What we support and defend

[carl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I did forget those. I shouldn't have and will try not to forget in the future.

[Surferbeetle]

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.

Buddhist Packing Bond Pistol Shows American Embrace Of Guns, 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 are always something to think about....

[carl]

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

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.

[Surferbeetle]

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

I am speaking to the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between 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

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]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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!

[Bob's World]

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.