work with us to ensure the safe sailing of the commercial fleets of the region.

China already has that power; they don't need us to give it to them. In any event the commercial fleets of the region face no significant threat and don't need anyone to ensure safe sailing, except perhaps off Somalia, where the Chinese are already working with us. Can't see how there's any "empowerment" for us to do in that sphere.


We can empower the Philippines to actually work to resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces.

How do you propose to do that? Please don't think that a US withdrawal from the Philippines would force (oh, sorry, "empower") the Philippine government to "resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces". That would not happen. If we weren't around the Philippine government would revert to its previous methods and take more of a Sri Lanka-style approach to its various insurgencies, from which they've temporarily stepped back because going all touchy-feely pop centric is seen as the way into the US pocketbook. I suppose it could be said that we'd be empowering them to do that, but I'm not sure any of the dissatisfied populaces would thank us for it.

Bill Moore
06-18-2012, 01:45 AM
This was one method attempted, I'm not sure it worked as planned, but our presence in East Asia probably prevented some states from falling to communism, but again we'll never know. It is like deterence, our forward presence may have deterred, or maybe the USSR didn't act for other reasons. Like most things in the world there are multiple factors that influence the behavoir/decisions that states make.

http://www.pearsonschoolsandfecolleges.co.uk/Secondary/History/16plus/ASandA2OCRHistoryA/Samples/ASStudentBookSampleChapters/TheUSAandtheColdWarinAsia1945-1975Chapter2.pdf


One fundamental strategy used by successive US administrations was to attempt to create model states in Asia, to show that democracy and capitalism would bring economic prosperity, freedom and happiness. The USA felt that their political system was the best in the world, and that no country would choose communism when they saw the benefits democracy had brought to these model states. They began with their own ex-colony of the
Philippines. This artificial imposition of western culture onto another country is an example of cultural imperialism.


President Truman used Filipino independence as a means of ensuring US dominance in the PaciŸfic and so strengthening the Pacific Rim Defensive Perimeter Strategy. However, he resisted any suggestion that the USA was in
fact treating it as a colony, in case this provoked a revival of European imperialism. Instead, he emphasised two features of the newly-independent state:
1. Its measures to prevent European dominance of its markets and materials
2. Its democratic values of freedom and liberty. It was intended to be a shining example of capitalist prosperity and democracy to encourage other states in the area to resist the spread of communism.

Break, Bob, our war nor our containment policy was directed at China:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=488


In mid-October, the first of 300,000 Chinese soldiers slipped into North Korea. When U.S. forces began what they expected to be their final assault in late November, they ran into the Chinese army. There was a danger that the U.S. Army might be overrun. The Chinese intervention ended any hope of reunifying Korea by force of arms.

General MacArthur called for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff to unleash American air and naval power against China. But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Omar Bradley, said a clash with China would be "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy." Emphasis is mine.

Bob's World
06-18-2012, 06:05 AM
Bill - Containment and war are two different things. We absolutely worked every bit as hard to contain China as Russia; which has nothing to do with Mac being told not to go to war with China over Korea. His mission was to contain, he wanted to do more and got fired.

Dayuhan, you apply, intentionally I believe far too narrow a definition on "empower." To empower does not mean that one was powerless previously, just that they felt no need to do what they already know they should be doing. Like a 24 year old son still living with his parents. He knows he should be paying for his own place, cooking his own food, and doing his own laundry, but he is enabled to take the easy way out. Is it "abandonment" of such a son to tell them it is time to move out and get a job? No, to do so is to empower them to stand up and be a man. To continue the status quo is to enable behavior that isn't good for anyone in the long run. This is where we are with many of our Pacific Allies.

We are like a mother who is afraid to let them go, and they are happy to allow us to keep subsidizing a comfortable status quo. It is time for everyone to move on. We do not abandon allies when we do this, we empower them. Same when we share regional power duties with China. We do not give up power to them when we do this, we actually make our situation stronger, as we share onerous duties that profit everyone, and at the same time take away much of the rationale China employs currently to justify much the current military buildup that we in turn build up to match. End the arms race, it serves no (good) purpose. Sure it strengthens Chinese politicians position as they stand up to this affront, sure it keeps US defense contractors churning on tactical fighters and "A2/AD" systems that we really don't need. Those are purposes, but they are not good purposes, and they make our nation weaker, not stronger.

Bill Moore
06-18-2012, 07:06 AM
Containment and war are two different things. We absolutely worked every bit as hard to contain China as Russia; which has nothing to do with Mac being told not to go to war with China over Korea. His mission was to contain, he wanted to do more and got fired.

The containment policy was directed at the USSR, we tried to pull China into our sphere to help contain the USSR. The USSR did aggressively expand (using force), and continued to do so, so our containment policy was appropriate. Where exactly did China try to expand to that we needed to contain it? China is expanding its influence far beyond its borders now, and an argument could be made that China is trying to contain us.

War and containment may be different, or it war may be a sequential step to implement containment, the point of the quote was that U.S. leaders didn't view China as an enemy. China's actions in North Korea and North Vietnam were in response to U.S. actions, they were not expanding in those situations.

Red China was immoral, it murdered millions of its own citizens, it was bankrupt, there is nothing good to say about it, but I can't find any evidence that were containing it, and the only reason is it wasn't expanding.

Bob's World
06-18-2012, 02:38 PM
The containment policy was directed at the USSR, we tried to pull China into our sphere to help contain the USSR. The USSR did aggressively expand (using force), and continued to do so, so our containment policy was appropriate. Where exactly did China try to expand to that we needed to contain it? China is expanding its influence far beyond its borders now, and an argument could be made that China is trying to contain us.

War and containment may be different, or it war may be a sequential step to implement containment, the point of the quote was that U.S. leaders didn't view China as an enemy. China's actions in North Korea and North Vietnam were in response to U.S. actions, they were not expanding in those situations.

Red China was immoral, it murdered millions of its own citizens, it was bankrupt, there is nothing good to say about it, but I can't find any evidence that were containing it, and the only reason is it wasn't expanding.

Bill,

I'm not sure what to say to a post that is so disconnected from the post-WWII history of US foreign policy and strategy in the Pacific. You have been working most of your adult life to support the US policy of containment in the Pacific.

Yes, we very much saw China, and Russia as well, as two of our strongest allies coming out of WWII and President Roosevelt imagined a world where they would work with the US and Great Britain as "Four Policemen" to replace the failed League of Nations and provide a united force for security around the globe. In a way his vision came true, only it broke up into first three teams as the events of 1947 made clear that the Soviets were on their own agenda, then two in 1949 with Maoist China prevailed over the Nationalists and made it very clear that they saw America just as they saw all other Western Colonial powers and were very much not interested in the type of alliance that we offered them. The Cold War was on in full strength, and this before the first Russian tank manned by North Koreans rolled across the line we had drawn through the heart of that country.

The "domino theory" was not an abstract, it was specifically about the nations of SEA, and the great debate was if we should draw the line of containment on the Chinese border and include them all, or if we should cut our losses and draw that line at Thailand. The decision was to include them all, and drove our support to first the French, and then Diem, et al in Vietnam. It drove our support to the Nationalist Chinese taking refuge on Taiwan. It shaped the nature of our relationships with Japan, the Philippines, and Thailand to name but three.

Us old guys are all born and bred Cold Warriors, so it is natural that we see Cold War policy, strategy and relationships as natural. But they are not any more natural than any other policies, strategies and relationships tied to any other particular time and place.

To assume them as a baseline for "normal" is to fall into the age old trap of attempting to sustain the unsustainable.

We live in new times and that calls for new approaches. The President's recently announced new strategy to place more emphasis on the Pacific due to its rising importance to the US economy recognizes this.

But inertia drives us forward from where we already are. And where we already are is based upon three generations of containment in the Pacific. It is hard to break free from that type of inertia. Instead of building new strategy on top of old, we really need to break out the proverbial "clean slate." The world has changed dramatically since the lines on the current slate were drawn, and continues to change at an increasing rate.

This is the essence of what Operational or Strategic Design is supposed to do for us. This is the promise of that school of analysis. To look at problems with fresh eyes and to see them with new understanding. One cannot undertake such an effort with any purity if it draws "no think areas" around certain critical policies, relationships, plans, capabilities, or paradigms.

I don't have the answer for how the US should approach the Pacific, but I do feel strongly that the current solution we seek to apply is far too rooted in in its Cold War history and suffers from an inertia of containment thinking that dooms it to make our situation worse in the Pacific rather than better. This is far bigger than PACOM, and if I were the PACOM commander I would be doing a few things.

1. Continue to prepare to execute the plans and policies with which we are tasked.

2. Stand up an elite, multi-discipline, operational planning team that answers to me directly to conduct a comprehensive strategic design of the entire theater. No sacred cows, everything on the table.

3. Task the Asia-Pacific Center to do the same thing, but with a multi-national and multi-disciple approach that include representatives from every major nation in the region, and as many minor ones as will come.

4. Engage the SecDef and the Chairman of my concerns and what I am doing to get a better grasp on this. Tell them that my belief is that building new strategy on the foundation of old containment strategy is inappropriate to what it is the President is truly asking us to do, and that it may well make us more at risk rather than safer. That we are studying the problem in detail and that I will be coming to them with what may well be bold new concepts that are far beyond my, or their, lane to implement. That we need to see the President now to discuss these concerns and efforts to address them, and that we will want follow-ups as our results begin to materialize.

5. Emphasize that there is much good new in this. That if my instincts are correct we will be able to craft new plans and strategies that could trim hundreds of billions of dollars in current "requirements" from the overall defense programing between now and 2020. But that all of this will require significant increase in diplomacy and parallel revision of policy to replace what has become overtime a predominantly militaristic approach to the region.

Probably more, but off the top of my head that is where I would start. But this is why SF Colonels, particularly ones with eclectic backgrounds such as mine, are not PACOM commanders. We pick Navy Admirals who grew up as commanders of surface fleets, or as fighter pilots. Men with 35 years of containment experience under their belts, who understand what right looks like and how to make it happen.

But is the world is indeed changing as so many claim it is, how could such perspectives so heavily rooted in what it used to be still be the "right" we are looking for or needing for today and tomorrow??

Bill Moore
06-18-2012, 05:49 PM
Bob,
As you well know the situation was not as black and white as you make it out to be, and while we all over simplify our comments on blogs to capture our main ideas on short posts, in this case your comments misleading. Your comments inaccurately create the perception that we are still focused on containment, and that is not true.
I simply asked for you to provide some evidence that our containment policy was directed at China, instead you jump up on a soapbox and tap dance all around the question and just claim that it is. You claim we’re practicing containment now, what is your evidence?
Partly I’m playing devil’s advocate, because I also know to varying degrees we did practice a containment policy by trying to prevent China from obtaining a seat in the UN, and in the early 1960s the U.S. considered pre-emptive strikes to prevent China from becoming a nuclear power. We also pushed for economic sanctions, etc. I guess that is a form of containment also, but we didn’t pursue it. We
However, our containment policy clearly directed at the USSR, especially since our containment policy was formed “before” China fell to the communists. When China signed a friendship treaty with the USSR in 1950 they became part of the global communist movement we directed our containment policy at, but in the late 50s China’s relationship with the USSR fell apart. In the 1972 the U.S. and China established a relationship (to help contain the USSR), and that was in the middle of the Cold War. Shifting alliances for enduring interests, which is different than your black and white view that we always pursued containment with the PRC.
I can’t state this as fact, but I believe (and I will research it) the USSR was more active promoting the spread of communism in the Asia-Pacific than China.
You wrote,
“Us old guys are all born and bred Cold Warriors, so it is natural that we see Cold War policy, strategy and relationships as natural. But they are not any more natural than any other policies, strategies and relationships tied to any other particular time and place.”
I think you are blinded by “your” perception, and confuse your perception with the actual views of our leadership. Personally I hear very few old timers that actually promote containment, they transitioned into the post Cold War era in the 1990s, but we haven’t done is clearly articulate our enduring interests. Actually I hear the word containment more from younger officers who are inappropriately trying to template historical solutions as a way forward, since as you correct point out we don’t have another strategy yet (but that doesn’t mean we’re still promoting containment. In response to your recommendations, most of them are spot on, and most of them have already been implemented. We can’t have a real strategy until we have comprehensive policy. Gets back to what are our enduring interests in the region? As you know relationships in this part of the world have been shifting for years (based on enduring interests), so it isn’t as near black and white as you make it out to be.

Bob's World
06-18-2012, 06:36 PM
Bill you are living the evidence. Just because we stopped calling an approach by a certain name does not change the approach from what it is. Just because we see it as "normal" and take it for granted as a baseline for operations does not mean it is not abnormal.

I am not tap dancing. Our current policies, plans and postures regarding every land mass from the Philippines to Japan and all the water in between were designed SPECIFICALLY to contain China (and the spread of their influence as well as physical presence). That is not my perception, that is a matter of historical fact. The conventional force never lost that focus throughout the GWOT even as SOF focused on other things.

We did not think about the Pacific in this way during the first half of the last century when we first reached out into the region. Then we looked for ways to extend our naval presence to better secure our commercial interests. Not to contain anyone, we did not even work to contain Japan as it spread its empire. That era and mission is far more in line with what the President is talking about now that what we have done since the end of WWII.

Entropy
06-18-2012, 07:39 PM
Bob,

Containment: "the policy, process, or result of preventing the expansion of a hostile power or ideology"

What expansion are we trying to prevent? Again, a policy of containment presumes the adversary is expansionist or at least perceived to be expansionist. So, where is China being an expansionist and what,exactly, are we doing to try to contain that expansion?

Also, you might be confusing containment of China with containment of North Korea. We certainly do have a policy of containment there.

Also, the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans often don't play well together. Are Japan and Korea willing to accept us "empowering" the Chinese (whatever that means) to promote stability in the region? Your previous comments on Asian leadership give the impression that we can simply hand the baton of regional stability off to the Chinese. Do you think that will actually promote regional stability?

Related to that is how our alliances contain our allies, especially on the question of nuclear weapons.

Bill Moore
06-18-2012, 08:00 PM
We did not think about the Pacific in this way during the first half of the last century when we first reached out into the region. Then we looked for ways to extend our naval presence to better secure our commercial interests. Not to contain anyone, we did not even work to contain Japan as it spread its empire. That era and mission is far more in line with what the President is talking about now that what we have done since the end of WWII.

Bob,

It may not have been containment, but we definitely had a plan for dealing with Japan as early as 1911 called Plan Orange, and we had bases in the Pacific to support it.

Our posture in the Pacific was mostly to contain the USSR, much less China since again China was NOT expanding. We tried to contain communism in the region regardless of what color it was (Lenenist or Maoist), but the threat to the U.S. was primarily the USSR and that was our focus. Show me a historical document that states otherwise? Japan was much more concerned about an attack from the USSR than China during the Cold War.

We provided support to China to fight the Japanese well before we entered the war.

Fuchs
06-18-2012, 08:03 PM
The Germans assisted China as well (till 1937 IIRC), the Soviets assisted China (1939-1940 for gold IIRC), and the US. did very little in comparison prior to 1941. That doesn't mean much.

Bill Moore
06-18-2012, 08:36 PM
Fuchs, I was simply demonstrating that the U.S. did try to contain or counter Japan's aggression. You are correct, support was limited until 1941, but we did support with some funding and economic sanctions directed against Japan.

Bob's World
06-19-2012, 06:41 PM
"Dealing with" and "containing" as a strategy for "dealing with" are two very different things. Certainly we were thinking about how to deal with a rising Japan then, and certainly we need to think about how to deal with a rising China in a post Cold War World now. No arguments.

My point is simply that your assessemnt of the history of Cold War containment runs counter to every serious coverage of the topic that I have ever read (and I have read several); and that our current efforts for the "pivot" build upon a family of plans, programs, postures and policies that were originally put in place to contain the "Sino" aspect of the Soviet-Sino pact. I think we should start fresh with a concept designed for the world we live in today, rather than building upon the remains of one that is long past.

Dayuhan
06-19-2012, 11:21 PM
Dayuhan, you apply, intentionally I believe far too narrow a definition on "empower." To empower does not mean that one was powerless previously, just that they felt no need to do what they already know they should be doing. Like a 24 year old son still living with his parents. He knows he should be paying for his own place, cooking his own food, and doing his own laundry, but he is enabled to take the easy way out. Is it "abandonment" of such a son to tell them it is time to move out and get a job? No, to do so is to empower them to stand up and be a man. To continue the status quo is to enable behavior that isn't good for anyone in the long run. This is where we are with many of our Pacific Allies.

I do tend to define terms narrowly: rigorous definition is needed for precision and for keeping discussion on track.

I don't think any of our Asian allies are even remotely analogous to a 24 year old son living with his parents. For one thing, none of them are economically dependent on us. If we choose to station military forces on their soil we do so for our own reasons, with their consent. If our assessment of our interests changes, certainly we can place those forces anywhere, but again we'd be doing it for our own reasons and I see no point is dragging terms like "empowerment" into the picture.


Same when we share regional power duties with China. We do not give up power to them when we do this, we actually make our situation stronger, as we share onerous duties that profit everyone, and at the same time take away much of the rationale China employs currently to justify much the current military buildup that we in turn build up to match.

What "regional power duties" do you propose to share with China? Neither China nor the US has any duty to defend regional commerce, which is under no real threat, excpt possibly from conflicts involving China and/or the US.

I don't see that either the Chinese or the Americans have any particular interest in "regional power duties": they are pursuing their own strategic objectives. They may try to spin these objectives as duties, but there's no need to buy into that.

Bob's World
06-20-2012, 01:38 AM
Well its your right to call your approach "rigorous, " but it comes across more as intentionally obtuse and argumentative with concepts you disagree with. For one, I was clearly talking security, which while necessary for the economic growth that all in the region have enjoyed to some degree, is not the economy directly. You surely do not believe that the US has not subsidized the security environment that allowed that growth?

I guess one could say the US has empowered the economic growth of the region at the same time we enabled many nations to take major shortcuts on security.

Bill Moore
06-20-2012, 03:39 AM
Posted by Bob's World


Dealing with" and "containing" as a strategy for "dealing with" are two very different things. Certainly we were thinking about how to deal with a rising Japan then, and certainly we need to think about how to deal with a rising China in a post Cold War World now. No arguments.

My point is simply that your assessemnt of the history of Cold War containment runs counter to every serious coverage of the topic that I have ever read (and I have read several); and that our current efforts for the "pivot" build upon a family of plans, programs, postures and policies that were originally put in place to contain the "Sino" aspect of the Soviet-Sino pact. I think we should start fresh with a concept designed for the world we live in today, rather than building upon the remains of one that is long past.

Bob I think we are coming closer to general agreement. My point was our containment policy was formed before China fell to the communists, in fact the whole of issue of "allowing" China to fall to the communists led to extreme political views within our system and created an environment where political leaders were forced to take a much tougher stand against communist insurgencies even in locations where it didn't make sense because you didn't want your party to be blamed for another failure. Not unlike some of the unreasonable rhetoric associated with our former GWOT.

Second, the Soviet-Sino pact was relatively short lived (no more than two decades), and since the early 70s we formed some sort of relationship with China to keep them out of USSR's sphere of influence. We made deals with the devil back then quite frequently as you know.

Third, I still argue, but remain open to be convinced otherwise, so really I'm arguing to provoke counter-arguments, that our force posture in the Asia-Pacific was "mostly" directed at the Soviets. I found several documents from that era that focused on the Soviet threat in Asia (especially their Navy), very little that focused on China. If you have official historical policy documents, or strategy documents that state otherwise please post them. I'm eager to learn.

Bob's World
06-20-2012, 10:19 AM
I believe Russian aspirations in the region were sunk along with their fleet by Japan long before the US became a major player on the scene.

We forget that the biggest hedge against Russian adventures are her neighbors (China and Japan have done that well on their own), and the same for China as demonstrated by Vietnam.

We got here by inches over decades, now we must change by miles over months. I don't see us seeking that hard right, but rather I see us taking the easy path of simply reinforcing a concept that has already long expired.

wm
06-20-2012, 12:12 PM
From where I sit, preventing Communist takeovers in the Pacific has had much more to do with maintaining market access than with containing the spread of an ideology inimical to the United States. What Bob describes as containment, I would describe as keeping trading opportunities available. I suppose one could describe this effort as a form of containment, but to do so would be to do violence to the customary usage of the term 'containment,' the definition of which Entropy was nice enought to share with us a few posts back on this thread.

An interesting thread with regard to China policy crosses the last 2 adminstrations with regard to China. It has nothing to do with containment as far as I can see.


Mrs Clinton wrote an article outlining her foreign policy in which she stated that America's relationship with China would be the most important bilateral relationship in the world this century [emphasis added]. . . . Speaking to the BBC on [the eve of her first trip to Asia in Feb 2009, her first as Secretary of State], Mrs Clinton said there were real opportunities to develop a good relationship with Beijing on issues such as climate change and clean energy.


The United States Ambassador to China Clark T. Randt, Jr . . . said in the 2008 Herbert G. Klein Lecture on April 21 that he and President George Bush consider U.S.-China ties to be the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century [emphasis added]. . . . Under President George W. Bush’s instructions to maintain a “candid, constructive relationship with China,” Amb. Randt reported that he’s worked continuously since his 2001 appointment to foster dialogue with the Chinese on trade, human rights and other global and regional problems. Amb. Randt’s first trip to China was in 1974 during the Cultural Revolution. Ration coupons, he remembered, were needed at that time to buy even staple foods such as rice and flour. But today, three decades after his first visit, the Chinese have become the world’s greatest collective consumers of luxury goods in the world. China has come a long way politically, culturally, and economically. China’s rise is the most significant development of our age, according to Randt, and he insisted that the U.S. welcomes China’s return to prominence.

Bill Moore
06-21-2012, 06:57 AM
Below is adequate evidence for a rational person to realize our military build up in the Pacific during the Cold War was directed against the USSR, and we were actually seeking a security agreement with China, we were not "containing" China, and we're not containing China now.

I'm glad we had this debate, because I found this relatively recent history very interesting, and in some ways we're repeating it. It is also interesting to see what our leaders were saying about the Asia-Pacific region a mere 30 or so years ago.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261343/DOC_0000261343.pdf

AUG/SEP 84


The primary Soviet concern in East Asia is to achieve superior military power, and toward this end all other Soviet interests in the region – political, economic, and diplomatic – will be subordinated. The Soviets probably see increasing challenges, including an improving Sino-US relationship, growing Chinese military capabilities, intensified US pressure on Japan to assume a greater security role in northeast Asia, evolving Sino-Japanese trade and political ties, and a commitment by the United States to increase its military posture in the region.

The principle strategic objective of the Soviet Union in East Asia is to increase Soviet power while containing China and reducing US and Japanese influence.

In pursuit of their strategic objectives the Soviets will:
- Protect against Sino-Japanese-US strategic cooperation by striving for military advantage against such a worst case contingency.

Quite different than the U.S. containing China.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1987-07/alliance-pacific

July 1987 (PACOM military leadership comments)


The old alliance systems for the area are weak and lack direction. The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), conceived before the Vietnam War, was finally dissolved on 30 June 1977. 1 The Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) Pact, dating from the immediate postwar era, appears to be finished, a victim of the Kiwis' angry withdrawal over the U. S. ship visit policy. Neither Japan nor China, each facing a significant Soviet threat, is involved in a regional security arrangement. Even the U. S.-Japanese security agreement, a cornerstone of regional security, faces continuing disagreement over spending levels and sea-lane defense.


Military Security for Ourselves and Our Allies: As Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr., the Commander-in-Chief of the U. S. Pacific Fleet, recently commented, "…the Soviet Pacific Fleet has increased from 200 ships in 1960 to over 500 today.” 5 With 1,000 land-based maritime bombers, major bases on their own coasts and in Vietnam, and a growing appetite for blue-water naval exercises, the Soviets now pose the principal military threat to Western interests in the region.

Other threats mentioned were North Korea and Vietnam, not China.


As Secretary of State George Shultz recently stated, the Pacific is "…one of the most heavily armed regions in the world, and Asian peace is still marred by continuing conflicts.”

That hasn't changed.


China has played a dominant role in the region for centuries. Although it is a controversial choice for membership in the Pacific alliance, China can make an important and growing contribution in the Pacific Basin. The Chinese armed forces are limited by outdated technology but are maturing in military skill. Naturally, there are many issues that must be worked out between China and the alliance's more traditionally Western states. The Chinese, for example, have often commented publicly that they prefer a neutral course, and simply are not interested in a security arrangement with the United States or any other major power. Nevertheless, in light of the potential for increased Chinese economic involvement in the region, and growing Soviet naval presence in the Pacific, the Chinese may reconsider.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA436509


The Soviet maritime, military presence in the Asian-Pacific region has increased dramatically in recent times. It encompasses a balanced tactical and strategic threat with formidable capabilities above, below, and on the surface of the Pacific. The modern Soviet Pacific fleet is its nation's largest, far larger than the U.8. Seventh Fleet, its likely rival.
Furthermore, the Soviet build-up has been qualitative as well as quantitative. The creation of a separate Far Eastern theater command organization in 1978 points to this direction. In the past eight years, the number of nuclear submarines has increased from 41 to 69, bringing the total number of general purpose submarines in the Pacific fleet to over i00. Major surface combatants have also increased from 64 to 84.

No surprise we have enduring interests in this critical region. It is important to point out that during the short lived Sino-Soviet block the U.S. did state it would contain that block (not China alone, only when they were affiliated with the USSR, or primary threat during the Cold War).

Dayuhan
06-21-2012, 07:33 AM
Well its your right to call your approach "rigorous, " but it comes across more as intentionally obtuse and argumentative with concepts you disagree with.

And I think you embrace a deliberate vagueness to obscure weaknesses in your arguments that become more evident as the discussion becomes more specific... so I guess we're even :D.


For one, I was clearly talking security, which while necessary for the economic growth that all in the region have enjoyed to some degree, is not the economy directly. You surely do not believe that the US has not subsidized the security environment that allowed that growth?

I guess one could say the US has empowered the economic growth of the region at the same time we enabled many nations to take major shortcuts on security.

The extent to which economic growth in Asia has actually been "enabled" by a US security presence is infinitely debatable, and would depend largely on the extent to which any real security threat to the growing nations actually existed. Of course it's not possible to know what would have happened if (it never is), but I see no reason to suppose that the economic growth would not have happened if US forces had not been present.

Even if there was a causative relationship, it would be largely accidental. The US did not keep (and does not keep) forces in Asia to enable Asian growth and prosperity, we keep them there to advance our own perceived interests. If we withdraw them it will be because our perception of our interests has changed, not to "empower" anyone other than ourselves.

To go back to the examples cited, I'd still have to say Japan and Korea are well beyond any place where we can reasonably propose to "empower" them, and the "empowerment" proposition as applied to China and the Philippines is tenuous at best.

Bob's World
06-21-2012, 10:13 AM
Bill,,
You'll get no argument from me that Nixon worked to shift our focus back to containing the soviets, but that was not my point.
1. Our alliances, treaties, posture, etc were shaped some 30 years before that to contain China jot stop the "Domino " spread of Communism into SEA and beyond.
2. Those systems did not change much when our purpose changed.
3. Current efforts with the pivot appear to China and commentators around the globe to a move to refresh that pre-Nixon focus.

Dayuhan

Tactical points and concepts must be very specific. STRATEGIC points, to have much utility, must be an assessment of many tactical points that are then generalized and converted to theory. Any smart sharpshooter can blow a tactical hole through a strategic theory, but that of itself in no way invalidates the theory. You are a persistent tactical sniper, and I value your insights as they help me tighten up concepts supporting the theory. "Containment " is a broad theory, it was not a physical siege of the Sino -Soviet pact. Likewise "Empowerment " is a broad theory as well proposed as a more appropriate alternative.

Cheers

davidbfpo
06-21-2012, 10:50 AM
An article of note which starts off discussing 'Are China’s Near Seas “Anti-Navy” capabilities aimed directly at the United States?' and ends up looking far more strategically at the issues.

I've not seen such a clear explanation of the issue:
A fundamental question, then, is how China envisions the future role of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific. The coincidence of America’s rise on the world stage with China’s more than a century of withdrawal from it means that China and the U.S. have never been powerful simultaneously. This unprecedented situation will require considerable adjustment in thinking on all sides, and here again the Asia-Pacific region is bearing witness to the evolution of key trends well before they characterize the world as a whole.

Link:http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/06/are-chinas-near-seas-anti-navy.html

Dayuhan
06-24-2012, 12:02 AM
Tactical points and concepts must be very specific. STRATEGIC points, to have much utility, must be an assessment of many tactical points that are then generalized and converted to theory. Any smart sharpshooter can blow a tactical hole through a strategic theory, but that of itself in no way invalidates the theory. You are a persistent tactical sniper, and I value your insights as they help me tighten up concepts supporting the theory. "Containment " is a broad theory, it was not a physical siege of the Sino -Soviet pact. Likewise "Empowerment " is a broad theory as well proposed as a more appropriate alternative.

"Empowerment" is a lovely word, all warm and fuzzy with a soothing new age sound to it. I just don't see any connection between the word and the proposed policy. Not that we'll ever be honest with others about the goals of our policies, but we might at least be honest with ourselves, and we should not expect that our public dishonesties will convince anyone.

I'm not personally convinced that stacking up a military presence in Asia is in our interest, neither am I convinced that the whole "pivot to Asia" is much more than a political device aimed primarily at the domestic audience. Either way, whatever alternative is presented should be described as what it is, not obfuscated by broad titles with no real connection to the policy being proposed.

Bob's World
06-24-2012, 11:15 AM
"Empowerment" is a lovely word, all warm and fuzzy with a soothing new age sound to it. I just don't see any connection between the word and the proposed policy. Not that we'll ever be honest with others about the goals of our policies, but we might at least be honest with ourselves, and we should not expect that our public dishonesties will convince anyone.

I'm not personally convinced that stacking up a military presence in Asia is in our interest, neither am I convinced that the whole "pivot to Asia" is much more than a political device aimed primarily at the domestic audience. Either way, whatever alternative is presented should be described as what it is, not obfuscated by broad titles with no real connection to the policy being proposed.

I guess you would have to read the paper.

As to "the pivot" I suspect there is a significant disconnect between what the White House is thinking in terms of shifting approaches to better recognize the importance of US relations around the Pacific rim, and what the Department of Defense, the PACOM headquarters, and the respective services all interpreted through their various lenses.

As David points out in the article he offered, this is the first time there has ever been a powerful US and China at the same time. US policy and posture in the Pacific is based upon a weak China, and therefore pushes up tight against the Chinese coast. When China pushes back just a little bit we cry "Anti-Access and Area Denial" and run to Congress seeking more money for enhanced capabilities to counter this Chinese "aggression." I fear that if we draw too firm of a line, and do not make reasonable accomodaitons to recognize the shifting of power around the globe more effectively, we will wear ourselves out running from pillar to post in efforts to keep everyone else in the neat roles we have defined for them. Chinese influence will continue to expand as long as their economy does and as long as they can continue to stave off the type of major internal conflict that has sapped their strength in each of the past three centruies. Better we recognize that, accept that, and work with that, but we are still struggling to find our own focus for moving forward in this post Cold War world.

Major clues to our future lie in our past. But we have to look back to before WWII to find those clues, as the emerging world is much more a populace empowered version of that world than it is a populace empwered version of anything that has existed since. Each President since Reagan has simply made modfications to our Cold War approach. Such incremental changes in approach are inadequate to the significance of the changes of the global economic and security environment.

So far the American approach to staying on top is far too much like this scene for my comfort:

http://youtu.be/1GMHzN8FrhU

Dayuhan
06-24-2012, 11:57 AM
As David points out in the article he offered, this is the first time there has ever been a powerful US and China at the same time. US policy and posture in the Pacific is based upon a weak China, and therefore pushes up tight against the Chinese coast. When China pushes back just a little bit we cry "Anti-Access and Area Denial" and run to Congress seeking more money for enhanced capabilities to counter this Chinese "aggression." I fear that if we draw too firm of a line, and do not make reasonable accomodaitons to recognize the shifting of power around the globe more effectively, we will wear ourselves out running from pillar to post in efforts to keep everyone else in the neat roles we have defined for them. Chinese influence will continue to expand as long as their economy does and as long as they can continue to stave off the type of major internal conflict that has sapped their strength in each of the past three centruies. Better we recognize that, accept that, and work with that, but we are still struggling to find our own focus for moving forward in this post Cold War world.

I have no argument with any of this, neither do I see any connection to "empowerment".

Bob's World
06-24-2012, 12:29 PM
Again, you have to read the paper. "Empowerment," like "containment" is just a word employed to broadly describe a grand strategy level approach to how our nation thinks about foreign policy and security. One is positive and the other is negative. It's just a concept. Here is a quick summary of how the two concepts compare:

Bill Moore
06-24-2012, 05:35 PM
Bob, this is entertaining, you have created the myth that the U.S. is trying to contain China, and then developed a paper on why that is a bad idea and suggested recommendations to a non-existent problem. This is nothing more than strategic snake oil. Looking beyond China, yes we still have clumsy foreign policy that is missionary in its zeal as we attempt (with some effect) to remake the world in our image. Guess it could be worse, we could have the Soviet model instead. Again China isn't pushing its moral agenda or ideology, so there is nothing to contain, but if you insist on this myth I guess you can have fun with it.

Bob's World
06-24-2012, 06:15 PM
Bill,

I haven't "created" anything, except a thread to discuss a very important topic.
Actually that topic was the clear constitutional distinction between the Army and the Navy, but this topic of US defense policy in the Pacific in regards to China is certainly important as well.

The fact is that China is growing in power in the Asia-Pacific region and that it perceives itself as emerging from "100 years of humiliation," with that emergence beginning with success over the "Nationalists" (I put in quotes, as Mao and his party were arguably the true promoters of Chinese nationalism) who had cozied up to those Western humiliators. The fact is also that China perceives US actions over the past 60 years as being designed to contain them, and also perceives this current shift in policy as a redoubling of that effort to match China's growth in power in recent years. The US is well within its rights to disagree with Chinese perceptions, as are you; but such parties are equally foolish to simply ignore those perceptions as unimportant. They shape how China will perceive actions and respond to those actions, regardless of if we agree or not.

Now equally it is fact, that the stated purpose of the pivot is not to increase containment effort and that equally many smart officials working to execute that mission, to include yourself, do not see it as containment at all.

So, we have two powerful nations, one increasing activities seen as offensive, as crossing clearly communicated red lines and containment by the other, but not as imposing, not as crossing red lines and not as containment by the implementer. Just how do you suppose that ends?? Do we have to lose a carrier to a Chinese missile over the enforcement of something as silly as fishing rights to finally hear what they are telling us??

PACOM has their head in the sand on this one Bill. They are going to push China into a violent reaction, and then we are going to get our pride hurt and we will likely over-react in response (as you know we are apt to do). Is there anyone there at all not drowning in Kool-Aid who is able to red team this and provide any kind of balanced perspective to the situation?? I realize Navy culture is that no one questions the Admiral, but Admirals make mistakes too. In fact, they make Admiral-sized mistakes.

Bill Moore
06-24-2012, 08:58 PM
This was a speech made in 1966

http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/4038


By peace in Asia I do not mean simply the absence of armed hostilities. For wherever men hunger and hate there can really be no peace.

I do not mean the peace of conquest. For humiliation can be the seedbed of war.

I do not mean simply the peace of the conference table. For peace is not really written merely in the words of treaties, but peace is the day-by-day work of builders.

So the peace we seek in Asia is a peace of conciliation between Communist states and their non-Communist neighbors; between rich nations and poor; between small nations and large; between men whose skins are brown and black and yellow and white; between Hindus and Moslems and Buddhists and Christians.

Unfortunately as you read through the speech you'll see it is a justification for our involvement in Vietnam, and some of the proclamations now appear sadly laughable. Still very interesting to look back at our official views a few decades ago, and seem how they constrast or parallel to today's views. What I found most interesting was our efforts to engage China academically, and otherwise and their rejections to it. Obviously that started to change 6 years later.

However, the comments about who is the aggressor jumped out at me, putting Vietnam aside because rational arguments can be made both ways. Let's jump forward to 2012 and we will see that China has recently been the aggressor state in the SCS and it is using its military to expand territorial claims. It is not doing this because of anything the U.S. military is doing, except possibly stepping to the side and hoping the diplomats will work it out. It won't be the U.S. that over reacts, it is China that is the immature actor in the current situation. The U.S. has made a lot of mistakes around the world, maybe more in the Asia-Pacific than anywhere else, and because of this we seem to too easily default that this must be our fault. In this situation I don't think so.

Bob's World
06-24-2012, 11:26 PM
Well, for one, Vietnam was never about the US or China, it was about Vietnam getting to a self-determined, legitimate system of governance free from outside manipulation of any sort. They did not want France, nor did they want China, US or Russia. Quests for liberty often make for strange bedfellows, and the conflicts are always the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

As to China and the US today? We do not see things from the same perspective. The US Navy and Air Force point to growing Chinese ability to prevent US planes, missiles and ships from penetrating their airspace, extending a few hundred miles into the Pacific and lobby for Billions in new defense spending (with money borrowed from China, to complete the irony); yet our own "A2AD" extends across the entire Pacific and well into China proper and we see that as normal and the standard to sustain. It's not normal and it is a standard for an era and mission that is behind us.

I just think that instead of looking at how we adjust from where we are, there needs to be a complete cleaning of the slate and a fresh assessment or all of our national policies, treaties, etc for the world that exists today and that continues to emerge around us. Incremental patches across the board are not cutting it. Making it worse, the policy people keep ratcheting up the ideological rhetoric; and the defense people appear to set the high water mark of US power as the bar to sustain or build upon, regardless of how irrelevant or unsustainable those positions may be today. We must be more realistic and set clearer priorities and rely more on greater flexibility and agility rather than upon mass and presence.

Fuchs
06-24-2012, 11:58 PM
Well, for one, Vietnam was never about the US or China, it was about Vietnam getting to a self-determined, legitimate system of governance free from outside manipulation of any sort.

A lot of nationalist or anti-colonialist movements were mistaken for being communist.
The problem was that the capitalist countries were also the old colonial powers, so the 2nd World assumed the role of the enemy of the enemy.


The tragedy is that few countries were offered to become bloc-free or Western-friendly after the issue of colony or not was settled.

Dayuhan
06-25-2012, 03:46 AM
Again, you have to read the paper. "Empowerment," like "containment" is just a word employed to broadly describe a grand strategy level approach to how our nation thinks about foreign policy and security. One is positive and the other is negative. It's just a concept. Here is a quick summary of how the two concepts compare:

The question, of course, is how that "grand strategy" approach is going to be translated to actual, practical strategies, and whether or not those strategies are consistent with the "empowerment" tag.

I confess to some bias against the word "empowerment"; it seems wildly paternalistic, like a new age translation of the white man's burden. Like so many words beloved by the aid industry, it's also commonly met by rolled eyes and a thinly muffled groan from the people on the receiving end. Always good to ask them when was the last time somebody came round proposing to empower them, and what came out of it.

Bob's World
06-25-2012, 10:51 AM
Well, like all grand strategies, it isn't for the people it affects on the action end, it is for the people it protects at the point of origin.

I think most would prefer that when the US comes to their area in the belief that it must impose some set of actions to secure US interests for that approach to be one that is generally positive and rooted in the idea of mutual success, rather than one that is generally negative in nature and rooted in systems of control imposed on one group with the intention of preventing a neighboring group from some action that the US feels would be harmful to us.

As you point out, China is not indicating a great desire to dominate others, so much as a great desire to no longer be dominated or hindered by others. China's actions are largely reasonable. The only problem is that they push upon the systems we've placed so tightly around them and we see that as a challenge to us. China's perspective has hundreds, even thousands of years of inertia behind it and will not likely change. Our position has 65 years of inertia behind it, yet we seem equally committed.

Sometimes doing less is doing more. But that is a concept that is largely foreign to our current military senior leadership. How can one put "I did less" on their evaluation and make the next grade? So we do more. We value action over effectiveness.

davidbfpo
06-28-2012, 08:07 PM
An Australian viewpoint, courtesy of the Lowy Institute and opens with:
US strategic thinking about the Indian Ocean is in a state of flux. While it is not at all clear where it will go, we can nevertheless understand some of the basics of US strategy in the region.

Shortly afterwards:
a coherent strategy in the IOR is still the subject of debate, and there are many questions to be answered:

1)Should the Indian Ocean region be seen as an extension of the Pacific?
2)What to do with China (constrain or cooperate)?
3)Should the US attempt to develop a region-wide security architecture?
4)Should be US adopt a 'Neo-Nixonian' doctrine in the region (encouraging 'self help' by friends and allies in a manner similar to US policy in the years following the Vietnam war)?

I cannot comment on what policy the UK has, if any in the region post-Afghanistan and our parlous public finances; caveat aside I did note this:
There is likely to be greater reliance on Diego Garcia as a staging point for resources brought into the region in response to specific threats.

Ah there maybe life in the 'Special Relationship' still?:wry:

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/06/26/US-strategic-thinking-about-the-Indian-Ocean.aspx

AmericanPride
06-29-2012, 02:51 PM
The question, of course, is how that "grand strategy" approach is going to be translated to actual, practical strategies, and whether or not those strategies are consistent with the "empowerment" tag.

"Empowerment" is neither a new term or a new concept in foreign policy discussion. There is a large body of work that discusses the ins and outs of the two strategies discussed by Bob. Most of that conversation emerged at the end of the Cold War when the Soviets quit the fight and left us holding the bag. I don't know where Bob got his table (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=137449&postcount=149) but its relatively consistent with the earlier literature about "empowerment"-like strategies. These strategies emphasize market engagement, public diplomacy, collective defense (including bilateral military aid), and cultural exchanges within a larger international framework of global/regional norms, laws, and institutions. Perhaps the greatest point is that these policies are not subordinated to "national security" because they are not threat-focused.


I confess to some bias against the word "empowerment"; it seems wildly paternalistic, like a new age translation of the white man's burden. Like so many words beloved by the aid industry, it's also commonly met by rolled eyes and a thinly muffled groan from the people on the receiving end. Always good to ask them when was the last time somebody came round proposing to empower them, and what came out of it.

Granted, given the end of the decolonizing process and the firming constitutions of the newest members of the international community, "empowerment" may be poorly translated. "Enabling" might be a better word, since the aim is to facilitate the participation of states in the US-led liberal system. This is already occurring to a significant extent, despite the militarization of US policy in some parts of the world. The real challenge for the US will be what to do when these emerging powers "come of age" and exert their interests within the US established rules. This has happened on a limited scale between the US and France, and US and Japan as two examples, since the recovery of these nations post-WW2 was more rapid than building new states after colonialism. China isn't the only challenge, but so are Brazil and India. Mexico and Argentina are potential distant contenders also. During this time, it will be the most difficult for the US to suppress the threat-focused tendency that skews political decision-making.

Bob's World
06-30-2012, 01:24 AM
I made the table up. It's just how I think and feel. Any overlap with what anyone else has put forth is purely coincidental.

Call it what you want. While we will always need to guard against actual threats, I believe our overall approach to the world should be positive rather than negative. Containment-based strategies are negative. Most of our international institutions are rooted in this negativity, as is most of our current outreach to the world. Where is that damn "reset button" when you really need it?

Bob's World
07-08-2012, 03:17 PM
A couple of keen insights worth remembering (and even more true today than when originally spoken):

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abraham Lincoln

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
James Madison

carl
07-08-2012, 04:14 PM
Well, for one, Vietnam was never about the US or China, it was about Vietnam getting to a self-determined, legitimate system of governance free from outside manipulation of any sort. They did not want France, nor did they want China, US or Russia. Quests for liberty often make for strange bedfellows, and the conflicts are always the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

I tried to resist the temptation, but I am weak, so I just can't let this statement go by.

You do remember reading about all the Vietnamese, millions of 'em, who were anti-communist, who thought that a communist government was not a self-determined legitimate system. And you do remember that they fought pretty hard to prevent the communists from taking over. And you do remember that they lost and the communists took over by violent force, tanks, artillery and all that. You do remember that don't you? With all that in mind, your use of the phrase "Quests for liberty" in the paragraph quoted is rhetorical perversity.

carl
07-08-2012, 04:19 PM
As you point out, China is not indicating a great desire to dominate others, so much as a great desire to no longer be dominated or hindered by others. China's actions are largely reasonable.

Red China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea, an open sea, an international body of water that anybody can sail around in. I don't see how you can square that with your statement that they do not indicate a great desire to dominate others. It seems plainly evident that they want to dominate anybody who wants to sail around in the South China Sea.

carl
07-08-2012, 04:28 PM
A couple of keen insights worth remembering (and even more true today than when originally spoken):

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abraham Lincoln

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
James Madison

Statements of national pride made 150 and over 200 years ago don't have much application today. They sound good though and gain credence by invoking the names of revered figures. There is a term for that form of illegitimate rhetoric, reference to authority or something like that.

Madison, in my opinion, was speaking to establish a tradition that is well established in the US, that the military won't interfere in internal politics nor act to infringe upon the liberties of Americans. That isn't much of a danger, if any, now. It was when he said it though. We accomplished what he desired, a military coup isn't likely.

Your main point, that we will more likely deprive ourselves of our freedoms than some outsider doing it is a good one. I now have to buy something the gov tells me to buy or else. That didn't use to be.

Bob's World
07-08-2012, 10:45 PM
Carl, (yawn)

Really? That's all the game you've got?

Perhaps you remember the 150 million. Americans who didn't want or vote for the past several American Presidents? Majority rules, even in countries where there is no vote or where elections are very shady, as in the ones that elevated Diem and Karzai into office. And what % of Americans do you suppose wanted war and independence from England? Revolutionary victory is often the most pure and legitimate of vote.

As to President Lincoln being "illegitimate rhetoric," I'll just let you live with that position. Besides, his statements are it even more true today than it was then.

As to the South China Sea, it seems everyone is over reaching their 12 mile limits on that issue. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, but is pretty mild compared to the claim we levied onto the northern half of Mexico, don't you think?

carl
07-09-2012, 01:47 PM
Carl, (yawn)

Really? That's all the game you've got?

Perhaps you remember the 150 million. Americans who didn't want or vote for the past several American Presidents? Majority rules, even in countries where there is no vote or where elections are very shady, as in the ones that elevated Diem and Karzai into office. And what % of Americans do you suppose wanted war and independence from England? Revolutionary victory is often the most pure and legitimate of vote.

As to President Lincoln being "illegitimate rhetoric," I'll just let you live with that position. Besides, his statements are it even more true today than it was then.

As to the South China Sea, it seems everyone is over reaching their 12 mile limits on that issue. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, but is pretty mild compared to the claim we levied onto the northern half of Mexico, don't you think?

Okay let me write that down. Start out by affecting the pose of the bored sophisticate, the poseur approach, then follow that up with non sequitur, mis-apprehension and that old reliable, "Oh yeah, well what about us?". I think I got it. I'll try it and let you know how it works.

What a remarkable statement is "Revolutionary victory is often the most pure and legitimate of vote." Lofty words like that really impressed the girls back in college, I envied the hell out of guys who could pull it off. They were the ones who got the girls with the big...fine figures, like the ending scene in Fields of Fire. Of course words like that also were uttered by some of the most accomplished mass killers in world history to justify their actions after their "revolutionary victory". I am sure it consoled their victims just before the bullet hit the back of their heads. The more I think about that statement the more awestruck I am. Political power violently seized at the point of a gun transformed into the most pure and legitimate form of vote. Wow. You got some talent man. Even the ghosts of all the victims of 20th century "revolutionary victories" must be impressed.

Actually, the illegitimate rhetoric was yours. Sorry I didn't explain that more clearly. I will do so now. I said "Statements of national pride made 150 and over 200 years ago don't have much application today. They sound good though and gain credence by invoking the names of revered figures. There is a term for that form of illegitimate rhetoric, reference to authority or something like that."

That was stated very poorly by me. My first sentence was ok. No change needed. My second sentence should have said "People who use such statements, that have little application today because of such vastly changed circumstances, use them because their arguments (what was your argument anyway?) are helped by the name of the person cited, not because of what that person said." The third sentence was ok too. So, sorry I was unclear. The illegitimate argument was yours.

As for the South China Sea and Red China, your response to my pointing out that they plainly have a great desire to dominate others sailing about in that body of water was to use the "Oh yeah, well what about us?" reply. That is a response of sorts but doesn't address my observation.

Bob's World
07-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Carl,

You have your opinion, you don't listen to positions that counter you opinion. That is your right.

You apparently hate/fear China. Great. But they are not our enemy and we need to learn to work with them at all levels, particularly in their own backyard where it is much easier for them to mass localized capabilities that could severely embarrass the US than it is for us to prevent them from doing something that arguably isn't our business to prevent in the first place. South China Sea is a great example of overlapping spheres of influence, and conflicting national opinions as to where their national limits end and others begin, and how to best share in the development and profits of those aspects outside of anyone's particular sovereign borders. It demands a solution, but China is not the only one making bold claims.

As to President Lincoln, I shared his assessment because I believe it is much more true today than it was when he made it. With all the fear mongers out there (of which you have demonstrated yourself repeadedly to being a card carrying member) it is good to remind people that in the big scheme of things the US is the envy of the world when it comes to national security.

It took the US a couple of years and an England-sized staging base 30 miles off the coast of France and a massive fleet of invasion vessels to stage for a serious invasion of that continent. When China takes Vancouver island give me a call, until then they appreciate very well what a strategic disaster it would be for them to attempt a land war on the North American continent.

Our A2AD extends across the entire Pacific and into China and we see that as "normal." China extends their A2AD a few hundred miles out from their border and we treat it like a declaration of war. I simply suggest a little perspective and empathy is in order, and to ignore the clear warnings from China that they will not tolerate much longer such Western intrusions into their sovereignty is to set ourselves up for the same sort of "surprise" MacArthur got in Korea.

And I stand on the position that governance change brought about by internal revolution is far more legitmate than that brought by foreign invaders or the governments they promote. I think our Declaration of Independence backs me on that position. As does the history of such events around the globe. We like to control outcomes, I get it, but such control is coming at an increasing cost, both to implement and in terms of residual acts of transnational terrorism against us.

Bill Moore
07-09-2012, 06:22 PM
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, posted by Bob


You have your opinion, you don't listen to positions that counter you opinion.

This discussion is interesting, Carl is actually pointing out relevant historic facts regarding the illegitimacy of most revolutions and the mass murder that ensued. Points you failed to address, because facts get in the way of left wing rhetoric. You didn't address any of Carl's comments, which were very much a direct challenge to your arguments, instead you fall back on quoting people completely out of context. If you were a left wing extremist then you should be given credit for applying the communist propaganda well. They actually taught to take quotes out of context, because it would fool the saps who wouldn't bother to study the facts (like most young college girls that Carl referred to). Ah yes the glorious revolution, and the glorious purge, and then sustained martial law to protect the revolution, it was all so great, how could we have forgot? Obviously everything the U.S. does and has done is wrong. There are no hostile states in the world, and the people in other countries have the right to suppress their people using violence.

The revolutions you refer to are nothing more than the strong man wins, not the man with the best ideas for the people. Many adapted the narrative of nationalism, anti-colonialism, etc., but for most their goal was to assume absolute power, not liberate their people. A lot of Vietnamese recognized this as Carl correctly pointed out.

Steve Blair
07-09-2012, 08:14 PM
Or the greatest irony...the "Russian Revolution" that was really a Bolshevik coup. Or that in spite of his words, Lincoln was quite concerned about French activity in Mexico...he was just enough of a realist to understand that he couldn't do much about it while the Civil War was still going on.

Bob's World
07-09-2012, 08:27 PM
Bill,

I did answer his question. You just don't like my answer, which is not "left wing" its just the facts as laid out in history. Revolutions are messy, but sometimes they are the only option a popualce has to get out of a bad situation of governance. Often those bad situations are "illegitimate" due to their close connection to some foreign power. Do revolutions always, or even often, produce better governance? No. But the same can be said of elections. You get different, but better is hard to find regardless of what manner of change is applied.

But yes, I will gladly go on record that the government we created in Vietnam, while reconized by Western authorities for legal legitimacy, lacked political or popular legitmacy with much of the populace of the region that ultimately became the consolidated country of Vietnam. Good, bad or ugly, the north brought a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem, and that is something the West had denied the people that region for generations. Sometimes legitmacy comes at the end of a barrel.

The United States of America is founded upon that very principle. I for one, will not abandon my nation's principles simply because they become inconvenient to many widely held current perspectives. Same is true for the Constitution. It says what it says, and Congress has duties in regards to the military that are specified tasks in the Constitution, and those duties differ for the Army from the Navy for good reason. Good reasons that are as valid today as they were when written.

Standing armies enable Kings and Presidents to start or expand wars without seeking the consent of the people. That was a bad thing in 1776 and it was a bad thing in 1965, and it was a bad thing in 2001 and 2003. This in turn has contributed to a general shift of power from the Congress to the Executive far beyond anything imagined at conception, and far beyond anything necessary based upon the demands of the world we live in today.

We have slid down the proverbial "slippery slope." All I do is point that out and question as to if we might want to get back to a standing more in line with our Constitution and our other founding documents as a nation. I think we should.

I think those who exaggerate threats to rationalize why we should not are a danger to our country's security. Such rationalization rarely leads to positive changes in my experience or studies.

Bill Moore
07-09-2012, 09:15 PM
Bob,

Please, there was no Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem. Both the north and south to a large degree were proxies in a larger conflict.


But yes, I will gladly go on record that the government we created in Vietnam, while reconized by Western authorities for legal legitimacy, lacked political or popular legitmacy with much of the populace of the region that ultimately became the consolidated country of Vietnam. Good, bad or ugly, the north brought a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem, and that is something the West had denied the people that region for generations. Sometimes legitmacy comes at the end of a barrel.

If you consider the North rolling down south with Soviet tanks and aircraft a Vietnamese solution then I would argue your logic is is skewed. Let's not forget the Soviets established a large Naval base there after their glorious people's victory. What kind of legitimacy is that exactly? I guess the tens of thousands of boat people (Vietnamese refugees) who departed S. Vietnam in fear after the invasion didn't want to stick around and celebrate the new legitimate government that represented all their people. Ho Chi Min was no nationalist, I suggest you read up on him, he was an opportunist that consolidated power in North Vietnam by killing off members of apparently illegitimate Vietnamese political parties. The list goes on, but in the end it doesn't matter how you summarize all the pieces it does not equal legitimacy.


The United States of America is founded upon that very principle. I for one, will not abandon my nation's principles simply because they become inconvenient to many widely held current perspectives. Same is true for the Constitution. It says what it says, and Congress has duties in regards to the military that are specified tasks in the Constitution, and those duties differ for the Army from the Navy for good reason. Good reasons that are as valid today as they were when written.

I realize some people have a Wahabbist view of the Constitution, the written word is the written word, and even if it was written over 200 years ago it doesn't require interpretation based on current reality. If the world really worked that way the good news would be we could get rid of all the lawyers:D

There is no "some" threats have been greatly exaggerated by politicians and businessmen over the years to keep the pork coming, but at the same time that doesn't mean that real threats don't exist. You can take this to an extreme and leave our nation vulnerable to attack. Our geographical position never offered perfect protection and it offers much less protection now with the advent of advanced weapons and globalization.


Standing armies enable Kings and Presidents to start or expand wars without seeking the consent of the people. That was a bad thing in 1776 and it was a bad thing in 1965, and it was a bad thing in 2001 and 2003. This in turn has contributed to a general shift of power from the Congress to the Executive far beyond anything imagined at conception, and far beyond anything necessary based upon the demands of the world we live in today.

I already commented on the National Guard, and no apologies for my views. We do not have the means to rapidly stand up an Army anymore in response to a threat. We have a standing Army because we learned over the years the risk of not having a standing Army. I agree with you that Congress didn't do their job in 65, 2002, and 2003, but that has nothing to do with having a standing Army. It has everything to do with not having sufficient moral courage to go against the popular beliefs at that time.


We have slid down the proverbial "slippery slope." All I do is point that out and question as to if we might want to get back to a standing more in line with our Constitution and our other founding documents as a nation. I think we should.

Ron Paul would agree with you, and if we could turn back time I might agree with you, but we can't simply wish away the world we had a large part in shaping. We're now global, our economic and security interests are global, and I have no idea how we undo the mess we got ourselves into.


I think those who exaggerate threats to rationalize why we should not are a danger to our country's security. Such rationalization rarely leads to positive changes in my experience or studies.

Bring on the studies, and bring on the recommended changes that doesn't put our nation at risk. Some things are a given in my view, we'll have an enduring threat of terrorism, long range missiles with WMD, and cyber among others. We'll have episodic events where there are state on state wars. Irregular warfare will "continue" to persist as it always has, and sometimes for political reasons we'll be compelled to get involved. Agree or disagree with the logic to do so, we will. Given that how do we design the future force?

Bob's World
07-09-2012, 09:44 PM
Better yet, name the single existential treat to our nation. Besides ourselves, that is.

The world is a dangerous place, and when one meddles too deeply in the business of others one draws fire. We have drawn some fire, but more warning shots than anything else.

We have a military that is still some 30% too large. I get it, the military is not going to volunteer for that cut. But it needs to happen none the less, and it will make us more secure in the process. Our national security is a function of many factors, and military strength is only but one. When we over invest and over engage with that single aspect it throws the entire system out of balance. We need to rebalance.

We are becoming a nation that is both excessively fearful and violent. That is a good definition for a bully, but not for a nation. Our self-image is incrasingly out of synch with reality and out of synch with how others perceive us. Going back to our roots to reassess how we best move forward is sound advice.

To simply imply that the Constitution and the Declartation are irrelevant to America in the modern age is the kind of rhetoric that should be saved for some Mein Kampf-type manefesto. I realize you don't mean that, just as I assume you must realize that I am not a strict constructionist. Most aspects, however, say what they say and mean what they mean. What the court interprets is if some law meets the constitution, not if the constitution meets some perspective or law.

The second amendment, for example, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it did so in an era where every adult male was required by law to be a member of the "well regulated militia" and to provide his own firearm. Should we take that right away simply because such a duty no longer exists? Perhaps better that we re-instate the miliita duty if we are a nation at such grave risk as to require a war fighting army on the active books...

Bob's World
07-10-2012, 12:25 AM
"If you consider the North rolling down south with Soviet tanks and aircraft a Vietnamese solution then I would argue your logic is is skewed. Let's not forget the Soviets established a large Naval base there after their glorious people's victory. What kind of legitimacy is that exactly?"

As you fully realize, the final conventional battles in Vietnam were the long planned "Phase III" finale of the Maoist model of insurgency adopted and applied in Vietnam. As to Russian and Chinese support? Who else would dare assist them in a fight against the French and then the US??

When one must fight the most powerful nation in the world to gain their independence, one takes help from whomever is willing to offer it. Typically that means from the largest peer competitor of that powerful nation one is fighting.

Did taking support from France make the United States an illegitimate stooge of the French? Who else would dare help us in a fight against England?

How is that different than Vietnam seeking and accepting the support of Russia and China? Sure Russian ships used the facilities we built for a while, but were gone by 2002 when the balked at the price demanded for a new lease. We will likely pay that rate and enjoy the expanded facilities that the Russians built. Will that contract convert Vietnam into our stooge to lease us that same space? No. Just sovereign nations doing business seen as mutually beneficial to their respective interests.

I am sure that Britain was none too pleased with France in the first case, just as we were none too pleased with Russia and China. Big difference is that Britain was pragmatic enough to get over it in time. Just as they also shortly after the war of 1812 entered into a major treaty with the US via the Monroe Doctrine to leverage the US to secure their interests in the Western Hemisphere as they protected our commercial fleets and our shores from the sea. That relationship has evolved, but continues to serve our two nations where we share interests (though we need to be cautious about assuming that Great Britain shares all of our interests, even strong friendships can be destroyed is pressed hard to the benefit of one and the detriment of the other)

The US gets far too emotional about these things in general. Look at how we still hold grudges against Cuba and Iran, for example. I hate to think how we would respond if China or Russia provided the same sort of support to the Taliban that we provided to the Muj. Thankfully those countries do not see such engagement to be in their interests, or surely they would have done so by now. Just one more metric that they do not want to provoke a hot war with the US. Deterrence still works between major powers, even if non state actors are little affected by the mechanisms of deterrence we had grown so comfortable with.

Bill Moore
07-10-2012, 12:33 AM
Better yet, name the single existential treat to our nation. Besides ourselves, that is.

I used to make this argument, but can no longer support it. First off, existential threat can be interpreted in many ways, physical, economic, culture, political system, our rights, etc. Second, and perhaps more to the point we're obligated to defend our nation from all threats not just existential threats.


The world is a dangerous place, and when one meddles too deeply in the business of others one draws fire. We have drawn some fire, but more warning shots than anything else.

9/11 was a kick in the jollies, much more than a warning shot. Pearl Harbor, the strategic raid of 1812, etc. were all more than warning shots. I saw a quote recently (a link that David provided I think) during a video about a knight reporting to the King that he has been out fighting the Kingdom's enemies for the past few months. The King replied somewhat puzzled that we don't have any enemies. The Knight answered, "we do now." This is loosely paraphrased, but it captures the intent. Excessive meddling will bring us no good.


We have a military that is still some 30% too large. I get it, the military is not going to volunteer for that cut. But it needs to happen none the less, and it will make us more secure in the process. Our national security is a function of many factors, and military strength is only but one. When we over invest and over engage with that single aspect it throws the entire system out of balance. We need to rebalance.

I don't know how you came up with 30% as the magic number, but the answer is the force must be capable of protecting against potential threats to our interests. Additionally a cut in military spending has huge repercussions across the economy, not just on the military, so any projected savings that will be gained by reducing military spending by 30% are suspect.


We are becoming a nation that is both excessively fearful and violent. That is a good definition for a bully, but not for a nation. Our self-image is incrasingly out of synch with reality and out of synch with how others perceive us. Going back to our roots to reassess how we best move forward is sound advice.

Weak Presidents have always promoted fear for political gain. The most recent was the "weak on terrorism" argument. We won't get away from it, it is part of culture. The new boogie men are illegal immigrants.


The second amendment, for example, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it did so in an era where every adult male was required by law to be a member of the "well regulated militia" and to provide his own firearm. Should we take that right away simply because such a duty no longer exists? Perhaps better that we re-instate the miliita duty if we are a nation at such grave risk as to require a war fighting army on the active books...

Oh boy, I can see the new militia getting mobilized, MS-13 gang members, skinny boys with tattoos that can't shoot straight but are well armed, crypts, bloods, fat red necks from the KKK, etc. If historians thought the militia was poorly trained, disciplined, and ineffective in the early 1800s, they'll have a field day with the new one. I recommend we stick with a professional army.

carl
07-10-2012, 01:02 AM
I realize some people have a Wahabbist view of the Constitution,...

Bill, that, is one well turned phrase. I am jealous.

carl
07-10-2012, 01:41 AM
Bob Jones:

I'll tell you what. I'll answer to "card carrying fear monger" if you'll answer to "appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states". How 'bout it, deal? (I spotted you a couple of pejoratives just to make it fair.)

Now let's get started. We have a long way to go.

I don't fear or hate China. I just got finished reading a book about the China-Japan War. After reading that I stand in wondering admiration for the Chinese. I do rather dislike Communists though, those millions and millions and millions dead at their hands weigh heavy on the mind. As do those millions of Chinese who died at the hands of the inheritors of power gained through that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory.

So no, I don't hate the Chinese. I do intensely dislike the Reds but what I do fear, really fear, is the refusal of some Americans to see the Reds for the aggressive killers that they have proved to be over and over again through their history. That I fear. I fear also the consequences of ignoring what seems to me the obvious intention of the Red Chinese to take a big part of the ocean for their own just as soon as they figure they are strong enough to do it. I fear that.

President Lincoln was grand fellow but his take on the world as it existed then doesn't have much to do with the world as it is now. JMA said something to me that had a great impact. I said pshaw when somebody said something about losing Alaska and Hawaii. He said he came from a part of the world where things that seemed could never be came to be. Those were wise words. Everybody can be taken.

I don't like powerpoint phrases like A2AD. Sounds too much like an old Navy dive bomber project that was canceled at the end of WWII. I'll use naval power instead. It is true that the US can exercise some naval power here and there across the breadth of the Pacific. But unlike Red China and the South China Sea, we don't claim sovereignty over the breadth of the Pacific. That is a crucial difference that you don't seem to see, or won't see. Saying you claim a big part of the open ocean while building up naval power tends to make people nervous, and understandably so. Having big power but not claiming a big part of the open ocean nor trying to keep everybody else out of it, doesn't make people nervous-unless a power potentially planning aggression is trying to justify it.

As far as this statement of yours "And I stand on the position that governance change brought about by internal revolution is far more legitmate than that brought by foreign invaders or the governments they promote."-I suppose that might depend on the number of people slaughtered and enslaved post change. And I present for your examination North Korea and South Korea. We promoted South Korea and helped make sure it didn't become part of a Pyongyang run unified Korea. Now if the North had won, would it have been a more legitimate gov than the one the South ended up with? If you care to answer, please answer the question as posed, don't skew it and slice to your pleasure.

Okay that takes care of the response to the post from 08:44 PM. (Hey Bill and Dave and David, how can you have 08:44 PM? Shouldn't it be 08:44 or 8:44 PM?)

carl
07-10-2012, 01:59 AM
Bill,

I did answer his question.

No, you didn't answer my question, because I didn't actually pose a real question. I made a point about a statement you made. Your statement was wrong. In post #153 you stated the Vietnam War was about Vietnam getting a self determined gov. Then you stated "They" did not want this or that. The upshot of that paragraph construction was to say that the Vietnamese people as a whole were united behind something. That is not true. It is not at all true as evidenced by the hard fight the South and anti-communist Vietnamese put up. To state things as you did is a willful distortion of history.


The United States of America is founded upon that very principle.

You made this statement following a statement about the Communist seizure of power in Vietnam being legitimate. I think your view of the Vietnamese Communists and the Founders is distorted, to be severely understated about it. The USA is founded upon the rights of the individual. Communism subordinates the individual to the collective. I think your eagerness to score debating points goes too far at times.

carl
07-10-2012, 02:26 AM
As you fully realize, the final conventional battles in Vietnam were the long planned "Phase III" finale of the Maoist model of insurgency adopted and applied in Vietnam. As to Russian and Chinese support? Who else would dare assist them in a fight against the French and then the US??

The USSR and Communist China were communist. They were supporting fellow communists. They made that clear. If the North Vietnam had been a heriditery (sic) kingdom or representative democracy it would have received no support at all from those two. That is a pretty big thing that should be noted.


Just as they also shortly after the war of 1812 entered into a major treaty with the US via the Monroe Doctrine to leverage the US to secure their interests in the Western Hemisphere as they protected our commercial fleets and our shores from the sea.

The "they" you refer to is Great Britain. I think you are wrong again. I don't believe there was any treaty. There was an understanding. And the US wasn't securing Britain's interests when the doctrine was promulgated. At that time the US was too weak to secure anybody's interests in the western hemisphere except our own immediate contiguous interests. The Royal Navy enforced the doctrine, they just got to do it by magnanimously deferring to the Doctrine, not that anybody from Europe was going to go adventuring anyway, except for France that one time.

carl
07-10-2012, 05:00 AM
I just finished watching a program on CNBC about Red Chinese cyberespionage.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47962207/?__source=vty|investigationsinc|&par=vty

The program concentrated on theft of commercial and trade data from individual US companies. It said there is a state sponsored effort to steal basically everything from every company that has anything worth stealing in the US and amounts to the biggest transfer of wealth...EVER.

This is germane to this discussion because Bob's World stated that Red China is not our enemy ("But they are not our enemy and we need to learn to work with them at all levels,..." from the 08:44 PM post). The Red Chinese state sponsored cyber spying and thieving is very strange behavior for a state that is not our enemy. If that is not the action of an enemy, it is very strange behavior for a friend. It seems to me they at least consider us an enemy, otherwise these actions make no sense.

The program also said that we had better wake up and start doing something about this. They didn't say exactly what. My personal preference is that we allow the companies being attacked, companies filled with very smart people, to do what comes natural and defend themselves, themselves. If servers in Red China start frying, so be it. You can't constantly parry sword thrusts with your shield. You have to make a few thrusts of your own.

Bob's World
07-10-2012, 05:46 AM
Carl,
That is an impressive load of ideologically fused tripe.

Revolutions among populaces where agriculture is the key industry and where land is owned by an elite few tend to respond to a message of land reform wrapped in communism. Revolutions in desert regions where land is moot tend to respond better to religious themes. The challenged establishment always lays blame on the message and the messenger, but the reality is almost always in the codified inequities between the goverened and those who govern, coupled with an absence of trusted, legal and certain means to address those reasonable grievances.

You are so focused on the sizzle that you can't seem to appreciate the steak.

Dayuhan
07-10-2012, 05:58 AM
No, you didn't answer my question, because I didn't actually pose a real question. I made a point about a statement you made. Your statement was wrong. In post #153 you stated the Vietnam War was about Vietnam getting a self determined gov. Then you stated "They" did not want this or that. The upshot of that paragraph construction was to say that the Vietnamese people as a whole were united behind something. That is not true. It is not at all true as evidenced by the hard fight the South and anti-communist Vietnamese put up. To state things as you did is a willful distortion of history.


Self-determination doesn't mean unanimity and it isn't necesarily arrived at through peaceful means.

Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Once we'd made the decision to support the French - a very bad decision in my hindsight-equipped opinion - it became more or less inevitable that those who opposed the French were going to seek outside help. I don't see that the legitimacy of their cause would be in any way affected by seeking and receiving that help. Was the American revolution any less legitimate for having received help from France?

carl
07-10-2012, 01:51 PM
Carl,
That is an impressive load of ideologically fused tripe.

Now is that the judgment by an appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states of some simple observations and points, the evaluation of the spouting of a card carrying fear monger by a rigorous, nuanced thinker well trained in logic and critical thinking or a combination of both?


Revolutions among populaces where agriculture is the key industry and where land is owned by an elite few tend to respond to a message of land reform wrapped in communism. Revolutions in desert regions where land is moot tend to respond better to religious themes. The challenged establishment always lays blame on the message and the messenger, but the reality is almost always in the codified inequities between the goverened and those who govern, coupled with an absence of trusted, legal and certain means to address those reasonable grievances.

You are so focused on the sizzle that you can't seem to appreciate the steak.

Thank you for the lesson in the etiology of revolutions. I will note it and carefully write it down. Of course, that it doesn't address the points nor the observations I made is not unexpected.

I love steak. I wish I could afford it more often.

carl
07-10-2012, 01:59 PM
Self-determination doesn't mean unanimity and it isn't necesarily arrived at through peaceful means.

Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Once we'd made the decision to support the French - a very bad decision in my hindsight-equipped opinion - it became more or less inevitable that those who opposed the French were going to seek outside help. I don't see that the legitimacy of their cause would be in any way affected by seeking and receiving that help. Was the American revolution any less legitimate for having received help from France?

Legitimacy, in my view, doesn't come from the takers of power being able to speak the same language as the people they gain power over. It comes from how they treat those people. Mass murder justified by that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory, is still mass murder and vitiates any claim to legitimacy.

Ken White
07-10-2012, 02:12 PM
When they clash, best solution is just to watch... :D

However, two minor points. Re: the "...the hard fight the South and anti-communist Vietnamese put up" -- while there were a few Dedicated Infantry Commie Killers in the South who fought hard, the vast majority of southerners did no more than they were forced to do. The so-called "hard fight" was promoted and sustained by the US for our own purposes, initially to boost the US domestic economy. It was all part of Kennedy's disastrous deficit spending and allow inflation economic strategy to break out of the recession. That strategy failed miserably on all counts. On Viet Nam, 'fighting Communism' just served as a cover rationale for the US masses -- and Congress...

Just as Iraq as threat to the US was hype; fighting Communism in Viet Nam and the domino theory were hype. Dayuhan's right, our meddling from Truman on was a bad idea that did little to no good at great cost. Not least because Communism will always die of its own accord unless it is given a tiff in which to get involved and from which to draw sustenance to live a little longer as the nominally Communist leaders hype the 'threat' to their nation.

Secondly, not only the Chinese but the Russians and even our 'friends' the British, French and Israelis among many others spy on us and play cyber games -- as do we upon and with them. Way of the world... ;)

davidbfpo
07-10-2012, 03:32 PM
Dayuhan in Post 180 writes:
Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Over the last few years with my irregular reading on post-VJ Day allied military action, including the USMC expedition in Manchuria, I have always been puzzled by the logistics of the period.

I understood that imperial allies such as the British Empire, the Dutch and French after VE Day and VJ Day relied upon American shipping, not only for national survival (food), but also to fight Japan and restore imperial rule. If true and to my knowledge neither France nor the Dutch had large serviceable merchant fleets, maybe not the British, then French and Dutch troops reached Indochina and what is now Indonesia on US ships.

Yes, Roosevelt was again empires and colonialism. Not so sure about Truman.

Just asking if anyone knows.

carl
07-10-2012, 04:22 PM
Ken:

That header you wrote made me laugh.

I know you were there and I wasn't and I say this at my peril, but there was just too much hard fighting and too many South Vietnamese casualties for me to not too see some determined, though ultimately futile, resistance to the communists. A lot of it may have been people doing what circumstances forced them to do, but that can be said about most people caught up in war. In my view, it is plain that South Vietnam fought long and hard, though not too well, to keep the communists at bay.

It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.

Everybody spies on everybody else. That is true. But a difference in degree can be a difference in kind. That is the case with Red China's state sponsored effort to steal everything. The Russkies it seems to me are criminals covered by the state. The Israelis are sort of like the Russkies but on a smaller scale and with a bit more state direction. We spy on the French and they try to figure out what we are going to do. All normal stuff. But what the Red Chinese are up to goes way way way beyond that. The state not only tries to get all the skinny on the F-35 and whatever new sonar the Navy is dreaming up, but the state sponsors stealing whatever new manufacturing process TRW comes up with for brakes or the Blackberry keyboard. This is the biggest spy operation and organized state sponsored and approved theft of intellectual property in the history of the world. What the Red Chinese are up to is unprecedented.

That the Reds would do this shouldn't be a big surprise. Mass murder is a normal part of their behavior so thievery on a behemoth scale isn't such a shock. What gets me is we know it is going on and we don't do anything much about it.

Bob's World
07-10-2012, 04:28 PM
David,

You are correct. We will never know what would have happened if Roosevelt would have survived, but it is pretty safe to assume that the Colonial powers would have been denied from reasserting their influence over their former colonies. Not so much because Americans are such great libertarians, but we sure as hell hated the monopolies on trade and the restricted access we had to endure under the colonial system.

I suspect that Roosevelt would also not have bought into the Containment strategy. I suspect he would have been more in alignment with other, far less intrusive and expensive approaches offered by policy thinkers such as Walter Lippmann. But containment is the approach we adopted, and at tremendous cost of treasure and influence it sufficed to avoid a major conflict between the Soviet-led East and the American-led West. But it is long past time to move on. We continue to apply variations of containment as a whole to the globe, and to specific problems as well. We spent years containing Saddam's Iraq. We seek to contain AQ and their ideology in the FATA (which I will never understand), we seek to contain Iranian and Chinese influence within regions that are logically within their spheres of influence. We need to recognize that such spheres can, will and do overlap, and will do so to greater degree and frequency as other regional powers continue to rise and as the brief era of US hegemony fades. This is a return to a much more normal dynamic than what existed during the Cold War. It is a different thing, not a bad thing. What will make it good or bad is how well we adapt to deal with the changes.

What I find myself very frustrated with, however, are the following questions for my fellow Americans:

1. When did the Constitution become irrelevant?

2. When did the Declaration of Independence become inconvenient?

3. When did the thinking of our historic leaders, such as Washington and Lincoln become "illegitimate"?

Inertia is a powerful force, and it is one we are caught up within. The sooner we recognize that the better.
Not

Fuchs
07-10-2012, 04:32 PM
I suspect that Roosevelt would also not have bought into the Containment strategy. I suspect he would have been more in alignment with other, far less intrusive and expensive approaches offered by policy thinkers such as Walter Lippmann.

You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

Bob's World
07-10-2012, 04:36 PM
Now is that the judgment by an appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states of some simple observations and points, the evaluation of the spouting of a card carrying fear monger by a rigorous, nuanced thinker well trained in logic and critical thinking or a combination of both?

Carl, to paraphrase Glenn Campbell, "That's mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy indeed.

Steve Blair
07-10-2012, 04:43 PM
You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

Quite. Ol' FDR was certainly into Containment of a sort. It depended on what his needs were at the time. I think it's more instructive to look at his behavior prior to the outbreak of the war than it is to look at decisions he made prior to Yalta and after. He was fading then, and certainly under sway of his own infallibility.

And I'd caution a couple folks in this thread to please debate issues and not personalities.

David, I tend to think Truman (who was a product of the St. Louis political "machine" if I remember correctly) was more concerned with domestic issues and didn't know much about foreign policy (a fairly common thing for many Democratic presidents). He tended to react in the foreign policy area, and was perhaps too dependent on his advisers (who were often FDR appointees). He was also concerned with appearing "weak," and thus would react to Republican accusations of weakness with perhaps more force than was necessary.

Bob's World
07-10-2012, 04:43 PM
You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

Yeah, that guy. Clearly no one was containing Japan in that era. No one knows what FDR would have done if he had lived to shape the post-war peace. I only point it out because many seem to think that the Containment strategy was the only option for dealing with the Soviet threat. It was one of many, and while it arguably served it's purpose, it did so great cost to our national ethos and it continues to cloud how we see the world and potential challeges to our interests to this day.

Truman was very practial and direct, and containment on his watch was like the man. When Ike took office containment made a major shift. FDR was a different type of leader, so I suspect he would have logically taken a different type of approach.

carl
07-10-2012, 05:23 PM
Carl, to paraphrase Glenn Campbell, "That's mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy indeed.

Actually, it was Robert Duvall, as Lucky Ned Pepper, who said that immediately before John Wayne, as Rooster Cogburn, shot him to pieces. I am glad to see you are referring to the original True Grit. That is one movie they never should have remade.

As for your second comment, I'm hurt that you didn't try harder when insulting me. I feel insulted now.

carl
07-10-2012, 05:33 PM
And I'd caution a couple folks in this thread to please debate issues and not personalities.

Yer Honor, I was provoked. And I throw myself upon the the mercy of the court.

Bob's World
07-10-2012, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE]Actually, it was Robert Duvall, as Lucky Ned Pepper, who said that

First thing you've gotten right in this whole exchange. I stand corrected.

Steve Blair
07-10-2012, 08:36 PM
Yer Honor, I was provoked. And I throw myself upon the the mercy of the court.

So long as you both stick to debating ideas and not personalities, no court will be called. Strong, informed discussion is good. Mudslinging is not.

Dayuhan
07-10-2012, 11:34 PM
I understood that imperial allies such as the British Empire, the Dutch and French after VE Day and VJ Day relied upon American shipping, not only for national survival (food), but also to fight Japan and restore imperial rule. If true and to my knowledge neither France nor the Dutch had large serviceable merchant fleets, maybe not the British, then French and Dutch troops reached Indochina and what is now Indonesia on US ships.

All from memory, don't have the references in front of me, but my recollection is that the Chinese were assigned to accept the Japanese surrender, disarm and repatriate Japanese troops, release POWs, and maintain order in northern Indochina. The British were to do the same in the south. Gen. Douglas Gracey was the British commander in the south, with Indian troops, and he made it immediately clear that he interpreted "maintaining order" as restoration of French rule. Japanese forces were deployed against the Viet Minh, and released French POWs were not repatriated, but armed and assisted in efforts to reassert French control. When French military units arrived they were transported by British ships. You'd think the British might have had other priorities, but apparently the though of a precedent for colonies breaking away was a matter of some concern.

Douglas MacArthur was quoted at the time as follows:


"If there is anything that makes my blood boil it is to see our allies in Indo-China ...deploying Japanese troops to conquer the little people we promised to liberate. It is the most ignoble kind of betrayal."

Of course MacArthur at the time was doing all in his power to assure that the pre-war elite, many of whom had collaborated with the Japanese, were re-established in power in the Philippines, including armed suppression of active anti-Japanese guerrillas who opposed that old feudal order... but I digress.

The charge that the British were responsible for the re-establishment of French rule in Indochina - and thus arguably for the Vietnam War - is supported by a fair bit of history.


Legitimacy, in my view, doesn't come from the takers of power being able to speak the same language as the people they gain power over. It comes from how they treat those people. Mass murder justified by that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory, is still mass murder and vitiates any claim to legitimacy.

In actual practice, you get legitimacy by winning.

In most of the post-colonial world, legitimacy was achieved by whoever threw out the hated colonists. That's one place where the US didn't get it... for us it was all about communists vs capitalists, on site is was all about us vs them. In any event your opinion or mine on what's legitimate for China or Vietnam is about as relevant as the opinion of a Vietnamese or Chinese on what's legitimate for the US.


I know you were there and I wasn't and I say this at my peril, but there was just too much hard fighting and too many South Vietnamese casualties for me to not too see some determined, though ultimately futile, resistance to the communists. A lot of it may have been people doing what circumstances forced them to do, but that can be said about most people caught up in war. In my view, it is plain that South Vietnam fought long and hard, though not too well, to keep the communists at bay.

People in many parts of the (including Vietnam) world fought hard and long, many under the banner of communism, against antediluvian dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US in the name of fighting communism. Does that mean neither side was "legitimate"?


It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.

If "opposed" means fighting a war on someone else's territory, that's going to create a lot of suffering too... and in many cases a government that has to fight for an extended period will be much more brutal about ruling than a government that takes power without extended conflict, because extended conflict tends to bring the harshest elements and those least amenable to compromise into positions of power. The idea that the US should try to determine who is or is not "installed" on the basis of our assumptions about who will or will not be brutal seems fairly flawed to me.

How do you propose that the US "oppose" the few Communist regimes remaining today? We can't afford an arms race and it would likely do us as much harm (or more) as it would to those we propose to oppose. Militarist posturing and rhetoric isn't going to intimidate them and provides abundant propaganda fodder to help them keep their domestic audience in line. What do you propose that the US actually do, particularly as related to RCJ's proposition that a smaller US military is desirable?

carl
07-11-2012, 02:07 AM
Dayuhan:

Your right about legitimacy of government, in practice whoever ends up with the guns is legitimate to the world. They get to kill who they want when they want and the world won't do much about it because it is an internal matter. The Kim dynasty and its minions are the legitimate government of North Korea in that sense. Still not legitimate in my starry eyes though. Mass murder vitiates legitimacy. I can't get around that one.

And ultimately the world can't either. When the Kims fall they will be killed or go to the Hague for a nice long trial. The world won't much care about who killed them and how, like the late lamented Muamar, so in that sense the world will have placed them beyond the pale. Nobody much cares when thugs who pretended to be legitimate heads of state get whacked. And the world normally doesn't put legitimate rulers on trail and pay for it.

You imply that what is important is if the Viets or the Chinese think their government is legitimate, not what we think. Superficially that would be the case...but you forget that what the people who live in a totalitarian police state think about the legitimacy of their government doesn't mean a damn thing. Nothing. They think within the bounds set for them or they are in serious-midnight knock, you might be killed serious-trouble.

You said

"People in many parts of the (including Vietnam) world fought hard and long, many under the banner of communism, against antediluvian dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US in the name of fighting communism."

And what they got to replace those antediluvian dictatorships were...wait for it...antediluvian dictatorships that were more adept at politically correct verbiage and mass murder. Some gain. You forgot to mention all those people who fought against the Commies because they disliked the ideology. To bad they lost, they were prescient.

Sorry I was unclear. I didn't mean going to war. Almost always a bad idea. But you can oppose in many different ways speed up the fall of those brutal creaky states. Reagan and the boys did a good job of that.

As far as determining who would be more brutal, history demonstrated that the Commies mostly took the cake, over and over, on that one. Not always, but mostly. So if you wanted to minimize human suffering, the odds favored anti-communism. I think they still do.

carl
07-11-2012, 02:27 AM
How do you propose that the US "oppose" the few Communist regimes remaining today? We can't afford an arms race and it would likely do us as much harm (or more) as it would to those we propose to oppose. Militarist posturing and rhetoric isn't going to intimidate them and provides abundant propaganda fodder to help them keep their domestic audience in line. What do you propose that the US actually do, particularly as related to RCJ's proposition that a smaller US military is desirable?

Well there is a long history of how to do it successfully. Among the things to do are speak up when they behave badly. Don't hold them to a lower international standard of behavior because they grouse about how badly they been treated. Stop thinking they are ten feet tall. They screw up more than most and they aren't fearless. That is bluster. They get scared just like everybody else. Remember what Grant learned at the Battle of Belmont (I think it was the Battle of Belmont). Don't let them shove around allies just because people inside the beltway are feeling windy. Don't fool yourself into thinking we can get them to like us short of complete surrender. They will propagandize their people as they please no matter what we do. It is easy to lie when you control the media completely. The most important thing though is to realize communism is a pernicious evil system that has resulted in more human death and suffering than any other. There is no good in that system, only greater and lesser degrees of evil. Realize to that they lie almost always and about everything. All those economic numbers they put out shouldn't be trusted.

There, that's for starters. Who is RCJ? Oh wait I just remembered. Well he thinks we should have a smaller military which would be consistent with the patterns of American history. But there are others who think we shouldn't cut so much. Mr. Jones has some good ideas at times but I don't accept that we should accept that particular one as the unquestioned basis for further discussion.

Dayuhan
07-11-2012, 02:47 AM
Still not legitimate in my starry eyes though. Mass murder vitiates legitimacy. I can't get around that one.

Nor in mine, but our opinions don't matter much.


Nobody much cares when thugs who pretended to be legitimate heads of state get whacked. And the world normally doesn't put legitimate rulers on trail and pay for it.

Nor does the world pay much heed to those who oppose the thugs, unless those who oppose the thugs start looking like they might win. Once you lose, you're no longer legitimate.


You imply that what is important is if the Viets or the Chinese think their government is legitimate, not what we think. Superficially that would be the case...but you forget that what the people who live in a totalitarian police state think about the legitimacy of their government doesn't mean a damn thing. Nothing. They think within the bounds set for them or they are in serious-midnight knock, you might be killed serious-trouble.

How did the Soviet Union fall? The Eastern European totalitarian dictatorships? I think you'll find that more Communist states have fallen to internal opposition than to external opposition, and that internal opposition is by far the greatest threat to the few that remain.


And what they got to replace those antediluvian dictatorships were...wait for it...antediluvian dictatorships that were more adept at politically correct verbiage and mass murder. Some gain. You forgot to mention all those people who fought against the Commies because they disliked the ideology. To bad they lost, they were prescient.

You miss the point. In most fights, and especially when you intervene in someone else's fight, what you fight against is usually less important than what you fight for. Opposing Communism by supporting hated and decrepit colonial masters or doddering tinpot dictators was utterly self-defeating; we ended up handing the opposition the mantle of legitimacy and the moral high ground of opposition to what was obviously unsustainable. Of course what they offered proved no better, but at least they offered something.


Sorry I was unclear. I didn't mean going to war. Almost always a bad idea. But you can oppose in many different ways speed up the fall of those brutal creaky states. Reagan and the boys did a good job of that.

The extent to which "Reagan and the boys" brought about the fall of the Soviet Union is I think much overrated: bad decisions on the Soviet side and the fundamental inadequacy of Communist economics had a lot more to do with it.


As far as determining who would be more brutal, history demonstrated that the Commies mostly took the cake, over and over, on that one. Not always, but mostly. So if you wanted to minimize human suffering, the odds favored anti-communism. I think they still do.

Anti-communism in what form? I can't think of a nation on the planet where Communists are seriously threatening to take power through insurgency; that's yesterday's problem. How do you propose to "oppose" the few remaining Communist states in any way that doesn't do as much harm to us as to them, or that doesn't actually help them? Bearing in mind, of course, that the greatest threat to Communist states has typically been internal unrest...

davidbfpo
07-11-2012, 09:13 AM
Dayuhan added and edited down:
When French military units arrived they were transported by British ships. You'd think the British might have had other priorities, but apparently the though of a precedent for colonies breaking away was a matter of some concern.

Thank you. Leaving the French aside now. I was stunned to read that the Dutch massively mobilised to enable a large expeditionary force being sent to what is now Indonesia; something like 250k and again I expect US shipping was used.

Now for Douglas MacArthur who was quoted at the time as follows:
If there is anything that makes my blood boil it is to see our allies in Indo-China ...deploying Japanese troops to conquer the little people we promised to liberate. It is the most ignoble kind of betrayal

I am quite an admirer of MacArthur, albeit based on reading one biography. That aside the quote is a classic, no, not as I am an apologist for British decisions in 1945. Rather that in Manchuria the US intervention, with a US Marine Corps, used Japanese troops to secure the railways notably and IIRC fought off Chinese raids.

In Indonesia IIRC the Japanese Army played a very different role, partly as a large number had defected to the local nationalist cause and the bulk had been disarmed. Ironically the British Indian division that was in Saigon went onto Indonesia, where it was involved in some of the heaviest fighting it had seen in the war against the nationalists.

wm
07-11-2012, 11:17 AM
It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.
Maybe a little terminological clarification would help. Communism is an economic theory. Perhaps your point would be better made by referring to totalitarian regimes.



Everybody spies on everybody else. That is true. But a difference in degree can be a difference in kind. That is the case with Red China's state sponsored effort to steal everything. The Russkies it seems to me are criminals covered by the state. The Israelis are sort of like the Russkies but on a smaller scale and with a bit more state direction. We spy on the French and they try to figure out what we are going to do. All normal stuff. But what the Red Chinese are up to goes way way way beyond that. The state not only tries to get all the skinny on the F-35 and whatever new sonar the Navy is dreaming up, but the state sponsors stealing whatever new manufacturing process TRW comes up with for brakes or the Blackberry keyboard. This is the biggest spy operation and organized state sponsored and approved theft of intellectual property in the history of the world. What the Red Chinese are up to is unprecedented.
Everybody does it in the private sector too. Check out these guys (http://www.fuld.com/). Competitive intelligence is a nice cover phrase for economic or corporate espionage. Although such practices are illegal in the United States, that does not preclude folks in the private sector from conducting "business intelligence" every day. I can't count the number of non-disclosure agreements I've had to sign to protect the proprietary information of companies competing with each other for Defense contracts. You can bet that Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin are all using competitive intelligence (nice euphemism for "spy on" )to determine what IR&D the other two are working on to get a leg up in winning business from Uncle Sam.
The difference is that in China, the state (since it practices a form of communism) is the holder of the means of production and is, therefore, the company/corporation that is conducting business or competitive intelligence.


That the Reds would do this shouldn't be a big surprise. Mass murder is a normal part of their behavior so thievery on a behemoth scale isn't such a shock. What gets me is we know it is going on and we don't do anything much about it.
How do you feel about this alternative rewrite of your paragraph that could well have been written about a significant "shadow government" that existed in the US in the Prohibition era or almost any time since?

That organized crime/the Mafia would do this shouldn't be a big surprise. Mass thievery is a normal part of their behavior so murder on a behemoth scale isn't such a shock. What gets me is we know it is going on and we don't do anything much about it.

slapout9
07-11-2012, 11:29 AM
Actually, it was Robert Duvall, as Lucky Ned Pepper, who said that immediately before John Wayne, as Rooster Cogburn, shot him to pieces. I am glad to see you are referring to the original True Grit. That is one movie they never should have remade.

As for your second comment, I'm hurt that you didn't try harder when insulting me. I feel insulted now.


He (Duvall)does say that but it is Glenn Campbell who delivers the killing shot and saves John Wayne's (excuse me one eyed fat man's) life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-cPWheNyaA

Dayuhan
07-11-2012, 11:53 AM
Well there is a long history of how to do it successfully. Among the things to do are speak up when they behave badly. Don't hold them to a lower international standard of behavior because they grouse about how badly they been treated. Stop thinking they are ten feet tall. They screw up more than most and they aren't fearless. That is bluster. They get scared just like everybody else. Remember what Grant learned at the Battle of Belmont (I think it was the Battle of Belmont). Don't let them shove around allies just because people inside the beltway are feeling windy. Don't fool yourself into thinking we can get them to like us short of complete surrender.

Long history of how to do it successfully? When and where has any of this succeeded? The success that's been had against Communist nations has been generated by sustaining the status quo until they rot out from the inside. Efforts to obstruct Communist revolutions through military action or support for puppet regimes led us into a series of miserable overseas ventures and saddled us with the legacy of support for a long series of governments that inspired little beyond hatred in their own countries.

Since you're talking about the Chinese here, not about "Communism" in any generic sense... how exactly do you propose to not let them shove allies around? Some suggestion of actual policy or concrete actions that might be taken to advance what seems a largely rhetorical position might be useful.

Nobody cares if the Chinese like us or not, and we are not in a position to hold them to any standard of behaviour. We are not their parents.


They will propagandize their people as they please no matter what we do. It is easy to lie when you control the media completely.

Of course they will try. Don't think for a moment that the Chinese people have no access to information. China is not North Korea. In order to achieve the economic growth that's made them a threat, the Chinese have had to develop a large number of sophisticated, connected individuals that they cannot fully control. Lots of people have access to information, and it does spread. That doesn't mean it isn't manipulated, but it would be a huge mistake to think the Chinese government can fully control its own populace, or that they don't have to worry about what their own people think. They worry a lot more about what their people think than they do about what we think. They badly want to inspire a rush of jingoistic nationalism to distract the populace from the overwhelming corruption, growing inequality, and an economic future that's suddenly looking less secure than it once did, and it would be silly of us to reinforce that effort, especially with actions that wouldn't accomplish anything.


The most important thing though is to realize communism is a pernicious evil system that has resulted in more human death and suffering than any other. There is no good in that system, only greater and lesser degrees of evil.

What exactly do you propose to do about it? The realization alone doesn't get you anywhere. For many years Americans who shared your views adopted policies - notably support for a long series of troglodyte dictators - that played into Communist propaganda, endowed Communism with a perception of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had, and did our cause more harm than good. Pronouncing Communism an irretrievable evil doesn't provide an intelligent or useful policy for opposing it, and it can do the opposite.


Realize to that they lie almost always and about everything.

Of course they will try. Don't think for a moment that the Chinese people have no access to information. China is not North Korea. In order to achieve the economic growth that's made them a threat, the Chinese have had to develop a large number of sophisticated, connected individuals that they cannot fully control. Lots of people have access to outside information, and it does spread. That doesn't mean it isn't manipulated, but it would be a huge mistake to think the Chinese government can fully control its own populace, or that they don't have to worry about what their own people think. They worry a lot more about what their people think than they do about what we think.


All those economic numbers they put out shouldn't be trusted.

True in part, and it's certainly true that the Chinese economy is not the juggernaut it's sometimes claimed to be. All the more reason not to panic, and one more indicator that political change in China is going to come from the inside, not from anything the US does. That change may not be for the better, and may end up posing a greater rather than a lesser threat, but that can't be fully anticipated and will have to be managed as it emerges.

ganulv
07-11-2012, 01:39 PM
In order to achieve the economic growth that's made them a threat, the Chinese have had to develop a large number of sophisticated, connected individuals that they cannot fully control.

Aihwa Ong (http://anthropology.berkeley.edu/users/aihwa-ong) has done some relevant work, particularly her book Flexible citizenship.[1 (http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=570)][2 (http://books.google.com/books?id=7ziMg9du5jwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)] There’s a lot of insight between the covers if you can stomach the purple prose.

davidbfpo
07-11-2012, 05:30 PM
I have refrained from posting some of the commentary elsewhere on this episode in Anglo-American history, but this article on RCP fits nicely to this discussion. So caveat aside:
Last month marked the 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812.

Yes, a war in which the British burned down Washington's public buildings.:wry:

I digress!:eek:


In 1812, Great Britain presented U.S. war planners with a very challenging strategic problem, one with contemporary irony given America's 21st century military might: How do you wage successful war against a global superpower?

Two numbers illustrate America's quandary. The RN began the war with around 500 warships. The U.S. Navy had 14, though when the war began not all were crewed and seaworthy.

However, as Kevin McCranie demonstrates in his new book, "Utmost Gallantry: The U.S. and Royal Navies in the War of 1812" (Naval Institute Press), the tiny USN was a talented, courageous, well-led and therefore dangerous mouse.

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/11/war_of_1812_waging_war_with_the_navy_you_have_1147 55.html

Yes, today the USA is a leading superpower and faces adversaries that are dangerous mice. Today, not tomorrow, today; question does the US have armed forces that are:
talented, courageous, well-led and therefore dangerous

From my very limited engagement with the US military, mainly via SWC, there is clearly talent, courage, leadership and it can be dangerous. There's also a lot of baggage that is a dead weight, such as the conformism of such a large institution and the lack of real-world training (Ken W. often reminding us of that).

Fuchs
07-11-2012, 05:39 PM
Sticking with the RN, the dreadnought revolution is also of interest.
It was actually launched by the RN itself and the RN showed some good thinking when it produced the Dreadnought and Invincible classes.
For example, it concealed the true nature of the Invincibles by misleading the public about the main armament (which lead to an under-armed German counterpart, the SMS Blcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Bl%C3%BCcher)).

The dreadnought revolution required huge expenses on part of the RN and still created an opportunity for upstarts to challenge the RN, as the old inventory had become obsolescent.

The industrial ability to produce dreadnoughts and the ability to afford them and their operation was of great importance.


Nowadays, a "Dreadnought revolution episode II" would leave the USN unable to cope, for there's almost no U.S. shipyard industry capacity. PRC, South Korea and Japan are superpowers in this regard. Even countries such as Poland or Croatia rank higher than the U.S. in shipbuilding, even more so if we subtract the shipyards of the Great Lakes.


There's a different yet still hugely important problem about land power:
The U.S.Army is addicted to pricey solutions even for tiny problems. It would probably break the country fiscally if it ever had to cope with an arms race as those known from 1912-1914 or 1938-1939.

wm
07-11-2012, 06:03 PM
As part of this thread's discussion, the issue of what constitutes a legitimate government has been bandied about but not really answered. Something of an argument has been made along the grounds of "might makes right" in that the winners of a revolution are, de facto, the legitimate governors of some chunk of real estate. (I'm trying to avoid a bunch of loaded terms like country and nation.)

Since an appeal to the foundational documents of the US has been made, I thought it might be instructive to review the Declaration of Independence to see whether it identifies what would constitute a legitimate government. Not surprisingly, no such delineation is present. However, Thomas Jefferson did provide a list of items to show that he thought the rule of George III was that of a tyrant. That list follows:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

The next step in the document is to assert that a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of free people.


So the Declaration of Independence is actually an argument (technical term from logic) to justify the revolt of the members of the several states. The argument goes like this:
George III is a tyrant (proved inductively by the list quoted above)
Tyrants are unfit rulers of free people (asserted without argument)
The inhabitants of the several States of America are free people (minimally argued for from the assertion of the unalienable right of liberty and, through the sentence,"We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here", an appeal to past actions of earlier immigrants to those States.)
Free people are justified in not following the rule of unfit rulers. (an assumed premise to make the argument valid)
Therefore, the inhabitants of the several states are justified in not keeping (not following the rule of) George III as their ruler.

The argument seems to have some pretty dubious claims, not least of which is the assertion of unalienable rights, with liberty being one of those rights. For centuries, people seemed to have accepted without argument that some among them had a mandate to rule while others among them had a mandate to follow. The source of that mandate was usually not the will of the people either.

Perhaps someone can make clear what it is that makes the beliefs of a few 18th century gentleman farmers and merchants (not all of whom were successful) and the lawyers who represented them as well as the views of a few doctors and tax collectors (Sam Adams for example) representative of the feelings and wishes of the majority of people living in the 13 colonies during the latter half of the 18th century. To identify the members of the Continental Congress as representative of the majority of the folks living on the eastern seaboard of North America in the 1770s is, to my mind, very farfetched.

Fuchs
07-11-2012, 08:51 PM
Isn't the whole list laughable?

Bys 1776 the English king wasn't really that much in power any more; prime ministers had been de facto in power for a long time by then (IIRC since the mid-17th century?).

Ken White
07-11-2012, 10:40 PM
Isn't the whole list laughable?Still, skipping over the laughable parts, I suspect even you would bridle at some of these:

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:"

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries * to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That last on was quite true and was, in effect, the start of a war...

That and the very real fact that "He," George III was definitely the one who stood in the way of Colonial representation in the British Parliament, at the time that was by far the most significant political complaint

CAUTION: Obligatory anti Socialism content. ;)

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

That's not laughable but neither is it a cause for war -- it is however, true and quite sad. It's also ironic, particularly as Governments including the US today do it to themselves. :rolleyes:
Bys 1776 the English king wasn't really that much in power any more; prime ministers had been de facto in power for a long time by then (IIRC since the mid-17th century?).True but the "He" in question was the Head of State -- and "He" is much more clear and concise than would have been 'The Tory government of Lord North and his cronies.'

* From Hesse-Kassell and other small German States; all together they comprised about a quarter of British forces in North America during the war. A lot of them deserted and stayed here -- which is one reason the proportion of US Citizens of German descent is so large (17% in 2000, the largest reported grouping by national origin followed by the Irish... ;))

Dayuhan
07-11-2012, 11:10 PM
The opening of the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence from France...


"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America m 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights." Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice. In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

Arguably the Vietnamese had a rather better claim of French oppression than the American colonists had of British oppression.

ganulv
07-12-2012, 02:11 AM
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That one makes more sense in the first draft (http://www.founding.com/the_declaration_of_i/pageID.2457/default.asp).


Bys 1776 the English king wasn't really that much in power any more; prime ministers had been de facto in power for a long time by then (IIRC since the mid-17th century?).

It’s really addressing the role (viz., The Crown), not the individual.

Ken White
07-12-2012, 02:55 AM
That one makes more sense in the first draft (http://www.founding.com/the_declaration_of_i/pageID.2457/default.asp).As indeed it was in this case. However, often, politics intrude -- as they did in this case...:rolleyes:

Fuchs
07-12-2012, 04:21 AM
Still, skipping over the laughable parts, I suspect even you would bridle at some of these:

The "no representation" part is really the only one that I agree with fully. All else is either enabled by the same or bad government instead of real tyranny.
Standing military forces in a colony isn't exactly a reason for criticism in my opinion. Sure, they could be used to oppress, but they were also to some degree a necessity.
A militia is not going to guard a harbour or entire coastal town against raids by pulling fort garrison duty, for example. A militia isn't going to interdict smuggling either.

ganulv
07-12-2012, 04:47 AM
A militia isn't going to interdict smuggling either.


And they may not want to, either. :p You can see how things might spiral from there.

Bob's World
07-12-2012, 10:18 AM
Revolutions cannot be well assessed by outsiders. Or by the affected government either for that matter.

All such grievances are as perceived by the affected populace; and typically the perceptions of the entire populace affected by such governance runs the full range, from ready to fight personally for liberty to ready to fight personally to sustain the status quo.

Governments, being made up of bureaucrats and politicians are genetically il-equipped to deal effectively with challenge rooted in grievance based on the nature of their existence/performance. Bureaucrats resist change and seek to protect their beloved process and procedures. Politicians avoid taking personal responsibility, as to do so is to have it converted to blame by their opponents, legal or illegal in nature. So most governments when faced by such challenge have a single go-to move: "Enforce the rule of law." Just send out the security forces to make this problem go away. Mix in some perks if you can afford it, like a little extra welfare, or a tax break, etc. also tighten up controls on things like information, ability to assemble; and get rid of as many guns as you can. If you want to control the populace those types of things are big trouble.

Governments of states who have economic/security relationships with states facing such challenges have a single go to move as well: Reinforce what that partner nation is doing, as they are the government so therefore "right" regardless of how wrong their actions are. Provide support to their security efforts, help with their social bribery program, etc. Preserve the status quo because business contracts and security agreements are all tied to the preserving the status quo.

If you are a government who does not have, but would like to have economic and security relations with such a country, but they rebuke your advances, there is a go to move for that. Conduct UW to support the populace in their revolution. In the modern age non state actors such as AQ can now play this game as well.

Its getting so that its just not as fun to be a self-serving despot as it used to be. Governments are finding that they must either listen and evolve to a new, more natural stability; or they can resist and fall.

The details of the story are always different, but the story line is almost always written in this same formula.

You want to know how Afghanistan ends but can't wait to get to the end of the book? Well, you've already read a dozen books just like it so there is a short list of alternative endings:
1. Continue the current approach until the rebelling populace is finally suppressed. Begin the entire process all over again in 20 years when the populace once again has the capacity to act out.

2. Change the current approach, listen to the rebelling populace and make reasonable accommodations to ensure that the entire populace is equitably incorporated in a system that is dedicated to justice and that is perceived as legitimate by the affected populace. It will likely be messy for a while but will settle into some form of natural stability that works for them.

3. Maintain the current approach until the government loses. Then prepare for a couple decades of sorting it out if "good guys" prevail, or an endless seesaw of back and forth revolution if an equally self-serving group takes charge.

What ideology the challengers apply is moot to the outcome and to the fact that their is a challenge to begin with. Governments love to blame ideology, but ideology does not cause these conflicts. What form of government exists or emerges is largely moot as well in general, but very important in terms of what is seen as "appropriate" by the people it affects. In the US we have come to see "democracy" as some form of governmental penciling. Only if tailored to be "appropriate" and see as "legitimate" by the affected populace.

Dayuhan
07-12-2012, 12:25 PM
2. Change the current approach, listen to the rebelling populace and make reasonable accommodations to ensure that the entire populace is equitably incorporated in a system that is dedicated to justice and that is perceived as legitimate by the affected populace. It will likely be messy for a while but will settle into some form of natural stability that works for them.

Who's meant to be doing the listening and the making of reasonable accommodations? Us? The Afghan government?

As always, I think you're assuming that the people who are fighting are fighting for equitable inclusion, and as always I find that assumption insupportable. I don't think either side has the slightest interest in equitable inclusion. They want power. They want to win and kick the stuffing out of the other guys. That will leave them fighting an insurgency, but they don't care, because winning and kicking ass is better than losing and getting your ass kicked, and they know perfectly well that one or the other is going to happen. This is not a situation unique to Afghanistan by any means. The idea of a single government that is perceived as legitimate by the entire populace sounds lovely, but it can only work if various factions of the populace have at least marginally compatible ideas of legitimacy. If the general idea of what constitutes legitimacy is "we win and they lose", that's not so easy to do.

Insurgency and civil conflict don't have to be about the legitimately aggrieved fighting for inclusion and justice. They can also be, and often are, simple struggles for power between or among groups with fundamentally incompatible agendas. That's not something an intervening party can change, and it's a good reason for outside parties to think twice, and then a few more times, before getting involved.

Bob's World
07-12-2012, 01:40 PM
Obviously it is the affected government that must listen to its own people. These things are not about us. We need to learn to accept that, regardless of how keen we believe our interests in the matter to be. Better we assume risk and be flexible enough to work with whom and whatever emerges. Control is over-rated.

As to "assumptions", I make no assumptions that those who fight for change are good, rather I make the assumption that what they fight against is perceived as bad. There is a big difference.

When bad systems (as assessed by the affected populace, not others) exist there will be opportunity and challenge. All manner of actors will come to feed at that trough.

Ken White
07-12-2012, 03:12 PM
The "no representation" part is really the only one that I agree with fully...Which is why it was by far the most significant issue at the time -- most everyone, even many in England, agreed with that. George III, Lord North and those making money off the back of the Colonists did not...
All else is either enabled by the same or bad government instead of real tyranny.True but while individually, each is a petty concern, cumulatively they had become exceedingly annoying -- and the trend was toward worsening "bad government."
Standing military forces in a colony isn't exactly a reason for criticism in my opinion. Sure, they could be used to oppress, but they were also to some degree a necessity...Depends on whether that military force is benign and devoted to deterring external threats or prone to be arrogant and / or misbehave by hassling the locals while there are essentially no external threats, does it not? ;)

Bored troops will always get in or cause trouble... :D

Still, all in all, there's no question that the American Revolution like all others took a few complaints, magnified them with political hyperbole and fomented hate and discontent to the action level. Politicians will always exist -- and also always create problems with their foolishness. .. :rolleyes:

JMA
07-12-2012, 03:29 PM
... I don't think either side has the slightest interest in equitable inclusion. They want power. They want to win and kick the stuffing out of the other guys. That will leave them fighting an insurgency, but they don't care, because winning and kicking ass is better than losing and getting your ass kicked, and they know perfectly well that one or the other is going to happen...

Of course. This could be applied to any number of wars fought supposedly for freedom and democracy since WW2.

The only guys who did not understand it then were the US State Department and it seems that the tradition continues today.

wm
07-12-2012, 03:55 PM
As always, I think you're assuming that the people who are fighting are fighting for equitable inclusion, and as always I find that assumption insupportable. I don't think either side has the slightest interest in equitable inclusion. They want power. They want to win and kick the stuffing out of the other guys. That will leave them fighting an insurgency, but they don't care, because winning and kicking ass is better than losing and getting your ass kicked, and they know perfectly well that one or the other is going to happen. This is not a situation unique to Afghanistan by any means. The idea of a single government that is perceived as legitimate by the entire populace sounds lovely, but it can only work if various factions of the populace have at least marginally compatible ideas of legitimacy. If the general idea of what constitutes legitimacy is "we win and they lose", that's not so easy to do.

Insurgency and civil conflict don't have to be about the legitimately aggrieved fighting for inclusion and justice. They can also be, and often are, simple struggles for power between or among groups with fundamentally incompatible agendas. That's not something an intervening party can change, and it's a good reason for outside parties to think twice, and then a few more times, before getting involved.
Hear! Hear!
On one interpretation of the start of the American Revolution, the casus belli was little more than a desire to be in charge. In fact, this is referred to in the Declaration by the line I noted in my earlier post, to wit: "We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here." This is a reference to what I call the "vote with your feet argument." This argument basicly says, if you don't like how you are being governed, leave.

Some early immigrants, for instance those who happened to settle the Massachusetts Bay colony, came because they didn't like being told what religion they had to practice; they wanted the power to decide how they would worship. Once they got here, some moved on to found another colony (now the Ocean State) because they didn't want some of the other locals telling them what religion they could practice. The American Civil War was based on a similar issue--the power of the several states versus Federal power--"I don't want you folks in DC telling me what I can and can't do in my own state". The seceding states wanted to exercise more power than the Feds wanted them to have.
Interestingly enough, in my current home state a similar issue sometimes arises between towns and the state--the state approves each town's budget and sets each town's property tax rates. Sometimes the towns get rather irate about it, but, so far as I know, no town has ever tried to secede from the state. Instead the town files what is called a home rule petition for approval by the legislature. If approved, the state grants a town special power to be different from the rest of the state.
New states have been created in the US by what might be considered secession. This process has occured 3 times IIRC--Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.

All of the above is really a digression however. The real issue is whether the Constitution specifies what missions are appropriate for the nation's armed forces. I would submit that the document is not that specific and that what the armed forces are authorized to do is instead specified in the US Code (mostly Title 10), which is updated, usually annually, via the defense authorization act and other acts that amend those portions of the USC that deal with the armed forces of the nation. Has anyone every submitted an NDAA to the Federal court system for review of its Constitionality?
Of course even the Authorization Act has a check--the Appropriation Act--even though Congress, acting on the citizens' behalf, may authorize the Army to have a million folks or the Navy to have 14 carriers, the services cannot actually get to those levels if no money is appropriated for the acquistion and maintenance of those people and ships. Since defense appropriations are enacted annually, the original issue about the constitutionality of our "standing" army and navy is moot, in my opinion.

Bob's World
07-12-2012, 04:18 PM
Also worth remembering is that in the American Colonies there was extremelly effective governance for that era, and perhaps the highest standard of living as a whole in the world. Yet still, revolution.

Did some "want to be in charge?" Perhaps, but more accurately they wanted not to be the charges of others. Effective governance that the governed have come to feel infringes upon their fundamental human dignities of Liberty, Justice and Legitimacy will find resistance nearly as fast as ineffective systems of governance. Particularly when the populace feels disempowered and disrespected by said system of governance.

There are fundamental aspects of human nature that consistently come into play in these dramas between governments and those who are affected by governments (which may be citizens of completely different countries altogether as the US was rudely reminded on 9/11).

The fundamental principles upon which the US was founded was shaped by an understanding of these dynamics that has been lost to history in the ensuing years. Now we think about these dynamics through the lens of european colonial campagins in various corners of the globe, or through the lens of our own Cold War and GWOT efforts to enforce our will upon some particular populace and government or another. Our principles became inconvenient baggage to what we came to believe we must do in order to secure ourselves and our interests. This has snowballed over decades, and did not happen all at once.

By returning to our roots we find the foundation we need to build upon as we move forward. But first we must refresh ourselves as to why that foundation is so important to our future security.

Fuchs
07-12-2012, 06:19 PM
Bored troops will always get in or cause trouble... :D

"Standing" armies of that time were often half-time armies. The soldiers were on leave during crop harvest to work, reducing the fiscal cost and increasing critical seasonal manpower supply. The ratio of civilians to active army personnel was furthermore quite high. The townsfolk and the people living close to forts were probably the only ones who got their life affected by the military to a noticeable degree (and quite often advantageously so, for the soldiers' budget did overwhelmingly not come from taxation in the vicinity).


I'm not exactly a scholar of U.S. history, but I am under the impression that Americans probably see the redcoats of the 18th century a bit more critically than justified. There have been more than 200 years of propaganda at work, after all.

I only need to look at the reputation of German soldiers from WWI and how English propaganda shaped it to remember a historical example of how propaganda (especially by victors) can distort an army's reputation.

ganulv
07-12-2012, 06:46 PM
I'm not exactly a scholar of U.S. history, but I am under the impression that Americans probably see the redcoats of the 18th century a bit more critically than justified. There have been more than 200 years of propaganda at work, after all.

Historical memory rarely maps 1:1 with how things actually occurred. In the words of our eventual second President while serving as council to the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

wm
07-12-2012, 07:22 PM
Historical memory rarely maps 1:1 with how things actually occurred. In the words of our eventual second President while serving as council to the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Or as Grandpa Jones used to say on HeeHaw, "Fact is stranger than true."

wm
07-12-2012, 07:46 PM
Did some "want to be in charge?" Perhaps, but more accurately they wanted not to be the charges of others.
Are not the two phrases here synonymous? Not to be the charge of another is to be the charge of oneself. "Controlling" and "being controlled by," in addition to being active and passive voice respectively, are also, IMHO, contradictory. They are like "alive" and "dead," despite what Miracle Max says in the Princess Bride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9tAKLTktY0)


By returning to our roots we find the foundation we need to build upon as we move forward. But first we must refresh ourselves as to why that foundation is so important to our future security.

I suggest you return to the educational roots of guys like Sam Adams and the rest of the members of the Continental Congress/Declaration signers who were educated at Harvard, Yale and the forerunners of Princeton and Penn (as well as those who studied law at the Middle Court back in merry old England) back in the mid 1700s: the political writers from the Scottish Enlightenment--guys like Hutcheson, Hume, and Adam Smith as the more famous names of the bunch. Then refresh youreslf on the notion of a paradigm shift as describe by Thomas Kuhn. After that, consider whether Americans of today may well have moved on from the paradigm that undergirded the thinking of the people we call the Founding Fathers.

Bob's World
07-12-2012, 08:09 PM
More than the books they read, it was the times they lived in that shaped both the books they opted to read and how they interpreted their meaning.

I can read Mein Kamph and think, "huh, that's some crazy stuff." But if I were a 30-something German male reading it shortly after it was published I am sure I would perceive it quite differently.

This was not a movement caused by an ideology of liberty and liberalism learned in Ivy League colleges that caused a few to become brainwashed and decide to challenge the very effective governance provided by their King. It was a populace that was evolving over generations to have very different expectations of governance and perceptions of themself than that shared by their government in England. When such gaps grow there is the potential for exploitation.

Such gaps exist and continue to grow today between governments in the Middle East who are quite happy with the status quo and vast segments of their populaces who have rapidly evolving expectations of governace (fueled by the demise of the Soviet threat, the advances in information technology that have overcome governmental/cultural controls on knowledge, and a growing intollerence for external governments that are growingly perceived as inappropriate and unnecessary intruders in the dymanic between populaces and their governments. So it is not an ideology of islamist extremism learned in Mosques and Madrassas moving people to action here either.

Ideology is a critical requirement for revolution, but it does not start them. Ideology is like a lit match thrown into a bucket filled with the perceptions of some popualce and their government. If those perceptions are volitile it will burn, but if not, it will simply fizzle. (Something our insane insurgent friend needs to come to grips with as well).

Dayuhan
07-12-2012, 09:58 PM
Effective governance that the governed have come to feel infringes upon their fundamental human dignities of Liberty, Justice and Legitimacy will find resistance nearly as fast as ineffective systems of governance. Particularly when the populace feels disempowered and disrespected by said system of governance.

There are fundamental aspects of human nature that consistently come into play in these dramas between governments and those who are affected by governments (which may be citizens of completely different countries altogether as the US was rudely reminded on 9/11).

I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by pretending that 9/11 had anything to do with liberty, justice, legitimacy, or any similar construct.


By returning to our roots we find the foundation we need to build upon as we move forward. But first we must refresh ourselves as to why that foundation is so important to our future security.

If "returning to our roots" means minding our own business and not messing in the affairs of others without compelling reason, all well and good. If we persuade ourselves that "returning to our roots" means deciding that our principles apply to others and trying to impose (in the name of giving and sharing) those principles on others, we're likely to make a great deal of mess.

Dayuhan
07-12-2012, 10:10 PM
Of course. This could be applied to any number of wars fought supposedly for freedom and democracy since WW2.

The only guys who did not understand it then were the US State Department and it seems that the tradition continues today.

Yes, all too often the US tried to sustain the unsustainable in the name of fighting Communism, or some other such construct that had a good deal more meaning to Americans than to those trying to rid themselves of a colonial master or a dictator. There are a few suggestions that this may be changing: several of the dictators that fell in the Arab Spring tried to convince the US that their opponents were Islamists and their fall would promote terrorism, but the US didn't fall for it. That might mean that the US is starting to realize that trying to roll back history in the name of ideology is a fool's game, or it might be a lucky accident. The cynic in me inclines toward the latter view.

wm
07-13-2012, 01:36 AM
More than the books they read, it was the times they lived in that shaped both the books they opted to read and how they interpreted their meaning.
Then as now, the books they read while in their collegiate courses tended not to be optional. And I submit that you have the last phrase just backwards--how they were taught to understood the books they read shaped the times in which they lived. (But this is a "chicken or the egg" type dispute in my view)


I can read Mein Kamph and think, "huh, that's some crazy stuff." But if I were a 30-something German male reading it shortly after it was published I am sure I would perceive it quite differently. That is quite correct, you would have perceived it as a 30-year old German living in post World War I Germany. Since I have no real affinity for what that was like (and I suspect you are in a similar position), I do not know what that reaction might be like. However, I can appeal to my experiences with the Hippie/Yippie/anti-Vietnam literature. I responded then as "Obviously someone has been taking way too many mind altering substances of questionable legality." But many of my peers became caught up in "right on" movements and, in the words of Buffalo Springfield, "singing songs and a carrying signs," protested things without any real knowledge about what they were doing or why.



This was not a movement caused by an ideology of liberty and liberalism learned in Ivy League colleges that caused a few to become brainwashed and decide to challenge the very effective governance provided by their King. It was a populace that was evolving over generations to have very different expectations of governance and perceptions of themself than that shared by their government in England. When such gaps grow there is the potential for exploitation.
Where is your proof? You allege a much broader basis of support than my reading and research about 1770s America indicates. Based on anecdotal evidence, I'd say that in the aggregate, the Loyalists may have been about as numerous as the rebels with a whole lot of Mugwumps who would just as soon preferred to have been left alone than have to pick a side. You might remember that the Green Jackets of today's British Army started life as the Royal American Regiment before becoming the 60th Regiment of Foot and the King's Royal Rifle Regiment along the way to its present designation after fusing with other regiments (like the Ox and Bucks IIRC). Ban Tarleton also raised his British Legion from colonists. Look at this interesting link (http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/rhist.htm)on Loyalist Regiments.

The rest of your post was a diversion from this sub-thread. The Arab Spring is not germane to what motivated the ostensible leaders of the American Revolution to foment revolt. We are not disputing the causes of revolution; rather we are disputing what was meant by the Founding Fathers in American government's foundational documents and whether those meanings are applicable as motivating influences for American defense policy today.

ganulv
07-13-2012, 02:11 AM
More than the books they read, it was the times they lived in that shaped both the books they opted to read and how they interpreted their meaning.
Then as now, the books they read while in their collegiate courses tended not to be optional. And I submit that you have the last phrase just backwards--how they were taught to understood the books they read shaped the times in which they lived. (But this is a "chicken or the egg" type dispute in my view)

The American Revolutionary War preceded the French Revolution preceded the Haitian Revolution. It would be interesting to know what was on Toussaint Louverture’s reading list.

Bob's World
07-13-2012, 10:20 AM
All revolutions are germane to the understanding of revolution.

Most like to focus on the differences, and those differences are indeed important to understanding a particular revolution in greater detail. What I find much more interesting are the similarities, for in the similarities is where one finds the keys to begin understanding other situations occurring now and yet to occur.

Why a minority of Americans stood up to the Crown, or why a minority of French did the same a few years later, or the differences between Arab Spring in Tunisia vs Egypt vs any of the other several countries is all very fascinating. But the similarities? Those are the missing keys to our understanding of this dynamic in general.

This is the type of analysis that Clausewitz applied to the study of conflict between states, and yes, while all wars are different, his work provides a start point for understanding war in general because he thought about what are the commonalities of war. I am sure he was told time and again "Carl, all wars are different." I suspect he agreed, yet he continued his study and thinking about the commonalities all the same.

One thing that holds us back today is that most just lump internal revolution and insurgency in with all other types of warfare. I believe this is a huge mistake that has led to much of the struggles governments have in resolving these internal conflicts. The nature of the roles and relationships between the parties, the fact that there is a shared populace that both sides emerge from, etc all combine to make insurgency and particularly revolutionary insurgency unique from war between states, or resistance insurgency (which is a continuation of war between states).

People can point out distinctions all day long. Noted. It is not hard to notice the differences. What about the similarities, and of those which are important in that they provide clues to better understanding where such conditions are brewing today and how to best resolve such conflicts where they already occur? Equally important, how does a major power such as the US engage the world in the pursuit of her interests in a manner that does not put her into the middle of such conflicts. On 9/11 we learned (or should have learned) that it is equally dangerous to simply put ones self in the middle of a pre-conflict situation as well.

Did George Washington volunteer to lead a revolution that could well have cost him his fortune, his life, and most importantly to that proud and honorable man, his reputation, because he read a book? Unlikely, and not according to anything I have read on the man and the times.

But spending a life constantly held in a cash poor condition due to laws levied on him from England no matter how land rich he became. Being treated his entire life as a second class citizen by every citizen who just happened to be born in England, regardless of their actual stations in life. Being ordered to take orders from a wet behind the ears regular officer far junior to himself even though he was far more experienced, a true hero of the British Army, and a natural leader in battle and peace that men followed instinctively. Being force to spend what little he had to purchase inferior goods unfit for sell in England that were exported to the colonies and sold at grossly inflated prices. Never underestimate the motivational power of processes that systematically disrespect some group that has every right to be treated with respect. It is powerful forces of human nature like these that lead populaces to revolt

The British were not intentionally arrogant, controlling a-holes, but the people they affected around the world perceived them as such. Similarly with Americans and the people we interact with in the modern age. The British saw friction to their governance as the acts of a few ungrateful radicals, and most could not empathize with the grievances they heard, and blew off the opinions of those British voices who found merit in those same complaints. We see the same in America today.

Our Declaration, our Constitution, these are more than just foundational articles of governance for a new nation. They are wise oracles from the past warning future generations of how to guard a society against the type of instability and unrest that led to the revolt they lived through. Would we pay more attention if they were found in a clay jar in some desert cave? Would we pay more attention if they were found with in some strange spacecraft crashed into an Iowa corn field? Probably not.

I do not believe America needs to go out and make the world more like us. I do believe, however, that America needs to act in accordance with our own principles when we go out into the world, with the firm belief that any rights we hold for ourselves we grant equally to others.

wm
07-13-2012, 04:41 PM
I do not believe America needs to go out and make the world more like us. I do believe, however, that America needs to act in accordance with our own principles when we go out into the world, with the firm belief that any rights we hold for ourselves we grant equally to others.

Two sets of quotations from Joseph Heller's Catch 22 come to mind.
Yossarian says,
“From now on I'm thinking only of me.”
Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: “But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way?”
“Then,” said Yossarian, “I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?”
Yossarian also says, to Major Major Major Major this time,
"Let someone else get killed!"
"Suppose everyone on our side felt that way?"
"Well then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

What if America's principles are just wrong? The origins of the Declaration's claims to life, liberty, and happiness are found in John Locke, who also happened to believe that the world had a surplus of natural resources. His predecessor, Thomas Hobbes thought that the world was characterized by a scarcity of resources. Hobbes had a different view of the nature of human interrelationships as a result--this view spawned a duty to seek peace rather than a right to accumulate property; it also denied a right of revolution. Early Chinese philosophers tended to have two different views of human nature. As a result, we get stuff like Confucianism on one hand, and the Legalism of Han Fei Tzu on the other--which is right?

Rather than trying to force America's principles on others, maybe America ought to review the bidding and try adopting those held by much of the rest of the civilized world.

Some of the "rights" Americans seem to hold for themselves cannot be universally applied. For example, Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes). IMHO this perception may well be the primary reason that the US is so widely disliked around the rest of the world for it paints Americans as a "do as I say, not as I do" group of folks.

carl
07-13-2012, 05:06 PM
How did the Soviet Union fall? The Eastern European totalitarian dictatorships? I think you'll find that more Communist states have fallen to internal opposition than to external opposition, and that internal opposition is by far the greatest threat to the few that remain.

I said that people living in police states get to do what they are allowed to do, or else. But to be more clear, there are strong police states and weak ones and sometimes the strong get weak, by circumstances or choice or a combination thereof. In a strong one, people don't get to do much. In a weak one they get to do more, which is when it gets dangerous for the tyrants for the internal opposition has some room to work in.

The Soviet Union fell mostly because the economic system was hopeless. It was going to go sooner or later. It went sooner because Gorby let up on the reins in an attempt to get some productivity out of a hopeless system. That system was being stressed from without in addition to its own hopelessness. We supported the Poles, the Vatican encouraged the Poles, the Saudis increased oil production to cut out Soviet oil and the money the got from that, we didn't back off on developing arms the Soviets felt compelled to match, we helped bleed them in Afghanistan etc. All of that helped to strain the system economically to the point where Gorby had to take the calculated risk to get things going by opening up some. It didn't work out well for the party.

The Eastern European Communist dictatorships were held in place by the armed might of the Red Army. Once that support was no longer certain they were doomed. Internal opposition didn't do so well against the Red Army in 1956 or 1968. Starry eyed idealism aside, if the Red Army was there, it was a no go.


You miss the point. In most fights, and especially when you intervene in someone else's fight, what you fight against is usually less important than what you fight for. Opposing Communism by supporting hated and decrepit colonial masters or doddering tinpot dictators was utterly self-defeating; we ended up handing the opposition the mantle of legitimacy and the moral high ground of opposition to what was obviously unsustainable. Of course what they offered proved no better, but at least they offered something.

I didn't miss any point. All that high minded idealist communist claptrap was tinsel on a murderous regime, almost always more murderous than the one replace. An awful lot of people in those various countries realized that at the time which is one of the reasons they fought them. They were right about what would ensue after the high minded commies took the joint over.


The extent to which "Reagan and the boys" brought about the fall of the Soviet Union is I think much overrated: bad decisions on the Soviet side and the fundamental inadequacy of Communist economics had a lot more to do with it.

I don't think it is overrated. (see above) You do. We're even.


Anti-communism in what form? I can't think of a nation on the planet where Communists are seriously threatening to take power through insurgency; that's yesterday's problem. How do you propose to "oppose" the few remaining Communist states in any way that doesn't do as much harm to us as to them, or that doesn't actually help them? Bearing in mind, of course, that the greatest threat to Communist states has typically been internal unrest...

You will note that my comment that prompted referred to the past. You reply with things as they are now. That is like my commenting on how they did anti piracy patrolling in the Caribbean in the 1700s and you replying that there isn't any piracy in the Caribbean now.

How I propose opposing the Reds now is in post 197. Bearing in mind that internal unrest only makes a difference if the police state has been weakened and the grip thereby loosened. There is no evidence of that happening in NK or Red China yet.

[This is an aside, but it is surprising how much Soviet arms decisions were reactions to what the West did, at least in tanks. Often they did things just to beat the west just a little. The 100 mm gun had to be bigger than the 90 mm gun. The 115 mm gun had to be bigger than the 105 mm. I was surprised when I read that.]

carl
07-13-2012, 05:18 PM
Rather than trying to force America's principles on others, maybe America ought to review the bidding and try adopting those held by much of the rest of the civilized world.

Would that have held in 1940, 1920, 1960 or 1910? For most of history life in the rest of the civilized world has been pretty stinko for the average guy. It seems to me that there hasn't been much worth adopting.


Some of the "rights" Americans seem to hold for themselves cannot be universally applied. For example, Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes). IMHO this perception may well be the primary reason that the US is so widely disliked around the rest of the world for it paints Americans as a "do as I say, not as I do" group of folks.

I think Americans believe they have the right to what they can pay for. If the other guys bid up the price, thems the breaks and we adapt. That has been the way in the oil bidness. The rest of the world may resent not being able to pay but they have been working hard and are catching up in that respect.

Bob's World
07-13-2012, 05:19 PM
If we adopted the "principles" held by the rest of the world the Middle East would be an American gas station and every piece of geostrategically key terrain and waterway around the world would have a US Flag over it. We would pay far less than wholesale for any products we extracted, and we would pay with some form of currencny that in no way depleted our own national treasury.

No, I for one reject your notion. Note, I am always very clear that we should not attempt to make others more like us. I think that is the most dangerous line of logic in our current national security strategy. But I do firmly believe that we should act in accordance with our professed principles, and that rights we demand for ourself should be rights that we equally respect for others.

If we are "Wrong," well at least we will go down with our honor intact. A nation that declared what it stood for and then lived and died by those same principles. Better that than to continue to profess those same bold principles, but to disregard them in our actions as inconvenient obstacles to exercising the degrees of control certain parties believe are necessary to secure our interests.

carl
07-13-2012, 05:37 PM
Maybe a little terminological clarification would help. Communism is an economic theory. Perhaps your point would be better made by referring to totalitarian regimes.

Popular usage and all that. Everybody knows exactly what is meant when "communist regimes" are referred to.


Everybody does it in the private sector too. Check out these guys (http://www.fuld.com/). Competitive intelligence is a nice cover phrase for economic or corporate espionage. Although such practices are illegal in the United States, that does not preclude folks in the private sector from conducting "business intelligence" every day. I can't count the number of non-disclosure agreements I've had to sign to protect the proprietary information of companies competing with each other for Defense contracts. You can bet that Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin are all using competitive intelligence (nice euphemism for "spy on" )to determine what IR&D the other two are working on to get a leg up in winning business from Uncle Sam.
The difference is that in China, the state (since it practices a form of communism) is the holder of the means of production and is, therefore, the company/corporation that is conducting business or competitive intelligence.

As you say, in the US that kind of stuff is illegal. In Red China, it is not only not illegal, it is sponsored and supported by the state. That is a pretty telling commentary of the differing nature of the respective states.

Lawyerly contentions about "competitive intelligence" doesn't make the biggest spy operation and transfer of wealth in the history of the world into something else.


How do you feel about this alternative rewrite of your paragraph that could well have been written about a significant "shadow government" that existed in the US in the Prohibition era or almost any time since?

I'm all for calling the Reds murderous criminals. Accuracy is to be desired. The FBI and all the state and local police agencies will be very surprised to learn that we have known about organized crime in the US and haven't done anything about it.

carl
07-13-2012, 06:18 PM
Long history of how to do it successfully? When and where has any of this succeeded? The success that's been had against Communist nations has been generated by sustaining the status quo until they rot out from the inside. Efforts to obstruct Communist revolutions through military action or support for puppet regimes led us into a series of miserable overseas ventures and saddled us with the legacy of support for a long series of governments that inspired little beyond hatred in their own countries.

Well let's see. The Soviet Union and all those east European satellites are no more. And all the things I talked about helped maintain the status quo until they rotted as you said.

Military action kept South Korea, South Korea. A lot of South Koreans are happy about that. The Philippines aren't communist. Thailand ain't either, nor is Taiwan. Some places our assistance didn't keep the commies out like Cambodia and Laos the poor people who lived there suffered for it. So I what I see is Commies in=mass murder and suffering. Commies out=a lot less mass murder and suffering. I am not a sophisticated guy but that seems a simple choice.


Since you're talking about the Chinese here, not about "Communism" in any generic sense... how exactly do you propose to not let them shove allies around? Some suggestion of actual policy or concrete actions that might be taken to advance what seems a largely rhetorical position might be useful.

No, you say I am talking about the Chinese. I always make it clear that I am talking about the RED Chinese, the gov. The poor Chinese have suffered more at their hands than anybody.

I have made it clear in this thread and the other about the South China Sea what I mean when I say not letting them shove allies around. But I will say it again. For starters make it clear that Taiwan stays Taiwan unless there is a free decision by the Taiwanese to subject themselves to Red Chinese authority. Any sort of violence or coercion to effect that outcome is a no go. The South China Sea stays an open sea. Any claim of soveriegnty (sic) by anybody is a no go. How's that?


Of course they will try. Don't think for a moment that the Chinese people have no access to information. China is not North Korea. In order to achieve the economic growth that's made them a threat, the Chinese have had to develop a large number of sophisticated, connected individuals that they cannot fully control. Lots of people have access to information, and it does spread. That doesn't mean it isn't manipulated, but it would be a huge mistake to think the Chinese government can fully control its own populace, or that they don't have to worry about what their own people think. They worry a lot more about what their people think than they do about what we think. They badly want to inspire a rush of jingoistic nationalism to distract the populace from the overwhelming corruption, growing inequality, and an economic future that's suddenly looking less secure than it once did, and it would be silly of us to reinforce that effort, especially with actions that wouldn't accomplish anything.

The Reds may not be able to fully control that large number of sophisticated people but they have been doing well enough so far. I see no weakening of party control. I see that blind guy was genuinely concerned when word was passed that somebody might beat his wife to death. Seems a pretty strong police state to me.

Whipping trouble with foreigners is time honored way for police states to distract their people from internal problems. To go along with that it is time honored for some of those foreigners to say if we just avoid making them mad at us that effort will fail. I am skeptical of that.


What exactly do you propose to do about it? The realization alone doesn't get you anywhere. For many years Americans who shared your views adopted policies - notably support for a long series of troglodyte dictators - that played into Communist propaganda, endowed Communism with a perception of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had, and did our cause more harm than good. Pronouncing Communism an irretrievable evil doesn't provide an intelligent or useful policy for opposing it, and it can do the opposite.

Opposing evil is a good thing. Not opposing it is a bad thing. But first you have to recognize that the evil exists. If you don't see it, you won't do the good thing. That is why it is important to see communism for what it is. Now once you see that, you can oppose it adroitly or maladroitly, but you gotta see it for what it is.


True in part, and it's certainly true that the Chinese economy is not the juggernaut it's sometimes claimed to be. All the more reason not to panic, and one more indicator that political change in China is going to come from the inside, not from anything the US does. That change may not be for the better, and may end up posing a greater rather than a lesser threat, but that can't be fully anticipated and will have to be managed as it emerges.

Wait a second, I am panicking again. Okay that passed. Wait a little while longer while I clean up the pools of drool, stitch myself up, fix the car and stop seeing double. There. I can talk now. (I know I will never stop you from characterizing concerns that you disagree with as "panic" but at least I can play around with it sometimes.)

Ultimately political change in Red China will come from within. But our actions can help maintain the status quo so as to give the system time to rot from within.

carl
07-13-2012, 06:21 PM
If we adopted the "principles" held by the rest of the world the Middle East would be an American gas station and every piece of geostrategically key terrain and waterway around the world would have a US Flag over it. We would pay far less than wholesale for any products we extracted, and we would pay with some form of currencny that in no way depleted our own national treasury.

Well said.

Steve Blair
07-13-2012, 06:32 PM
Some of the "rights" Americans seem to hold for themselves cannot be universally applied. For example, Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes). IMHO this perception may well be the primary reason that the US is so widely disliked around the rest of the world for it paints Americans as a "do as I say, not as I do" group of folks.

In fairness, I think this applies to most nations. America is simply larger (making it an easy target for criticism) and (at times) more vocal about it.

Fuchs
07-13-2012, 09:50 PM
In fairness, I think this applies to most nations. America is simply larger (making it an easy target for criticism) and (at times) more vocal about it.

It applies to most people, certainly not to most nations.

wm
07-13-2012, 10:17 PM
If we are "Wrong," well at least we will go down with our honor intact. A nation that declared what it stood for and then lived and died by those same principles. Better that than to continue to profess those same bold principles, but to disregard them in our actions as inconvenient obstacles to exercising the degrees of control certain parties believe are necessary to secure our interests.

I agree with the position in the last sentence above: that hypocrisy is not a good trait for a nation. I think that was the gist of my previous point about the world viewing America's position as "do as I say, not as I do."

However, the first sentence is a little more problematic. Do you want to assert that Hitler died with his honor intact because he never backed off from his principles? I think honor demands a little more than steadfast adherence to one's principles. In terms of their content, the principles one holds must also be the right kind. I would also assert that the motives one has for being steadfast to principles figure into the evaluative calculus.

Dayuhan
07-13-2012, 10:30 PM
I do not believe America needs to go out and make the world more like us. I do believe, however, that America needs to act in accordance with our own principles when we go out into the world.

"When you say "our own principles, do you mean the established traditions of how America deals with other countries (or used to deal with other countries), or the principles by which America manages its own citizenry?

We might believe that the ultimate solution to conflict in Mindanao or Afghanistan, Yemen or Somalia, Nigeria or Iraq, is a government that provides equitable inclusion, civil rights, and economic opportunities to all citizens. We might even be right, an the rather abstract sense in which completely aspirational beliefs tend to be right. If we try to act on that belief, we're likely to make quite a mess. I'm not saying that it would be any better to support the status quo or invest ourselves in supporting any given party in these conflicts; that's likely to make quite a mess too. Far better, it seems to me, to stay out of it, and I think that would be very much in accordance with our own principles for managing relations with other countries.


Americans seem to believe they have a right to as much of the world's natural resources as they want. (Sound like John Locke?) The rest of the world seems to resent that (sound like Thomas Hobbes).

The people selling the stuff don't seem to resent it. Neither do the other people who want the stuff, as long as they can pay for it. Those left behind in the bidding featuring Americans, Chinese, Europeans, etc aren't too happy, but that's hardly "the rest of the world".

Fuchs
07-14-2012, 12:15 AM
Do you want to assert that Hitler died with his honor intact because he never backed off from his principles?

It's beside the point, but he actually did.

During his last days he married AND became convinced that the German race is not the superior race, but the inferior one (possibly even to the Slavs!).
After all, it had obviously lost the war despite his leadership.
:rolleyes:

slapout9
07-14-2012, 07:57 AM
If we adopted the "principles" held by the rest of the world the Middle East would be an American gas station and every piece of geostrategically key terrain and waterway around the world would have a US Flag over it. We would pay far less than wholesale for any products we extracted, and we would pay with some form of currencny that in no way depleted our own national treasury.



And those would be very good principles indeed, which is why they have been around for 2,000 years. Contrary to what is taught they are very moral and we are complelty de-moralized just like Boyd tried to explain.

Fuchs
07-14-2012, 08:45 AM
Contrary to what is taught they are very moral and we are complelty de-moralized just like Boyd tried to explain.

I probably misunderstood you, but I don't think what you think is moral would stand the Kant's Categorical Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) test.

Bob's World
07-14-2012, 10:18 AM
And those would be very good principles indeed, which is why they have been around for 2,000 years. Contrary to what is taught they are very moral and we are complelty de-moralized just like Boyd tried to explain.

History will judge. America is undoubtedly the first Empire to pay retail.

What gets us in trouble is that we are stuck in the middle. We want to be a good guy, we think or ourself as a good guy, but we have all these bad guy urges that we keep acting out on, along with a bit of a control freak personallity that gets very insecure when others think about things differently than we do. That would be "Dr. Bob's" assessment if I had Uncle Sam on my couch. Do we blame our father for this, the good ol' British Empire? Or is it due to growing up rich and under supervised? I am sure a real shrink would have a field day.

Fuchs
07-14-2012, 10:26 AM
History will judge. America is undoubtedly the first Empire to pay retail.

Come on. The Romans (original, Western and Eastern Empires!) even paid Barbarians for maintaining peace!

They didn't even get anything for it - instead, they paid to not lose something!

Bob's World
07-14-2012, 10:46 AM
I doubt the Romans paid market price or did not extract heavy taxes from those they exercised dominion over or offered their protective services to. Paying someone not to attack you or to protect you is a very different matter. We aren't there yet, but we are drifting in that direction. But I am not an expert on that facet of Rome, so I could be wrong. To me this seems uniquely American.

Fuchs
07-14-2012, 10:58 AM
I doubt the Romans paid market price or did not extract heavy taxes from those they exercised dominion over or offered their protective services to. But I am not an expert on that facet of Rome, so I could be wrong. To me this seems uniquely American.

Well, you first need to conquer AND defeat an eventual insurgency fully before you can play master fully.

The U.S. gets as much tribute from Iraqis after their insurgency as did the Romans from the Cherusci after their insurgency.
Instead, both pay subsidies to a wide range of foreign folks, supposedly in their own security interests.


Besides, I cannot remember the Soviets getting much tribute out of Afghanistan during the 80's or out of their Arab allies during the 70's.
How much tribute do the Brits get out of Iraq today?


Being ingrained with the idea of exceptionalism creates the strangest perceptions of uniqueness...

Bob's World
07-14-2012, 12:20 PM
Fuchs your examples miss the mark.

The Brits milked the world for decades, but that ended long ago. I doubt the Russians purpose in going to Afghanistan was a quest for tribute so much as an effort to attempt to extend their influence toward the south and warm water.

What I describe might be "exceptionalism," I don't know, I think much that gets bundled under that kind of thinking is based in the fantasy of the false self-image I described briefly above. I am simply talking cold facts. Vast amounts of American capital are currently held by Middle Eastern royals and Asian businesses who owe their liberty and protection to America. Do we get Hyundai's at half price? Oil at cost? No.

At some point we will wake up and realize these "friends" were never friends at all and wonder why they do not help us in our hour of need as we helped them. The Chinese study American closely, but I suspect they find this aspect of our nature to be rather curious.

Fuchs
07-14-2012, 03:58 PM
Why should you? That wasn't the deal.

Besides, the age of overt empires is gone. We'd have World War 4 and the U.S. would lose if the U.S. attempted to grab the riches of the world.
It's not THAT kind of power. You guys can barely occupy a small country or two.

Try to subjugate all what the English oppressed by the end of the 19th century and you'd see real quick that the super power U.S.A. is much better at breaking things and killing people than at forcing people.

All real empires mastered at all three disciplines.