What we support and defend

[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?

[Ken White]

...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...

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...

[carl]

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...

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.

[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.

[Bill Moore]

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]

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.

[Ulenspiegel]

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.