View Full Version : The New American Militarism
Just finished reading The New American Militarism by Andrew J Bacevich, Phd in international relations. West Point Grad, VN and Gulf War Vet. Eye opening book. His son was KIA in May, While serving with 3rd BCT, 1st Cav It’s a must read regardless of your political position.
Just finished reading The New American Militarism by Andrew J Bacevich, Phd in international relations. West Point Grad, VN and Gulf War Vet. Eye opening book. His son was KIA in May, While serving with 3rd BCT, 1st Cav It’s a must read regardless of your political position.
Why is it a must read? What is the author's thesis? How will we benefit from reading it? :munchin
Basically it covers the last thirty years from our exit in VN through the restructure of the Army. Abrams initiatives of the total force concept, to Nixon’s AVF. Neo-conservatism and it six principles, the Christian right and the rise of the PMC business. It conceptualized and explains policy and how it alters our collective freedoms. Considering his service...why not take the time?
Contracting War...Democracy at Risk
Concept overview of Andrew J. Bacevich book, “The New American Militarism”
War is a game which were their subject wise, kings would not play. William Cowper
The carnage and suffering of WWI left an inexpungeable conceit in American foreign policy,
that vanity was: America, as savior.
President Woodrow Wilson’s vision, was of a world made in the likeness and image of America.
In a “community of nations”, eternally at peace. Modeled on the exiting Pan-American Union,
his “New Diplomacy” was a “covenant of cooperative peace” for ending man’s continual
struggle and the obsolescence of war. He believed that if America joined the League of Nation,
adopted his vision, that “this formula would result in a world of sovereign states committed to
the principles of liberal democracy and free enterprise”.1 In essence, values that were purely
American. Principles that were universal and will by god himself for America to carry forth.
This was America’s destiny in his eyes.
Providential in origin; “to make the world free at last”. This sensibility and arrogance, is not only
the begining, but the foundation of American foreign policy. Henry Kissinger noted in his book
“Diplomacy”, that “It is the drumbeat of Wilsonian idealism that American foreign policy has
marched since his watershed presidency, and continues to march to this day”.2
Wilson was reluctant, but committed, in sending troops to the slaughter. His abhorrence of war
was overcome, only by the belief that he “was acting as a divine agent”.3 He held the
“traditional” belief, that involvement of American force must be; “expedient, temporary,
reluctantly employed, and never an expression of the nation’s character”.3
In the intervening years since, America has committed it’s son’s to war 10 times. This
subordinate paradigm can justify itself only once; with its engagement in World War II. The
other nine times have been for the projection or defense of transeunt ideology. Of those, Viet
Nam is the obvious example, and the begining of the new warrior class in America.
Viet Nam was, has been, and will always be, an enigma to America. From Kennedy and the cold
war, to final end with Nixon and real politics. America has found itself at a lost to vindicate the
waste. For those of us who served, the wall is a harrowing experience to confront. The shattered
idealism, disillusionment, and severed cultural bond with our fellow citizens is best expressed,
and explained, by Hermann Goering: “Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after
all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a
communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
every country.”4
The deception was clear and total. Disgraced by society for the atrocities of civilian leadership,
the citizenry negated its own culpability, with contempt towards its soldiers and the armed forces
as a whole. Without the absolution that a parade provides, the returning men, and the Army,
became embittered. Determined never “to allow civilian leadership to abandoned an Army in the
field again”,1 the remaining officer corp, isolate and damaged, began the long task of rebuilding
it’s psyche and force. Chief among those, was General Creighton Abrams. “Abrams chief
contribution to the post-Vietnam military reform was to begin the process of making it more
difficult for the civilian authorities to opt for war. That is, as Army chief of staff, he took it upon
himself to circumscribe the freedom of action permitted to his political masters. He did this by
making the active Army operationally dependent on the reserves”.1
The Total Force policy, as it became know, was a “lesson to the military of civilian leadership
disregarding the consul of the joint chief. “The result was , in effect, to send the Army off to
fight while leaving the country behind. Abrams intended to ensure that this would never happen
again without calling up the reserves. In short, Vietnam demonstrated that when it came to
deciding when to go to war and how to fight the civilians were not to be trusted. We all
remember the photographs of President Johnson and the Secretary of Defense Mc Namara
leaning over maps picking out the days targets.”.1
Fundamental to the total force concept is: public support for the Army when sent to war. A
committed citizenry engaged in the defense of the nation has always been a part of our history.
The Idea of a citizen-solider or Emerson’s “embattled farmer” is the image that has persisted in
the American conscienceness. In the tradition of “the minuteman”, Americans have accepted the
responsibility in defending the freedom of their fellow countrymen. It’s part of our history and
dates to the founding fathers. However, This all changed in 1973, when President Nixon created
the All Volunteer Force.
The All Volunteer Force, or AVF, was in reaction to the draft and the protest movement of the
Viet Nam war. In creating the AVF, Nixon changed the political and social dynamic of how
force would be used and how service in the armed forces would be view. No longer was it a right
of passage, or a duty to serve the nation. It became a choice. That choice presents for the first
time in our history, a professional standing army. This is not something to be taken lightly. Our
fore fathers were keenly aware of the dangers to freedom that a professional standing army
presents.
In creating the total force concept, Abrams” tied that hands of politician”.1 The All Volunteer
Force eased the bondage placed on disicion makers. No longer bound by the prerequisite of
public support. Policy execution free of restrains, could engage in deployment of force with out
the worry of protest. The Department of Defense responded to this, in 1980's, with the
Weinberger Doctrine.
The Weinberger Doctrine, essentially was a litmus test, that require policymakers to answer the
following questions; prior to committing boots to the ground. First among them were: “to restrict
force to matters of vital national interest; to specify concrete and achievable objectives, both
political and military; to ensure popular and congressional support; to fight to win and to use
force as a last resort”.5 This doctrine was supplemented with the Powell doctrine, which add
two additional considerations. First, there must be an exit strategy, and two, the use of
overwhelming force. These two doctrines, combined with Abrams total force concept; and the
AVF, in addition to force reduction, is what produced the Private Military Contractor Industry.
Simulitantiously, as the armed forces went about creating principles and doctrines in reaction to
the Viet Nam experience, “to restore an autonomous military profession apart and even above
politics”,1 a small, but growing sentiment developed in the “politically engaged intellectual”3
community. The defeat in Viet Nam and the societal decay of the 1960's, was view by this
group. As “a weakness capable of dissolving the bonds sustaining the constitutional order”3.
Their goal was “ambitious”1, to reverse “the political and social damage of the 1960s, and
mutatis mutandis to restore American power and assertiveness on the world stage”1
Irving Kistol, of the “Standard”. Commented that “what rules the world is ideas. because ideas
define the way reality is perceived”. Commentators at the time branded the groups “neo-
conservatism”ideals, not a political movement or school of thought, but “persuasion”1 Their
ideological purpose was to see national power as a “positive good”,1 to be used in the promotion
of “American power and American ideals”.1 This purely Wilsonian idealism precept, was further
enhanced by Norman Podhoretz, at the Commentary, a monthly, design to present this
movement to the observant public. His style as editor, reflected what the neo-conservatives
would become known for: a “fiercely combative” reply, to any point of “view inconsistent with
the neo-conservative position. Portrayed as self evident and beyond dispute”.1
Neo-conservatism is based on six propositions. The first and most fundamental is history. In the
1930's prior to and with the rise of Nazi Fascism, which serves as the “Parable”.1 for the neo-
conservative position “The first truth is that evil is real. The second is, for evil to prevail requires
only one thing: for those confronted to flinch from duty”.1
The second proposition is power. Only power can confront evil. The ascent of Nazi Germany
was confront with the allies accommodation, until its march of “aggression”.1 Which eventually
required armed might to destroy the Nazi regime. Therefore, power and the will to employ it,
was deficient in the 1930's. “So the lesson was clear: at the end of the day, in international
politics there is no substitute for power, especially military power”.1
The third proposition, for Kistol, and especially Podhoretz, in the aftermath of Viet Nam, was to
prevent America from turning inward, to them, the recurring isolation position, was perilous.
Coming home was seen as disengagement, “America had a duty, and it was that of global
leadership. There were no alternatives and no substitutions. History had singled out the United
States to play a unique role as the chief instrument to advance freedom, which found its highest
expression in democratic capitalism. American ideals defined America’s purpose, to be achived
through the exercise of superior American power”.1 This third proposition is strictly Wilsonian,
America defines the universal values of mankind, but unlike Wilson, the neo-conservative’s
were under no illusions. A “Covenant of Nations” would not secure America or any nations
freedom. “Creating a peaceful world required power, not parchment”.1
The fourth proposition concerns the decay of American values at home and abroad. The
radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s, was seen by the neo-conservatives, as an assault on the
institutional structures in American society. Government, police, and the family were under
attack. The neo-conservatives position was not only to support a muscular foreign policy, but
also the “traditional values” of marriage, family, law and order, and a respect for organized
religion. “Traditional values” became the catch phrase for neo-conservatives raison d’etre. The
resurgence of institutional “Traditional values” formed the bedrock that the movement was built
upon.
The fifth proposition is: appeasement brings surrender or war. The choice to stay engaged or
withdraw, is for the neo-conservatives, no choice at all. “Crisis is permanent”1 in their view and
therefore must be managed. American power and american will, requires leadership. Which is
the Sixth and final proposition. Leadership, and “the article of faith, that men determine history,
not impersonal force”.1 Is for the neo-conservatives the only answer to the moral decay of a
society, and to call the nation to its “destiny”. For neo-conservatives, leadership is “moral
clarity”.1
The convergence of the military revitalization and the neo-conservatives movement, coincides
with Conservative Christian evangelicalism. Decades in the making, this movement embraces all
that the neo-conservatives express. This ready audience of evangelicals, “particular the white
evangelicals”.1 wields enormous political power as a voting block. Their position as stated by
Jerry Falwell, was “pro-life, pro family, pro-moral, and pro-America”. In a 1980 speech, Mr.
Falwell stated:
“I believe that Americans want to see this country come back to the basics, back to valves, back
to biblical morality...back to patriotism...by militarily disarming our country, we have actually
surrendering our freedom and liberties...America today is on the threshold of destruction or
surrender...Our faltering defenses show that we are permitting a godless society to emerge in
America....A political leader, as a minster of God, is a revenger to execute wrath upon those who
do evil. Our government has a right to use its armaments to bring wrath upon those who would
do evil by hurting other people”
This statement of Mr. Falwell’s, blurs a basic concept in the constitution. The seperation of
church and state. For Mr. Falwell, and other evangelical preachers, the theory of crusade warfare
takes precedence over the just war tradition, or defensive warfare. “Conservative Christian
analysts found scriptural sanctions for striking the first blow. As they saw it, preventive war has
biblical precedents”. “God is literally on Americas side, and he has empowered Americans to
act on his behalf”.1
These five converging concepts, Wilsonian idealism, Abrams total force concept, President
Nixon’s All Volunteer Force, the neo-conservative perspective and conservative Christian
evangelical movement, developed over the past seventy years, as reaction to, or cause by other
wars, has come to full fruition, with the war on terrorism.
The combination of reforming the military under the leadership of Abrams (TFC) and Nixon
(AVF), led inadvertently to a smaller, leaner, force. Recruitment being voluntary was the reason.
Another, was a higher standard set for recruits, who were required to deal with the new
21st century technology, and weapons systems. It produced an army that was, (1) professional,
and (2) one that morphed into detachment from its fellow citizenry. In addition, it solved a basic
political problem with the deployment of force. It ended the need for public support. The social
impact of the all volunteer forces, in eliminated the draft, has created a warrior class. Thomas
Friedman, of the New York Times, comments clarifies this observation.
Attending the super bowl, he was outraged that the halftime show failed to salute the men and
women in uniform, “who are overseas fighting the war on terrorism”.6 He notes the following,
“The whole burden is being born by a small cadre of Americans...The message from the white
house is: you all go about your business being Americans, pursuing happiness, spending your tax
cuts, enjoying the halftime show....and leave the war to our volunteer Army. No sacrifices
required.”6
Such an outlook, he stated, “is morally and strategically bankrupt”.6 Visiting with troops
afterwards, at “Central Command, in Tampa, left a deep impression. To visit with the American
man and women in uniform is to come away with one overriding feeling. “We do not deserve
these people, they are so much better than the country they are fighting for”.6
That realization, printed in one of the most respected Newspapers in the country, barley raised an
eyebrow. The American republic and its people, “sleep quietly knowing rough men will bring
harm to those who would threaten them in the night”.4 The threat though, is from within, as the
mission statement of the leader of a new industry, The Private Military Contractor industry, or
PMC‘s attest.
The rise of the Private Military Contractor industry, is the result of the policy shift, with
respect to, the Force needed to conduct war in the 21st century. With the advent of
advance technology, the reduction in force it was argued, was not a man power issue, standoff
weapon systems, rather than boots on the ground would win the fight. What was once considered
science fiction, is now the norm. Newton’s laws of action and reaction, were all but forgotten,
until the war on terrorism commenced.
Short on manpower and long on commitments, the DOD enlisted the Private Military
Contractors to fill the vacuum created by the All Volunteer Force. It was a seminal momment in
American history: The “outsourcing of war”. To be American, truly requires no sacrifices in the
defense of freedom. It is best left to the corporations, who’s interest is our are own.
The Vision Statement, on Blackwaters USA web site, reads: To support security, peace,
freedom, and democracy everywhere.
It’s bold statement. Wilsonian in substance, expressively Neo- conservative in attitude.
Erik Prince, Blackwater’s billionaire CEO and founder, is equally as bold. The former Platoon
commander of Seal Team 8 Stated; “ if you’re not willing to be committed to supporting humane
democracy around the world, then there’s probably a better place for you to work”.7 This
comment has to be taken into consideration with his considerable wealth and access. His ties to
the republican party are well documented, his sister Betsy, an activist and wife, of Dick De Vos,
heir to the AMWAY fortune, was chair of the Michigan Republican Party during 1990's. Mr.
Prince, intern in the White house of George H.W. Bush Sr., as well as, the arch-conservative
congressman Dana Rohrabacer, one could easily infer that Mr. Prince’s political views are
equally neo-conservative. A born-again fundamentalist Christian, he attend the religiously
conservative Hillside College, in Hillside Michigan. As a major republican contributor, and
socio-politically aligned, Blackwater’s rise to the forefront of the Private Military Contractor
industry, was never in question.
I have presented this in order to imagine the future, from the perspective of the our recent
history. In doing so, I am suggesting, (1) The Private Military Contractor industry and the
outsourcing of war, is the result of a neo-conservative interpretive perversion of Wilsonian
idealism. And (2) that it’s presence, development, and continuation, will one day replace, the
Constitutional Democracy that we know, with a warrior class, loyal to corporate Wilsonian
concepts.
Notes:
1. Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism, Oxford Press, 2005
2. Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy, NY. NY 1994
3. President Woodrow Wilson’s War Message” April 17, 1917
4. Goggle , War Quotes
5. Richard Halloran, New York Times, November 29, 1984
6. Thomas Friedman, New York Times, January 2004
7. Erik Prince, CEO of Blackwater USA
I’d say Col. (ret) Bacevich has “issues”. From the 27 May 2007 Washington Post.:
To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, [earlier this month] my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don't blame me.
To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.
Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.
Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502032.html
He’s as objective as The New York Times is respectable.
Pat
My review has nothing to do with the war, or for that matter the author, it forced me to question the orgin of policy, and the implications on our collective future. I think, not yet sure, if my reading of his essay, is correct.
That's why I posted in the first place, I was seeking input, to see if the conclusion that I came to was on point. I wasn't defending any position or person.
As for his son's death in combat, I feel he has every right to tell every elected offical to go to hell. It has always amazed me, that those who start the conflicts, never send their childern to support their belief.
We should lobby for a law, that states and forces, all elected officals to send their first born, to line units, when we as a nation, go to war. I'd bet the outcome and commitment would be radically different.
One other thought,; his outline is historical correct.
One more, have you read the book?
Additionally, your snide comment referencing the NYT in relation to his outrage,
has nothing to do with the subect matter. I think your reading of the post article is a bit shortsighted. His respect for all soldiers is evident in his book and in his comments to kerry and kennedy. Stating in essence; the exchange rate and value of American blood to elected officals.
x-factor
12-09-2007, 17:21
I think you may be over-philosophizing (to make up a word) the rise of PMCs. The key factor is basic supply and demand not the rise to power of a certain school of foreign policy. Put it this way, if Al Gore and the internationalists had been in power on Sept 11th 2001, I think you'd have still seen an explosive growth in PMCs.
Peregrino
12-09-2007, 17:30
Penn - Quality review, thanks. Is it yours? (Not clear from reading it - take or give credit as due, it's well written.) Do I still need to read the book? Peregrino
Why so testy, Penn? You wanted opinions; you got one. It’s worth what you paid for it.
You’re not judging the author, I am. Outside of knowing who Creighton Abrams was and having worn Green, how is what he’s saying any different than what Cindy Sheehan’s been saying? She also has the right to tell every elected official to “go to hell”. We all do.
I have not read the book. And, agreeing with Peregrino on the quality of your review, I will not.
Why is my opinion of Col. Bacevich's opinion, and the The New York Times reputation, considered "snide" when his opinion of the Bush administration, the "Military Industrial Complex", and the "Neo-Cons", is not?
Pat
It has always amazed me, that those who start the conflicts, never send their childern to support their belief.
I know there is a presumption that those in power do not have any skin in the game, i.e. have no kids who are serving. I'm not sure if most of us are really qualified to make that assumption. I mean we can do it, but it may not be accurate. I know the under secretary of defense had a son in my son's basic training company. I believe Rumfeld's nephew is in a SF group. These are just the ones I've heard about.
When we say those making the policy do not send their children, are we assuming or do we actually know? I really do not believe it is practical for the Bush daughters to serve, especially in a combat zone. I think this was covered in a thread about Prince Charles younger son not being allowed to serve in Iraq.
We should looby for a law, that states and forces, all elected officals to send their first born, to line units, when we as a nation, go to war. I'd bet the outcome and commitment would be radically different.
I know the sons of past presidents have served in harm's way. Maybe now it is different. However, in the past a majority of elected officials were veterans. I do not believe that is the case now.
Your desire makes sense, but in an all volunteer military, it's probably impossible to require the children of elected officials to serve, but I understand your sentiment. Don't send other's children if you not willing to send your own. I guess what you're asking for is that our elected officials be people of integrity and character and exercise true leadership. For some reason I don't see that ever happening. If they had that much character and integrity, they would never be elected in the first place as they would alienate most of their fellow citizens.
CoLawman
12-10-2007, 12:12
Penn, you have peaked my interest. I look forward to finding out what Colonel Bacevich offers as an alternative to that which he critiques. I am comfortable with the neocon movement, but dispute some of the conclusions drawn by the author.
Yes, I do think you should read the book, for the present/past history lesson alone. I never understood the implication and importance of President Wilson, on/in foreign policy affairs. It clarified my misconception. (Also, read Kissinger’s Diplomacy).
Additionally, the progression of Abrams total force concept and his commitment to take the nation as a whole, when engaged, and how that was undermined by Nixon’s AVF, was nothing short of revelatory. This and the counterbalancing of the Weinberg/Powell doctrine to the AVF; was in my view, Generals watching out for soldiers, on the world/national stage; is another example of my naiveté. Again, I am uncertain if my conclusions are correct.
One interesting side note: All the major neo-con founders/writers are Jewish intellectuals. Their foreign policy interest is a two state affair: USA/Israel The Standard and the Commentary, in my view, pervert what is in our best interest, as a nation, through the influence this group processes in/with regards to Israel. Again, I am uncertain if my conclusions are correct, and would welcome another’s insight on the subject matter.
Also, this group’s commitment to the preservation of Israel was neatly tied into the evangelical’s commitment, and their belief that the establishment of the State of Israel, heralds the second coming of Christ. Imho, it may be the greatest political Physop affair in history.
PSM – Snide, only in that the NYT had nothing to do with the issue. I live in NYC and @ the Jersey Shore. The NYT is read with caution, as is every paper with an agenda. I tend to view it online, picking and choosing for articles of interest. 65 miles south, at the beach, you have to go out of your way to find a copy of the rag.
Penn, I think that you need to tighten up your thinking on the supposed relationship between Israel, Evangelical Christians and the Neoconservative movement.
The brightest Neocons that I know are neither.
IMHO, it is quite possible to support our current actions in Iraq and our policies towards Iran without any giving much thought to Israel's interests.
Thanks for making the effort to revisit this thread. Try not to take things too personally. :)
Again, I am uncertain if my conclusions are correct, and would welcome another’s insight on the subject matter.
I have to disagree with a number of the conclusions, even if the review (be it yours or someone else's) does present some facts (and I have no way of discerning that).
One matter is one of basic math. If our objective force is a million soldiers and we achieve that force with volunteers, then apparently a fewer number of vets wind up in the civilian populace with a feeling of kinship with the army, vs the number of vets we would have from a million-man army of draftees. I don't hear a loud "click" when I read that.
Creighton Abrams intended to cripple the nation's ability to deploy an effective force until public opinion was fully "tweaked"? I have to think him a better man than that. He *did* play a part in putting more truck-drivers and finance people into the reserves, and more trigger-pullers into the active army. The concept (among we who were apparently decieved), was that the other packages would move into the host nation after the ground-pounders actually had some terrain for them to utilize, and mass supply, heavy construction, etc., naturally had to wait anyway. It made sense and it still makes sense.
And, when congress had enough of our Vietnam-era military expenditures, was beginning to cut the budget, some wise GO's decided that a smaller well-armed force seemed more potent than the affordable alternative of a barely armed larger force. That tracks for me.
Jerry Falwell believes that the government should punish those whose intent is to harm innocent people. That violates the separation of church and state? That is a stretch. My local PD has the same belief, as do many of the civic groups in my city. Same for the guy who runs the 7-11, the local news stations, and my aetheistic ex-inlaws. I don't see the church connection.
The government shall not "sponsor" a particular church or religion? OK, that's separation of church and state.
Having an all-volunteer force creates a vacuum? How? If our force were largely draftees, we would have *more* capability, and need the PMC's less? I can't get from point A to point B nearly as well as either Andy Bacevich or the reviewer.
I have great sympathy for any father who has to bury a son, especially a dedicated soldier whose son is the same.
Still, broad concepts are not best pondered when we are in deep pain.
When you have a hammer *everything* looks like a nail.
Plato, by paragraph
1. You can take the time to check them.
2. Your math and point eludes me
3. Abrams intent was not to cripple the army. His intent was to PREVENT the misuse of the armed forces of our country, this was in reaction to the VN experience; a forced fielded and the country left behind. By forcing the leadership to call up the reserves, would mean that the nation was behind and in support of the leadership decision. By moving the remfs to the reserves components, he forced the civilian leadership to be DEPENDENT on the reserves. That was a brilliant move. Realizing this, the leadership
Created the AVF, reasoning correctly, that with no draft to contend with, public support would not be an issue, especially, if that force was an all volunteer force.
It’s not about trigger pullers vs. truck drivers, it’s about the employment of force, the support and rational on the national stage, and using soldiers as pawns. Abrams was a soldiers, soldier, He bore witness to the waste and misguide use of the force by civilian leadership, and did everything in his purview to balance the power.
4. The Jerry Farwell quote, you should read again. The key is the last sentence. We are not a theocracy!!! The separation of church and state implies more than just sponsorship.
5. The void is created without the draft because the manpower issue is never maximized with an AVF.
x-factor
12-10-2007, 22:05
If you're interested in the development/rebuilding/evolution of the American military (all four services) post-Vietnam, then Prodigal Soldiers by James Kitfield is a must-read.
Broadsword, Thanks for the confirmation on that point. I am very interested too see what conclusions you come to.
X-factor, I'll check it out.
Jaxt, Believe me when I say detached. It’s not personal for me, it’s a learning experience. The assessment that I’ve made leads me to this conclusion. My intent is to see if that assessment is correct. When I piece the puzzle together, I see conscience political realism, targeting religious ideology/philosophy, to further a political agenda/policy; and capitalizing on religious fervor to do so.
This book alone does not bring me to this position, my commenting on the conclusion I’ve drawn on the interrelationship btw the neo-cons philosophy and conservative christian evangelicals movement is dead on. However, if you wish, I am open to any consideration you want to present.
Plato, by paragraph
1. You can take the time to check them.
2. Your math and point eludes me
3. Abrams intent was not to cripple the army. His intent was to PREVENT the misuse of the armed forces of our country, this was in reaction to the VN experience; a forced fielded and the country left behind. By forcing the leadership to call up the reserves, would mean that the nation was behind and in support of the leadership decision. By moving the remfs to the reserves components, he forced the civilian leadership to be DEPENDENT on the reserves. That was a brilliant move. Realizing this, the leadership
Created the AVF, reasoning correctly, that with no draft to contend with, public support would not be an issue, especially, if that force was an all volunteer force.
It’s not about trigger pullers vs. truck drivers, it’s about the employment of force, the support and rational on the national stage, and using soldiers as pawns. Abrams was a soldiers, soldier, He bore witness to the waste and misguide use of the force by civilian leadership, and did everything in his purview to balance the power.
4. The Jerry Farwell quote, you should read again. The key is the last sentence. We are not a theocracy!!! The separation of church and state implies more than just sponsorship.
5. The void is created without the draft because the manpower issue is never maximized with an AVF.
Honestly appreciate the numbering here. I have no idea how to split a quote and respond part by part. Grey-hair related, I suspect :)
1. I see no declaration of "Divine Right" In Wilson's war address. Despite Bacevich's thoughts, I disagree that democracy and free enterprise were ideas that were "purely American". As for Goehring's quote on whipping a nation into a war frenzy and effectively controlling the population by denouncing pacifists, I think the answer is "Vietnam" (equivalent to "No"). Basically, a lot of opinions in this world, and many of them on the net. However, that doesn't equal fact.
2. I plead disability. I had a lady in my ear with an incredible need to tell me of the injustices of the day, while I was trying to write that. :o
Basically, whether volunteer or draftee, we have the same number of mothers, fathers, brothers, classmates, social groups who don't want to see the soldier they know go off to war. I doubt that the civilian component of our nation is more "detached" from today's volunteer force than it was from the force of our era. (Detached, hell. I was half ready to *fight* my way through LAX on the way back).
3. The only thing I could find on the idea that Abrams intended to prevent the misuse of our armed forces starts with "It is said....". That's right next to "Everybody knows" as an indicator that there's no proof, little or no indicators, but a lot of "I betcha" involved. The exact wording is all over the net. Pretty fair indication that one person surmised, and other folks borrowed it to fill in their pages. Being conservatively inclined, I like the summary at "http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl869.cfm". And, are we supposing that the POTUS couldn't prevent himself from being crippled?
And........... I've been on one of the "subcommittees" for the truck driver vs. trigger puller during three more "restructurings".
4. If Falwell is correct, in that "most Americans" want...... then a democracy that bends to the will of a majority is not a theocracy. If Ronald McDonald made the observation and was correct, I wouldn't suffer from Burger-state concerns.
5. Have we had a significant shortfall between the size of the force we want and the one we have had, since Abrams days? I'm sure some of the members here have pulled assignments as a recruiter. There's probably someone who could give us an idea.
As for the idea that all this leads to the PMC, let's consider Ghurkas, Hessians, and the like. I recall the army contracting with an increasing number of civilians back during the Vietnam era, under the concept that it doesn't take a well trained fighting machine to load freight or slop mashed potatoes on a tray.
Final note..... roommates and I used to enjoy this sort of exchange over a good bottle of Johnny Walker. No feeling of annoyance or superiority here, just joining in.
Besides............ you *did* ask.......... :p
By making it where the Active military could not fight a war without the Reserves and Guard (because certain jobs the Active military needed were only in the Reserves and/or Guard), then whenever the nation would be considering war, they would be doing so with the knowledge that the civilian population would get directly involved, because Reservists and the like would be called up.
You may want to brush up on force employment considerations based upon Title 10 and Title 14 USC before coming to the above conclusion.
Edited to add: Of the NG and Reserves, who can the president call up without first having to consult various and sundry governors? Of CA, CS and CSS, which one do we have most in the active forces (hence, which ones do we need less in the short term)? Food for thought.
Remington Raidr
12-11-2007, 19:08
I'm conflicted, but good thread.
In response to those of you questioning the issue and placement of the Goring quote in the essay via PM.
What the Goring quote represents, is the ability of leadership to manipulate the public with the idea of threat and the idea of fear, so that we follow their lead, or endorse their policy, or rather, ideology.
In our very recent history, that was employed and scripted beautifully.
Think for a moment of the following phrase, spoken by our President, to the nation… “Waiting for the mushroom cloud”…Now I live in NYC, five blocks from WTC, I watch those amazing towers rise and to my horror, fall.
Rich Ricola (sp) the head of security was a neighbor, he lived in Madison NJ, I, at the time, in Summit NJ; with a restaurant in Chatham NJ, a stone throw in any direction.
He was a client and acquaintance, in addition to being a legendary SF’er and soldier. He was one of many that I grieved. To this day, I have never been to the site…
So, when those words were spoken, I was on the program. I wanted visceral retribution, on a biblical scale.
My emotional reaction to the Presidents speech was the same as every other American watching that evening, I knew, as you did, that we were going to war, and a “just war” at that. That was my belief.
In the intervening months, leading up to the war, a number of people were discredited for
Challenging the leadership to justify their decision and the threat that Iraq posed.
I was steadfast in my belief that now was the time, and viewed those who questioned this course of action, as threat to our collective security.
Enlighten me please, and show me how I was not manipulated, and that if you overlaid the Hermann Goring quote on Leaders and Power, and pulling the country along to their will, that we were any different.
You and I, and most members of this forum, swore a solemn oath, to protect and defend the constitution from all threats, both foreign and domestic…
It is not an oath to any person, place, or thing; it is an oath to an Ideal.
An Ideal; that has no form, but that which beats in our hearts because we know it’s true. It’s the “blank check payable with our lives”.
Yet, this Ideal requires us not to follow blindly, but to demand from ourselves first, and our leader’s second, an equal commitment and accountability, and in most cases, we are left wanting.
Dylan Thomas reflecting on his death, wrote that he “would not go quietly into that good night”, and would “rage at the dying and fading of the light”.
We are soldiers. Young and old. We have buried our friends, or will; and some our family, for this Ideal, that America is. And I will not go quietly, or march to ideology, that does not ring true.
Edited to add: Please forgive my emotional outburst, and please do not misinterpret my
point of view, to think, that I am not on board with the GWOT. I am. It is a must win, at all cost, even if we have to relinquish some of civil rights to do so, or form rouge cells to dispense justice and protect our way of life, because other can't or won't.