The New American Militarism

[jatx]

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.

[plato]

Originally Posted by Penn

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.

[Penn]

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]

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.

[Penn]

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.

[Penn]

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]

Originally Posted by Penn

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.

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..........

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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.

I'm conflicted, but good thread.

[Penn]

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.