I have never argued that any RC army could be as fast and effective as a regular army to rapidly deploy and engage effectively. But that is not the point, and such a capacity has never, ever, been needed by our country. But the very effectiveness of such an active force is its greatest weakness as well. It is always an attractive option, and no President has shown the ability to ignore such an attractive option. This is a fact recognized by our founding fathers, that Kings always find good reasons for war that others don't see. That is why that power was placed firmly within the Congress. Not just to declare, but also to agree to resource and form such an Army in the first place. A cooling off period was built into the system and we have the geostrategic luxury to have such a period. Having a standing army in peace disrupts that system, and the facts speak for themselves. They founding fathers were spot on. Presidents find excuses for war and have worked to cut the congress out of the equation. It has not served us well and it has not made us safer.
For expeditionary interventions we have the USMC and a small number of Army units. That is more than sufficient to that mission. If a true war must be fought we have the time to build and train an army and to dust off our national militia as well.
When one commits the Army it commits the nation. It creates a de facto "war" and wars must be won. How many times must we fall into that trap before we learn that lesson??
Bookmarks