What we support and defend

[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.

[Bob's World]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Sigaba]

@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]

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]

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.)

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.

[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.

[Bob's World]

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]

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).

[Bob's World]

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]

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.

[gute]

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.

[Entropy]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[carl]

...China that completely ignores their own sphere of influence and clearly stated Red Lines.

At the risk of David moving this 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]

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.