What we support and defend

[Kiwigrunt]

We say "train as you fight" but the reality is that you will "fight as you trained, until the enemy trains you to fight otherwise."

That made it to my quote list.

[Bill Moore]

Posts by Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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