What we support and defend

[Fuchs]

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]

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.

[Ken White]

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...

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.

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 ) think is sadly immaterial.

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.

[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.

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?

[Ken White]

Correction: Strike that 'q' after "Acta" above...

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.

[carl]

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]

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]

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.

[wm]

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.

[Ken White]

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]

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.