What we support and defend

[Bob's World]

Carl,

Actually we took very few losses in the initial months, or even the initial years, of both those conflicts. You have bought into the great "we need an army" lie. The reality is that because we had an appropriately sized army neither President Wilson or Roosevelt could have committed the US on a Presidential whim no matter how much they may have wanted to. Both instead had to turn to other forms of diplomacy and engagement to shape those conflicts from afar, and then, years later once the primary combatants had blunted themselves against each other, we were able to enter on our own terms and bring those conflicts to closures that advanced American influence, but at a savings of potentially millions of American lives.

Sure, early units fared poorly as they went up against experienced units. That is to be expected. 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." What you identify is our failure to train properly in peace, not our failure to maintain a standing army in peace.

In 1940 or 41 General Marshall declared that 5 German Divisions landing in the US could go all the way to the Rocky Mountains unchecked. True, and completely immaterial. At that time Germany couldn't even put 5 Divisions across the English Channel, let alone across the Atlantic Ocean.

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. This is our birthright and we squander it when we build too large of a military and sustain it in peace. We not only overburden the American taxpayers, but we relieve our allies of their own duties to properly prepare to secure themselves based upon their own geostrategic reality. Germany and France should both have much larger armies than the US. But they don't because we have enabled them to pour that money into their civilian economies instead. Same is true in the Pacific. We are being played for fools by our friends and foes alike in this regard. China does not need a large navy now any more than we did in the last 80 years of the 1800s. Our commercial fleet sailed under British protection then, and Chinese merchants sail under US protection today. Don't expect a thank you note any time soon from any of these cats, and don't expect them to return the favor when we need the help some day either.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[carl]

Actually we took very few losses in the initial months, or even the initial years, of both those conflicts.

Bob, you made this statement in reference to WWI and WWII. It is not true in the case of WWII. The Asiatic Fleet was wiped out, the Philippines and other islands were lost and the merchant fleet on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts was slaughtered by a handful of U-Boats. Most every place the Axis forces could get at us, they wiped us out.

Your belief that we were shaping WWI and WWII through engagement and other forms of diplomacy before our entry into those conflicts is silly. We were trying doing some things to influence the outcome as best we could, especially in WWII, but to say we were shaping things is silly.

China does not need a large navy now any more than we did in the last 80 years of the 1800s. Our commercial fleet sailed under British protection then, and Chinese merchants sail under US protection today.

Agreed. Cogently stated. I will use it, with attribution, over on the China and the South China Sea thread.

[Bill Moore]

I'm not sure what wars Bob was referring to either when he mentioned relatively low casualties. My point on casualties is a poorly prepared Army, like the one that invaded North Africa to fight the Germans, Vichy French, and Italians during WWII will take higher casualties than need/acceptable due to incompetence. I believe we'll be asking for a repeat of history if we rely on the militia.

U.S. Killed:

War of 1812 (approximately 20,000 KIA)
Mexican American War (13,283 KIA)
Spanish American War (2,446 KIA)
WWI (116,516 KIA)
WWII (405,399 KIA)
Vietnam (58,209 KIA)
Iraq (4,484 KIA)

These include numbers for non-combat deaths due to disease, etc.

[carl]

Bill M.:

I guess militia might work if somebody were intent on conquering and occupying the US. That would take a while, probably a long while and there may be time. But before anybody could even start to consider that, they would have thoroughly beaten the U.S. Navy and if they did that, they wouldn't have to occupy the US, they could just dictate what terms they chose.

In my view, in order to keep the Navy from being beaten, we have to fight overseas on land at times. Militia is no good at that at all, which may be a good point from some points of view if avoiding overseas fights on land is your primary objective. But if your primary objective is keeping the country safe, then you have to have a strong Navy; and to have a strong Navy you have to fight overseas on land sometimes and if you want to do that effectively militia won't cut it.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl,

But if your primary objective is keeping the country safe, then you have to have a strong Navy; and to have a strong Navy you have to fight overseas on land sometimes and if you want to do that effectively militia won't cut it.

Agreed, but don't forget our Air Force, or our intelligence capabilities, or potentially the requirement for a Cyber capability (guess that could become a service responsibility).

[carl]

I did forget those. I shouldn't have and will try not to forget in the future.

[Surferbeetle]

I guess militia might work if somebody were intent on conquering and occupying the US. That would take a while, probably a long while and there may be time.

Not sure where you are from Carl, but any invasion force would have great difficulty taking on America, National Guard or no National Guard.

Buddhist Packing Bond Pistol Shows American Embrace Of Guns, By Ken Wells - Dec 9, 2011 3:37 PM MT

Natanel is a Buddhist, a self-avowed “spiritual person,” a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She is 5-foot-1 (155 centimeters) and has blonde hair, dark eyes, a ready smile and a soothing voice, with a hint of Boston brogue. She’s a Tai Chi instructor who in classes invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

The advent of the 24/7 news cycle and its steady thrum on violent crimes may also be helping to drive people to handguns. Deciding to acquire one is part of “a broader feeling of helplessness that doesn’t come out of any kind of thoughtful calculation of risk,” says Homsher. “People buy guns to get rid of their phantoms.”

Women, too, may be liberalizing gun attitudes, because of the unprecedented numbers of them who have trained on firearms in the military and law enforcement in the past 30 years. Some 250,000 women have served in combat zones -- and often in combat roles -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, returning with a familiarity of firearms their mothers never had.

The latest data from the National Firearms Survey, a telephone poll conducted by an arm of the Harvard School of Public Health, shows 40 percent of America’s 283 million privately owned firearms are handguns, up from the 34 percent the survey found in 1994. And while middle-aged white men own the most handguns of any demographic segment, according to federal data, other groups are arming up.

Also wanted to comment on your questions/comments regarding the perceived role of a military by a society. It was interesting to me to observe the militarization of professional/civilian roles in society in Iraq. The US modeled this behavior, our Iraqi counterparts followed our lead...and we were appalled by the outcomes. The lessons of the Rubicon are always something to think about....

[carl]

Not sure where you are from Carl, but any invasion force would have great difficulty taking on America, National Guard or no National Guard.

Denver. Can't disagree. We are one of those unique (pronounced you-ni-cue) countries that are so big and populous that it would be hard no matter what and the fact that we have a lot of guns helps.

But as big as we are, we are basically an island. The Navy gets beat and we are in a bad way.

I don't understand the second part of your comment.

[Surferbeetle]

I don't understand the second part of your comment.

I am speaking to the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between Civil Society

The concept of civil society in its pre-modern classical republican understanding is usually connected to the early-modern thought of Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. However, it has much older history in the realm of political thought. Generally, civil society has been referred to as a political association governing social conflict through the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another.[18] In the classical period, the concept was used as a synonym for the good society, and seen as indistinguishable from the state. For instance, Socrates taught that conflicts within society should be resolved through public argument using ‘dialectic’, a form of rational dialogue to uncover truth. According to Socrates, public argument through ‘dialectic’ was imperative to ensure ‘civility’ in the polis and ‘good life’ of the people.[19] For Plato, the ideal state was a just society in which people dedicate themselves to the common good, practice civic virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, and perform the occupational role to which they were best suited. It was the duty of the ‘Philosopher king’ to look after people in civility. Aristotle thought the polis was an ‘association of associations’ that enables citizens to share in the virtuous task of ruling and being ruled.[18] His koinonia politike as political community.

The concept of societas civilis is Roman and was introduced by Cicero. The political discourse in the classical period, places importance on the idea of a ‘good society’ in ensuring peace and order among the people. The philosophers in the classical period did not make any distinction between the state and society. Rather they held that the state represented the civil form of society and ‘civility’ represented the requirement of good citizenship.[18] Moreover, they held that human beings are inherently rational so that they can collectively shape the nature of the society they belong to. In addition, human beings have the capacity to voluntarily gather for the common cause and maintain peace in society. By holding this view, we can say that classical political thinkers endorsed the genesis of civil society in its original sense.

...and Militarism

Alternative definitions include "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force",[2] the "glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state"[3] (see also: stratocracy and military junta).

Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of several nations throughout history. Prominent examples include the Ancient Assyrian Empire, the Greek city state of Sparta, the Roman Empire, the Aztec nation, the Kingdom of Prussia, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (which would later become part of the Soviet Union), the Italian Colonial Empire during the reign of Benito Mussolini, Nazi Germany and American Imperialism.

Moderation in all things...

[Bob's World]

I'm not sure what wars Bob was referring to either when he mentioned relatively low casualties. My point on casualties is a poorly prepared Army, like the one that invaded North Africa to fight the Germans, Vichy French, and Italians during WWII will take higher casualties than need/acceptable due to incompetence. I believe we'll be asking for a repeat of history if we rely on the militia.

U.S. Killed:

War of 1812 (approximately 20,000 KIA)
Mexican American War (13,283 KIA)
Spanish American War (2,446 KIA)
WWI (116,516 KIA)
WWII (405,399 KIA)
Vietnam (58,209 KIA)
Iraq (4,484 KIA)


These include numbers for non-combat deaths due to disease, etc.

Come Bill, just step back and open the aperture a bit. All history does not evolve around the US, nor does the clock on conflicts begin and end with the arrival and departure of the US Army.

Yes, WWI was a bloody hell. It was a bloody hell that began on 29 July 1914, and that ended with the Armistice on 11 November 1918. Four years and 3+ months of heavy fighting. Many powerful voices, such as the very popular former President Teddy Roosevelt began clamoring for the US to enter the fighting from the very start. But we did not have a large army, and we were able to hold off on declaring war until 6 April 1917. I hate to think how many European died in their war between Aug 1914 - May 1917, in those nearly 3 years of war many millions were killed and many millions more were wounded. Few Americans were.

By June 1918 American units began gaining experience fighting under allied commands, and it was not until September 1918 that Pershing led Americans as a separate command in the final, decisive, fighting of the war. About 5 months of combat total, 2 months of combat as an American force.

How can you say that our lack of a standing army did not save lives in WWI? Yet we sat at the final table as a victorious signatory.

WWII was very similar. The war did not begin on 7 December 1941. Japan took Manchuria virtually unopposed in 1931, and began active combat against China proper in 1937. Germany went into Poland in September of 1939. The US Army landed in North Africa in November 1942. I won't belabor the historical facts, but write this only to point out that our interpretation of the facts is highly skewed.

We argue how a lack of a standing army made it slow for the US to arrive in a fighting form in these wars. True and moot. The US was also never significantly threatened in those wars, certainly not of ground invasion, and the US was the decisive total force of military power (industry, naval, air, land) in both. But we avoided years of fighting the fights of others, and millions of casualties in the same. That is just smart. Today's strategy is not smart. It is not American.

The Army made the same arguments between every war for why they needed to stay large, and the Army lost those arguments. Today, with 60+ years of Cold War and post Cold War bias under our belt we have a hard time remembering who we are and the whys and hows of that. It is time to get back to basics and return to our geostrategic roots. This was not "Isolationist" it was just not overly arrogant and adventurist. We need to step away from the false historical arguments and the name calling and apply sound, calm, informed strategic logic.

This will make our allies squirm. They love not having to secure their own interests and have been pissing away the American peace dividend like drunken sailors while we fore go that dividend and outspend the world on a system of global defense funded solely by us. This is illogical and unsustainable. This is the worst kind of leadership as well. We need to lead by example, not by physically jumping into every conflict, not by setting moral standards, not by providing all the hardware and most of the manpower.

Oh yeah, and our current approach is also arguably unconstitutional.