Angry demonstrators fire back.
As the world continues to demonize Israel for her role in defending her citizens in the Gaza flotilla debacle, livid Jewish demonstrators pushed back against the onslaught of invectives being hurled at the Jewish state in a rally that was staged on Tuesday evening, June 1st in front of the Turkish Consulate on E 46th Street and 1st Avenue, outside of the United Nations. Organized by the organization called RAJE, the Russian American Jewish Experience, over 300 rally attendees took to the streets in defense of Israel. Holding aloft such signs that read "Israel: We Stand With You," "Gaza Peace Activists Don't Use Clubs or Knives" and "Peace Activists Should Not Support Hamas," the demonstrators held both Israeli and American flags and called for an end to Hamas terrorism.
Dovid Ha'Ivri of the Shromron Liaison office and a resident of the Israeli settlement of Tapuach said, "Any country in the world has a right to defend themselves and Israel is no different. Clearly, this purported 'Free Gaza' flotilla was filled with Hamas supporters who refused to cooperate with the Israeli military. They had their own nefarious agenda and it's just too bad that the lives of our commandos were put in jeopardy. Orders should have been given that the Mavi Marmara be sunk. Israel has nothing to apologize to the world for and certainly Turkey has no right to pass judgment on Israel after the Holocaust that they inflicted on the Armenian population."
Just several blocks away in front of the Israeli Consulate, several thousand pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas apologists gathered for their own raucous demonstration in which they spewed forth their own inimitable brand of vitriol against Israel. "The Israelis are murderers and pirates and they should be tried for war crimes and genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza," said Ahmed Wahad of the organization Al-Awda. Insisting that the mission of the flotilla activists was purely a humanitarian one, he denied allegations that the people on the Mavi Marmara brutally assaulted Israeli commandos as they descended on to the ship. "Look, the people in Gaza are suffering due to the inhumane Israeli blockade of food, medicine and other essential supplies and these people on the boat were victimized by the savage Israeli occupiers," he continued.
Members of the anti-Israel contingent began marching down East 42nd Street towards Times Square shouting, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "No more US tax dollars for Israel" as they called for the end of the "occupation" of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
Video evidence of the incident reveals quite clearly that the Israeli commandos came aboard the boat peacefully, without the intent to inflict harm, when they were set upon by passengers wielding metal pipes, clubs, and knives. Several pistols were stolen from the commandos and shots were fired as one commando was thrown overboard into a side boat.
"It's really pretty simple. At one time such terrorist groups as Hamas and Hezbollah believed that the best way to destroy Israel was to murder our citizens either through conventional warfare and through suicidal terrorist attacks. They woke up and came to the conclusion that such actions only garner sympathy for Israel. Now, they are keenly cognizant of the fact that the war they are fighting is through the media and world opinion, so the best way to destroy us is to force us into a position to kill them," said Meir Epstein, 52, of Monsey, NY who traveled down to attend the pro-Israel rally.
Across the street from the Turkish consulate stood Turkish nationals and members of the vehemently anti-Israel Neturei Karta movement who continued to berate Israel while leveling epithets laced with hatred at members of the pro-Israel contingent. "Murderers, occupiers and pirates" they shouted while calling for the annihilation of Israel. "Israel should not exist because it is a racist state and we oppose the Jewish character of the state. Why should the Jews have their own country, when the land that they live on was stolen from the Palestinians. A country composed of Jews cannot be a true democracy," said Fagria Behar, a Turkish national.
The defiant pro-Israel faction continued to shout, "Am Yisroel Chai" (the people of Israel live) and "We have the right to self-defense" while police kept both sides separated behind barricades. "The fact that the UN saw fit to hold an emergency security council session to condemn Israel is nothing new," said Ronn Torrosian, a renowned New York publicist and a board member of RAJE. "It is a cesspool of Jew hatred and what these so-called peace activists on the Turkish vessel pulled off was nothing short of a cleverly devised anti-Semitic lynching," he added.
What best summed up the collective thoughts of the pro-Israel rally goers was a sign featuring an Israeli flag and the words under it: "It's better to have a Jewish State that's hated by the whole world than an Auschwitz that's loved by it."
Short of committing collective national suicide, there is absolutely no way Israel will be loved by the world. Unlike every other sovereign state on the planet, Israel’s right to exist at all is denied by billions of people. The Israelis I know would really love to live in peace with the Islamic world, but they know this is not possible. Israel is a state founded by leftists, but the global left has targeted Israel for elimination just as surely as the Nazis sought the extermination of the Jews.
I hope the rumors we’ve heard for years about Israeli nukes are true, and, especially, the rumor that they have operational neutron bombs.
Does anyone else here see a connection between Israel & Arizona protecting their borders?
Sort of. Arizona’s doing it for economic reasons, Israel is in a bit of a tighter bind.
I’m in a weird category. I am neither pro- or anti- Israeli. While their inception was a bit dubious, they are here, they are badasses, and not going anywhere. I’m fine with that. American leftists often believe that pragmatism is only for topics that they like. Not me.
However, I don’t think they should be getting a dime of support from the US. They have been caught spying on us like a foreign rival would and as such, should be treated as a foreign rival. Furthermore, the Mossad just kind of runs around and does whatever it wants. Can’t say I really appreciate that. I vastly prefer MI5′s MO.
I think Israel really needs a wake-up call as to who is in charge of their little world. I can see Iran and North Korea shoveling disrespect our way, but Israel does it quite frequently as well. They need to be reminded that they need us, we don’t need them. The Islamo-petro dictatorships will sell us oil whether Israel exists or not.
Living in CA, it costs us just as it costs AZ to support illegals, however, I think AZ is doing it more for the rate of crime and trying to preserve a safer way of life. I think Israel is also trying to preserve its way of life & it’s very existence. As you say, they are a ‘little world’ surrounded by a hostile one, they do what they have to do. Lots of countries get support from the US spy on us and show little appreciation. Good grief, we even send money to the West Bank for all the good it does.
Yeah, I’d probably let them go to. Their fellow Arabs seem to have plenty of oil money.
I think Israel is also trying to preserve its way of life & it’s very existence.
That’s great, but no one MADE them move to a region where they would be universally despised. I don’t see why the US has to foot the bill to help them realize their dream.
I wish them good luck, though, because on the crazy meter, I’d rank them at about a 5, with New Zealand being a 0 and North Korea being a 10. Their opposition come sin at probably a 7 or an 8. So by a strategy of world-craziness-reduction, I guess I’d prefer Israel to come out on top.
Lots of countries get support from the US spy on us and show little appreciation.
Actually, we support very few countries anymore. And whom we do support, it is a pittance. Observe. Notice the top two recipients are using the money for weapons. Why are we arming both Israel and Egypt? Once we get down to Kenya, it starts getting legit.
Look at how small these numbers are compared to the jack the government throws around for stupid crap. Still, though, 2.4 billion for a nation with less population than Ohio is pretty good. Especially compared to what the others get.
1. Israel $2.4 billion Virtually all of this money is used to buy weapons (up to 75% made in the U.S.). Beginning in 2009, the U.S. plans to give $30 billion over 10 years.
2. Egypt $1.7 billion $1.3 billion to buy weapons; $103 million for education; $74 million for health care; $45 million to promote civic participation and human rights.
3. Pakistan $798 million $330 million for security efforts, including military-equipment upgrades and border security; $20 million for infrastructure.
4. Jordan $688 million $326 million to fight terrorism and promote regional stability through equipment upgrades and training; $163 million cash payment to the Jordanian government.
5. Kenya $586 million $501 million to fight HIV/AIDS through drug treatment and abstinence education and to combat malaria; $15 million for agricultural development; $5.4 million for programs that promote government accountability.
6. South Africa $574 million $557 million to fight TB and HIV/AIDS; $3 million for education.
7. Mexico $551 million Click here for details.
8. Colombia $541 million Click here for details.
9. Nigeria $491 million Click here for details.
10. Sudan $479 million Click here for details.
Clever, you looked up something to prove your point without having to prove your personal opinion, which seems to be that you don’t see why Israel is even legit.
FYI – Palestine is a Roman word, not an Arab word, given to the Jewish land and people when it was taken by the Romans 2000 yrs ago. Historically the Jews have been there for thousand of yrs, had cities, kings and all sorts of civilization. But you are right–nobody MADE them go back, the US didn’t have to foot the bill. And just who is MAKING the Arabs go back? They don’t have to. There’s plenty of land for all of them to live in harmony. But I certainly like your crazy meter, altho I might argue with giving Israel a 5. If left alone, they’d be happy to be NZ in a heartbeat. Who needs their grief?
I gave them a 5 mostly for wanting to be there to begin with. I’m not sure why any major power after WWII thought that this was a good idea, but it’s done now.
That and the Mossad are just madmen. KGB-type madmen. That gets them a couple of crazy points too.
Maybe they are more of a 4. Gotta make room at the top to distinguish between Pol Pot crazy and merely Stalin crazy. Anyway, you get the idea.
I was referring to the expenditures being legit. The state of Israel is perfectly legitimate, but I don’t think Israel needs 2.4 billion in weapons money from us every year.
Yeah, the whole “who’s land is this” thing is why I pretty much don’t pick a side. Both the Arab Palestinians and the Jews both have a claim, and in the end, might makes right as it always has. Of course, those who live by the sword also die by it. So who knows?
It sounds like a mess to be avoided. But we are not avoiding it, because Israel is #1 on our foreign aid list. Note that I oppose coughing up over a billion for Egypt and whatever Jordan is getting as well. So I’m about as Israel neutral as you can get. Let the most well run states win!
I do feel bad for the Palestinians, though, as far as their fellow Arabs not taking them in. I think the Palestinians are being used by their neighbors to cause trouble for Israel. It sucks to be a tool like that. Hey, that makes Saudi Arabia a villain again!
Funny that. The Saudis seem to keep coming up again and again: 9/11, terror camp money, wacko religious school money, and now this. I wonder where they get their money from? Oh yeah. Us.
“I do feel bad for the Palestinians, though, as far as their fellow Arabs not taking them in.”
Of the 98% of the population of Jordan that are Arab, the clear majority are Palestinian.
Well, it looks like they missed some. Like the ones in the West Bank.
Sorry, my post was a bit too superficial. What I’d meant was, there are indeed places where the Palestinians defacto have a homeland, which is not a bad deal for a race/nation that doesn’t even technically exist.
Not to mention, Jordan is an entirely fabricated nation as well.
Curious how the Palestinians beef about “their” homeland being “stolen” by the Jews, yet they themselves have no issue with stealing (such as it were) other people’s homes. Such as when they revolted during the 1970s and tried to overthrow the government of Jordan.
Curious how the Palestinians beef about “their” homeland being “stolen” by the Jews, yet they themselves have no issue with stealing (such as it were) other people’s homes. Such as when they revolted during the 1970s and tried to overthrow the government of Jordan.
Yeah, as I said, there are not really any good guys in this conflict at all. So I say stay out of it.
I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I heard this first; but it is true nonetheless
“If the Arabs were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, there would be no more war.”
“If the Israelis were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.”
The present administration’s isolation of the only democracy in the Middle East is a mistake. Shunning Israel will not make the “Arabs like us”. Such tactics only serve to heighten Israel’s sense of having to ‘go-it-alone’.
Barack Obama is playing a dangerous game. The only reason the Arab world has not united to attack Israel (as it has done in the past) is because they fear their own demise as well.
The Arab countries may be standing on most of the world’s developed oil reserves right now, but make no mistake:
If the Arab leaders look outside their windows now, you know what they likely see? Sand. If they attack Israel, and Israel resorts to its nuclear stockpile, that sand will be turned to glass and they’ll be standing on the next 500 years of the world’s supply of light bulbs and liquor bottles as well.
“If the Arabs were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, there would be no more war.”
“If the Israelis were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.”
Probably true. I still don’t see why we care to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars.
The present administration’s isolation of the only democracy in the Middle East is a mistake. Shunning Israel will not make the “Arabs like us”. Such tactics only serve to heighten Israel’s sense of having to ‘go-it-alone’.
I don’t care if the Arabs like us. I don’t care if there is democracy (Israel seems a lot more like a theocracy, but whatever) in the Middle East. I just don’t want to be involved in that mess. We will get our oil whether Israel exists or not, so who cares?
Israel obviously doesn’t care what anyone else thinks, which is their right, of course. But they seem to be already going-it-alone.
No one is going to attack Israel with Israel sitting on the bomb. I guess a nuclear Iran might take a stab at it, but I really don’t see what the benefit to them might be.
Barack Obama is playing a dangerous game. The only reason the Arab world has not united to attack Israel (as it has done in the past) is because they fear their own demise as well.
How is it dangerous? How would our lives change one bit if Israel did not exist? The Middle East is a mess with or without Israel.
“I don’t care if the Arabs like us.” I don’t’ care either. The problem is that the progressive administration in Washington DOES care. It’s as if they believe that sacrificing Israel will somehow placate the Arab world. It won’t.
“How is it dangerous? How would our lives change one bit if Israel did not exist? The Middle East is a mess with or without Israel.” The only way Israel ceases to exist is war. Such a war would probably render large portions of the Middle East uninhabitable as I believe it would be impossible for the Arabs to destroy Israel without Israel using its weapons stockpile. I would be willing to bet that a regional nuclear exchange would have the potential to decidedly change our lives here in the US. (Shades of the book ‘On The Beach” by Nevil Shute)
“I don’t care if the Arabs like us.” I don’t’ care either. The problem is that the progressive administration in Washington DOES care. It’s as if they believe that sacrificing Israel will somehow placate the Arab world. It won’t.
Of course it won’t placate the Arab world. Another difference between leftists in general and American leftists. American leftists (and conservatives) do not engage in realpolitik. This causes decisions like these to be made. Oh well, Obama didn’t ask my opinion.
The Arab world needs a good dose of a homegrown bad ass secular conqueror. External forces such as the US can not help them. They will just mindlessly oppose our intervention, kinda like they are doing in Afghanistan.
I would be willing to bet that a regional nuclear exchange would have the potential to decidedly change our lives here in the US. (Shades of the book ‘On The Beach” by Nevil Shute)
I don’t think they have enough weapons to generate that kind of effect, but perhaps they do. Maybe we should have kept Israel from getting the bomb like we are attempting to do with Iran. Oh, well, too late now. Let’s just hope they are as reasonable as the USSR if they are faced with a similar situation.
It would be ironic indeed to survive the USSR unscathed, but have Israel cause havoc by the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe I should bump Israel back up to a 5 or even 6 on the crazy meter.
“I don’t think they have enough weapons to generate that kind of effect…” As a hypothetical coming off a keyboard this is an easy statement to make. The real deal, not so much. Even a ‘limited’ exchange would decimate the region. Not to mention the fact that there are treaty obligations that would escalate such an exchange quickly.
Iran pops one, so Israel pops two, so Pakistan pops two back, and Israel responds in kind; that’s seven separate detonations within the span of minutes (assuming that Israel refrains from utilizing a MIRV). Assuming tactical weapons (15 kiloton range) and that’s seven Hiroshimas all within a relatively small area..
You’re talking that entire region, plus a good amount of territory downwind, being rendered uninhabitable for a decade. If the rumors of Israel possessing neutron/cobalt weapons are confirmed by this exchange, the human carnage would be exponentially increased as such devices are specifically designed for minimal material damage but maximum human radiation exposure.
This is one of the specific reasons nuclear proliferation is such a topic. Countries with excellent command-and-control techniques that have been in place for generations make errors with such weapons. Countries with relatively little experience in these areas usually neglect to put sufficient layers of command in place to prevent such a disastrous decision from taking place. I, for one, have little if any confidence that Pakistan or India have such safeguards. I certainly don’t believe Iran to have them.
Such a lack of adequate chain-of-command increases the chances of a rouge launch. One extremist, with his finger on the button can begin a world-changing chain of events.
“It would be ironic indeed to survive the USSR unscathed, but have Israel cause havoc by the use of nuclear weapons.” Israel won’t start this, but you can take it to the bank that they’ll finish it.
You know, just a thought, wouldn’t it be better to disarm Israel and just let them fall, rather than having the possibility of all this nuclear fallout? Of course, I suppose we’ll have the same problem when Pakistan gets pissed at someone. So that’s not a good plan.
We could try to take out the Arab states I guess. Iran is pretty doable, but Pakistan would be a total nightmare. Plus they’d probably nuke our troops, so we’d still get fallout problems even if we didn’t nuke back. That’s not a good plan.
This is a problem I see the US having absolutely no good options with. I just hope that all the leaders over there grasp the significance of the weapons they have at their disposal. I’m not sure Obama’s choices make any difference here at all.
“You know, just a thought, wouldn’t it be better to disarm Israel and just let them fall…” So we feel that the solution to this is to acquiesce to the demands of the Islamic Arab States, disarm Israel and stand aside as these same Arab States obliterate 7.3 million souls? Remember; it’s not just the existence of the Jewish State that infuriates the Arabs, it’s the existence of Jews period.
And once they’ve been emboldened by ‘winning’ such a concession from the planet; the destruction of the ‘Little Satan’ in their words, what shall be done when they demand the same concession be given regarding the ‘Big Satan’, i.e. the US?
Personally; I’d rather ‘take out’ the Arab States entirely. Actually that’s a strategy I would think you’d agree with. Rendering the entire Middle East uninhabitable for a half-century would certainly place us firmly on the track of weaning this country from an oil based economy.
“Personally; I’d rather ‘take out’ the Arab States entirely. Actually that’s a strategy I would think you’d agree with. Rendering the entire Middle East uninhabitable for a half-century would certainly place us firmly on the track of weaning this country from an oil based economy.”
My deeply held position on this is that some variation of this is likely will occur. Particularly with an Iran run by such as Ahmadinejad.
One thing I know about Israelis is that should an Iran do something to destroy Israel, then Israel will make use of all of it’s nuclear arsenal and clear the entire playing field. That is to say, if they’re going down, they will make a specific point to take all of their old enemies along with them.
On that day, it’ll pretty damned hot in Damascus. And Medina. And Tehran…
Let’s add two other countries to the why do they exist list: Pakistan and Banglidesh which were partitioned from India in 1947 when Israel was recreated. Seems to me that the other two should be given back to India using the Palestinian rhetoric and logic or lack thereof. If we don’t care about Israel then we should discontinue ALL foreign aid, pull our troops back to the us and establish fortress America with an up to date nuclear arsenal, resolve to use it, and establish no tread zones around our borders. This should make martel happy since we are not wasting money on those foreigners but unhappy that we keep a strong military.
If we don’t care about Israel then we should discontinue ALL foreign aid, pull our troops back to the us and establish fortress America with an up to date nuclear arsenal, resolve to use it, and establish no tread zones around our borders.
Basically the French defense plan. It works for them. I personally wouldn’t mess with France.
And they’ve had fewer terror attacks from the Middle East. Of course, they do get the occasional Algerian or something, but you can’t stop it all.
I don’t mind a strong military. Strong is fine. I mind an EXPENSIVE military. Strong militaries can be cheap, just look at China. Our insistence on being able to project as strongly as we currently can is unacceptably expensive.
The beauty of the draft was that you could field a lot of guys relatively cheaply. More boots on the ground would give us a better chance of keeping order in these Asian hellholes, for example. And the melting pot of backgrounds actually made our military more formidable, not less.
Our modern military is too expensive and too elite. They are so expensive that any kind of significant losses would be catastrophic budget-wise. I think the WWII model was a far more effective model.
Personally; I’d rather ‘take out’ the Arab States entirely. Actually that’s a strategy I would think you’d agree with. Rendering the entire Middle East uninhabitable for a half-century would certainly place us firmly on the track of weaning this country from an oil based economy.
Yes, but no need to render anything uninhabitable. I really dislike nukes due to their long term effects. The half-life of the radiation is really beyond the scope of human comprehension. And this is coming from a scientist.
However, you could use these things with impunity……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_all_bombs
Thermobaric for the win! Now you know that I’m not a true liberal if I approve of thermobaric weapons. It’s a much more pragmatic weapon, however. Maybe we could talk the Israelis into trading in nukes for these babies.
The other thing I’d like to ask is why doesn’t South Korea appear on the list? I mean, sure South Korea probably has more money and more troops at its disposal than Israel, but good ol’ Kim Jong Il is as crazy as 3 Arab states put together. And has a better military.
Furthermore, South Korea does not engage in the Mossad-style craziness that Israel does. They do not spy on us to the extent that Israel has proven to. They buy their fair share of our consumer products. In short, they are a much better ally.
We have just 27,000 troops in Korea, and over 100,000 in Europe. Excuse me, doesn’t Europe have its own military force? You know, I’m pretty sure the Eurofighter and the Challenger work just about as well as our stuff.
And the Europeans aren’t the ones bordered by a total lunatic. Well, there’s that guy in Belorussia, but Germany could stop him by itself.
Also, as I mentioned before Israel gets 2.4 billion a year for weapons. What about South Korea? This makes no sense.
I know I have no formal military experience, but I have read a lot of historical accounts. These troop deployments also make no sense at all to me.
Martel, there are multiple incorrect statements in your last posts:
1. The comment about China’s military versus the US’s is simply indefensible. Go back to a strictly infantry army? You are correct when you say that you have little understanding of how military forces work.
Remember, to match the possible actions of a future China, we’d have to at least match their size, and it would be a far less capable force than we have now. Not to mention, there’d have to be a draft again; it would simply not be possible to do this otherwise.
2. “The half-life of the radiation is really beyond the scope of human comprehension. And this is coming from a scientist. ”
Now here you sell people short. I can assure you that I understand Bremstrahlung and external Bremstrahlung (ionizing and non-ionizing radiation) quite well; most people trained in Physics do. Half life is not beyond human comprehension by any means. And the comment is simply far too superficial in any event. Are we referring to a relatively “dirty” munition versus a relatively “clean” one? Airburst or ground burst? Enhanced radiation munition?
3. “And has a better military. ”
Oh, hell no. 50 year old MBTs, no money to even train adequately, no supplies, no spare parts? About the only remaining threat NK possesses are their arsenal of artillery, and that too is quite old and immobile. Even buried in hard-rock bunkers, air power and counter-battery can completely take them out. The caveat there is that Seoul would be pummeled until they were eliminated.
4. “We have just 27,000 troops in Korea, and over 100,000 in Europe.”
We do not, and have not for several years, had “over 100,000 in Europe.” That is simply incorrect.
The comment about China’s military versus the US’s is simply indefensible. Go back to a strictly infantry army? You are correct when you say that you have little understanding of how military forces work.
I just meant more boots and fewer toys. Not strictly infantry. The US military has NEVER been strictly infantry. Even the continental army had cavalry. (a little)
Now here you sell people short. I can assure you that I understand Bremstrahlung and external Bremstrahlung (ionizing and non-ionizing radiation) quite well; most people trained in Physics do. Half life is not beyond human comprehension by any means. And the comment is simply far too superficial in any event. Are we referring to a relatively “dirty” munition versus a relatively “clean” one? Airburst or ground burst? Enhanced radiation munition?
Sheesh. I’m talking about how a half life of say 10,000 years is really beyond the comprehension of people. That kind of radiation might as well last forever as far as the human race is concerned. Even “clean” weapons can leave areas uninhabitable for centuries. It is NOT a superficial comment. Nukes are not pragmatic weapons.
Oh, hell no. 50 year old MBTs, no money to even train adequately, no supplies, no spare parts? About the only remaining threat NK possesses are their arsenal of artillery, and that too is quite old and immobile. Even buried in hard-rock bunkers, air power and counter-battery can completely take them out. The caveat there is that Seoul would be pummeled until they were eliminated.
Okay, then an even more crazy military then. I guess technically Iran is more formidable than North Korea. None of Israel’s neighbors have a military worth a damn enough to justify the cash we send them. That’s the point.
We do not, and have not for several years, had “over 100,000 in Europe.” That is simply incorrect.
http://www.stripes.com/news/usareur-commander-wants-to-keep-40-000-american-soldiers-in-europe-1.69864
Alright; so noted. The article I looked at was from 2004. Even still, 40000 is too many in Europe. 0 sounds like a better number; they don’t need us.
OK, fair.
Look, all of those various pieces of equipment are there for a reason. The first, quite obviously, is what’s known as a “Force Multiplier,” that is to say it increases the ability of a soldier (sailor, Marine, etc.) to fight.
Without them, we would effectively be an Infantry-Heavy force. The next major war we would get into would be a debacle for us, because all other industrialized nations – and China is heavily into this – are moving more towards our current form of military, not the way you said.
In short, our forces wouldn’t just melt away, they’d burn.
I will refer you to a quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower when in command in Europe. To the effect of “I would rather throw a hell of a lot of iron at them, rather than risk the life of a single American boy.” That’s rather the point, you know? Militaries are not a simple thing, they are extraordinarily complex, and remaining ahead of any potential enemies in the weapons realm is a constant effort.
Further, we long ago made a pact with ourselves that said, “we will never be a second-class military, ever again.” Needless to say, Pearl Harbor convinced us. And why we possess so many weapons in their variety is due to a simple military dictum: “you never plan your force or mission on what you think the enemy might do, you plan according to what the enemy is capable of doing.”
Now as to “clean” nuclear weapons. No, this is not correct. Enhanced Radiation weapons allow for people to enter the affected areas quite rapidly (us Army guys were trained in this back during the Cold War in the Central Region). The radiation is short-lived. Further, an air burst at sufficient altitude will not leave much radiation either. Other than direct blast/heat effects, the actual killing mechanism are Neutrons, which would have to severely impinge on something to Actually leave any secondary radiation behind.
Iran is, frankly, far less militarily capable than North Korea. Although, I will admit, Ahmendinijad can give Kim a run for his money n the “I hear voices in my head” category.
The problem with super-elite armies is that run out of troops very quickly when you need to cover a large area.
Further, we long ago made a pact with ourselves that said, “we will never be a second-class military, ever again.” Needless to say, Pearl Harbor convinced us. And why we possess so many weapons in their variety is due to a simple military dictum: “you never plan your force or mission on what you think the enemy might do, you plan according to what the enemy is capable of doing.”
All I’m saying is that there is a lot of area between spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined and being second rate. And this policy is doing its share to break the bank.
Now as to “clean” nuclear weapons. No, this is not correct. Enhanced Radiation weapons allow for people to enter the affected areas quite rapidly (us Army guys were trained in this back during the Cold War in the Central Region). The radiation is short-lived. Further, an air burst at sufficient altitude will not leave much radiation either. Other than direct blast/heat effects, the actual killing mechanism are Neutrons, which would have to severely impinge on something to Actually leave any secondary radiation behind.
I did not know this. This might be great for us, but I don’t trust Israel and Pakistan to use clean weapons. I think thermobarics are the safest way to go.
Iran is, frankly, far less militarily capable than North Korea. Although, I will admit, Ahmendinijad can give Kim a run for his money n the “I hear voices in my head” category.
So who faces a bigger threat? Israel or South Korea? In your opinion; I’m confused by your posts.
Martel732
“Basically the French defense plan. It works for them. I personally wouldn’t mess with France.” France probably has the weakest military in the region. When I was in the USMC we called them ‘cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys’!
None of the EU nations have any military to speak of because none of them have the lift capability required to move any significant amount of hardware and/or troops into a battle zone. Most EU militaries are not good for much more than pomp & circumstance during the visits of foreign dignitaries.
Why do you think that most of the members of Bush’s ‘Collation-of the-Willing’ have non-combat roles in Iraq? They cannot be relied upon to fight, let alone fight well. This is direct result of the US taking on the defense role for Europe after WW II. Nations usually have to choose between guns & butter. Once the US agreed to stand between Europe and the Soviet Union, the EU nations concentrated solely on butter. This was the birth of the European social democracy system you are personally so enamored of.
“I don’t mind a strong military. Strong is fine. I mind an EXPENSIVE military. Strong militaries can be cheap, just look at China.” China cannot even supply a weapon to each soldier. They arm their ‘elite’ units and expect the balance to throw themselves at enemy positions as cannon fodder.
Last angry Man is correct. Advanced weapons platforms give you more punch per soldier. Would you personally want to be included in a 12 man squad of fellows, each with a semi-automatic rifle, or part of a four man fire team possessing fully automatic weapons? Actually; the entire active duty force is ‘transforming’ itself into what the Marine Corps was a generation ago. Marines are warriors first. All Marines are combat trained prior to receiving any specialized training. We don’t even have a medical detachment; we get them from the Navy. We pioneered the MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force). An MEF is a Marine Air-Ground Task Force consisting of ground, air and logistics forces capable of projecting offensive combat power ashore while sustaining itself in combat without external assistance for a period of 60 days.
A MEF consists of a total of somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 troops; the first 5,000 to 6,000 of which can be deployed anywhere on the planet within 24 hours. This is what the ‘toys’ buy you
An MEF’s could establish and hold for 60 days, a beach head on the China coast against any conventional attack they’d care to muster. Do you have any idea how much more manpower and hardware a country with the military airlift capability of the US can move in 60 days? Again, this is what the ‘toys’ buy you. Your military isn’t much good if you cannot get it to the battle space; nor does it do you much good if you can’t kick some serious ass once you arrive.
“The problem with super-elite armies is that run out of troops very quickly when you need to cover a large area.” Completely incorrect! The major problem with super-elite armies are the super-stupid politicians that deploy them. What is an army for? It is there to back up a nation’s policy with force; something the current administration is woefully ignorant of. They think a silver tongue is all that is required. The military has only two jobs; to kill people and break things. We’re not trained to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the locals, to pass out humanitarian aide, or to perform these other altruistic ‘touchy-feely’ missions that Washington assigns them. We’re paid assassins for God’s Sake!
There is no doubt in my mind that if the ROE’s (rules of engagement) in 2003 when we went into Iraq the second time read; “Sweep the country, leave nothing standing.” This whole thing would have been over before the end of the year. There wouldn’t probably be 40,000 Iraqis left alive, but the good news is the Palestinians would have had an entire country to move into. Probably would have taken another generation to rebuild it since there wouldn’t be two bricks still attached to each other either.
You really don’t have any inkling about what the true capabilities of the US military are. Between my eight years of active service and my last ten years working with the National Guard’s 39th IBCT (Infantry Brigade Combat Team); which is the Guards’ version of the MEF I can tell you unequivocally that, if unleashed, the entire complement of the US military could take the combined military might of the rest of the planet and fight them to a standstill once the gloves come off. Even then, those disparate units wouldn’t have the cohesion or coordination to pull it off and we’d probably kick all their asses anyway.
During the first Iraq war it took the US army about 12 hours to completely destroy three of the four armored brigade units the Iraq Army had. If the commanding general hadn’t called off the assault after that it would have been a 1 day roll-over. One Iraqi commander noted that they’d survived unscathed the 30 day of preparatory bombing by B-52’s prior to engagement; and then the US Army pressed the attack and we lost the entire brigade in an afternoon. We’ve gotten much better since then.
I would suggest that you confine your comments to the progressive redistributionist policies you favor and refrain from commenting in areas you obviously know nothing about.
Thank you, Bill.
Martel, I’m not always the most articulate of posters, so I apologize if my replies are a bit turgid.
Since Bill mentioned Iraq, allow me to provide you with an example of why we possess such capabilities.
Donald Rumsfeld, for all of his faults, nailed it when he said we require a “leaner, meaner” profile for the future. That kind of profile requires plentiful equipment and weapons, and yes, that does cost. Training and equipping a soldier to be the most capable in the world isn’t cheap. Nor should it be. This is hardly an area we should ever skimp on.
Consider the benefits of all of that equipment and weaponry and training. With a very lean force, we effectively destroyed the Iraqi Army – and it was, even in 2003, still a very competent force – in approximately two weeks. That is, by any historical standards, astounding. And we did it without staggering casualties.
Now consider if we’d conducted the same operation with some vast conscript army of teenage infantrymen. The results, while undoubtably still ending in the Iraqi army’s defeat, would have cost us several times the killed or wounded we did sustain. Were you a soldier, which would you prefer?
Bill mentioned how much we can transport and support, around the world. This too is a part of the capabilities all of that money buys. Necessary capabilities, if one wishes to participate in events on a world stage.
Why should we participate around the world, you seem to be saying? Why the cost, the effort?
I agree, we could alter the fundamental nature of our military forces, withdraw behind our shores, and simply defend ourselves adequately. We would also be a very different nation if we were to do so. What that nation would be, I can’t say, but it would certainly be a far poorer one, with no ability to affect world events that may come storming onto our shores.
One thing so many people ignore is that, frankly, much of the rest of the world is a screaming craphole (as with Bill, I am an Army veteran, and I have some concept of whereof I speak).
It is willful self-delusion on the part of American citizens to pretend otherwise. Regrettably, so many do think otherwise, believing that everyone else in the world is merely some foreign version of themselves, and that calm, rational dialogue and “empathy” will always resolve differences.
Martell, all of this truly reduces down to the apocryphal story of the meeting between a radical peace activist and a serving general. They meet at a cocktail party and hit it off. The general politely listens out the activist about how wonderful a world without hate or wars or killing would be. How all of the resources we have squandered could for once be applied to better, more positive thing. No more armies, no more war!
The general responds simply that while this is a fine vision of the future – and that as a soldier, he more than anyone else, would love to see the world be such a place. But, he also notes, the problems is thus: if the general is wrong about the future, all we did was spend some money we didn’t have to; if the activist was wrong, we’re all dead.
None of the EU nations have any military to speak of because none of them have the lift capability required to move any significant amount of hardware and/or troops into a battle zone. Most EU militaries are not good for much more than pomp & circumstance during the visits of foreign dignitaries.
Yes, but that’s why their military budgets are small. They don’t see the need to move hardware/troops into a battle zone. That’s not where the modern battles are being fought. They are being fought on the Chinese and New York stock exchanges.
“Sweep the country, leave nothing standing.”
That’s never going to be mission anymore and you know it.
I can tell you unequivocally that, if unleashed, the entire complement of the US military could take the combined military might of the rest of the planet and fight them to a standstill once the gloves come off.
Yes, I know that. They better be able to, for how much they cost. Why is it necessary to have this capability again? The Soviet Union is toast.
I would suggest that you confine your comments to the progressive redistributionist policies you favor and refrain from commenting in areas you obviously know nothing about.
Why? Why is the subject sacrosanct? Either impose mandatory military service for all or deal with it, because civilians need to have input on the military as well.
I do know the US military can end the world as we know with nuclear weapons. I just don’t see how this helps us, either. Again, I see a huge expense with very little return.
The general responds simply that while this is a fine vision of the future – and that as a soldier, he more than anyone else, would love to see the world be such a place. But, he also notes, the problems is thus: if the general is wrong about the future, all we did was spend some money we didn’t have to; if the activist was wrong, we’re all dead.
I didn’t say no military. I just think its foolish to spend so much money on it.
I agree, we could alter the fundamental nature of our military forces, withdraw behind our shores, and simply defend ourselves adequately. We would also be a very different nation if we were to do so. What that nation would be, I can’t say, but it would certainly be a far poorer one, with no ability to affect world events that may come storming onto our shores.
Why would the actual nation be different? I don’t understand this. Poorer financially or poorer in general?
I just don’t see how participating on the world stage at this juncture is actually benefiting the nation as a whole. It just seems expensive and fruitless. This policy actually seemed to work out quite well for us when it was the standard.
You know, reading this over again, I think there are two completely different issues here, and this phrase summarizes them.
The military has only two jobs; to kill people and break things. We’re not trained to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the locals, to pass out humanitarian aide, or to perform these other altruistic ‘touchy-feely’ missions that Washington assigns them. We’re paid assassins for God’s Sake!
I never, ever questioned the US military’s ability to kill people and break things. And I was quite aware of almost everything in your post before you posted it. In fact, it is because I realize how strong the military is that I feel it could easily stand to scaled by considerably from a budget standpoint. Why pay for a force multiplier of 200X when 75X might do?
But the reality is that the military IS being used for more than to just kill things and break stuff. However, as you pointed out, breaking stuff is what they are hyper-specialized for.
These kinds of non-total war missions are not going to stop anytime soon. We are more and more engaging in “force our will upon nation X” missions than “destroy everything” missions. I am well aware of the enormous force multipliers our military enjoys. They are truly unprecedented in human history. However, this advantage is less useful in an occupation situation, where the majority of the killing has ceased. For this, sheer numbers has no substitute.
So should military training be adjusted for this? I’m not too sure that’s a good idea.
Or perhaps the “kill stuff” military needs to be vastly down-sized and another agency created. One to take care of ops that the kick ass military is not designed for. I’m not too sure here either.
So the issue of how kick ass the military is is completely disjointed from the job that it actually being asked to do. And I still maintain that the price tag it far too high for such an admittedly hyper-specialized entity.
Even then, those disparate units wouldn’t have the cohesion or coordination to pull it off and we’d probably kick all their asses anyway.
Well, until the nukes came out and then everyone loses.
I really don’t understand the fascination with kicking ass. Military solutions have their place, but they must be employed very judiciously, and are often not the most effective solution.
Of course, I understand you were not saying no more military, you were questioning if fundamental changes were needed.
You raise an argument that actually has been underway since 2003. That what are essentially highly trained killing machines must try to be nation-builders, which is far outside of their expertise and mission (of course, our troops in OIF and OEF have done so admirably nevertheless).
The answer to that is we need more light Infantry, MPs, and perhaps more Special Operations Forces. Not a separate and redundant new organization. And in any event, were we to add these, it wouldn’t obviate one whit the necessity for the heavy forces to do the fighting. We still do and have looming on the horizon a plethora of nations who have strong militaries, or are heading that way in the near future – and don’t like us much.
A point is that to create these forces means not shrinking the size of the military, but expanding it. I agree. Adding a better capability in this regard is a good thing, but won’t shrink the size of the force we already have, which is planned to be that size and disposition.
And it’s important to realize that if we’re creating that kind of capability, we’re also tacitly acknowledging that we will (in the near future) require it, e.g. future occupations of other nations.
One thing, by the way: you said, “We are more and more engaging in “force our will upon nation X” missions than “destroy everything” missions.
Forcing one’s will onto an enemy force or nation is the sole purpose of any military force.
Of course, I understand you were not saying no more military, you were questioning if fundamental changes were needed.
That’s all I’m saying. I’d still have M1A2 tanks, but not as many, because there is a lack of quality targets. Not to mention quality bridges for them to cross.
You raise an argument that actually has been underway since 2003. That what are essentially highly trained killing machines must try to be nation-builders, which is far outside of their expertise and mission (of course, our troops in OIF and OEF have done so admirably nevertheless).
I personally would not ask the military to do this. I don’t if the brass in the military likes these kinds of missions or not. It is outside their exact expertise, but it gives them a reason to keep getting big budgets.
Forcing one’s will onto an enemy force or nation is the sole purpose of any military force
I completely agree with this, but that is much broader than Mr. Wavering’s job description and I didn’t want to be that directly contradictory.
Many times in the past, our will has been total war, but that is being more and more rare. This period is beginning to remind me of the period between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI.
We still do and have looming on the horizon a plethora of nations who have strong militaries, or are heading that way in the near future – and don’t like us much.
I agree, but I think economic warfare with the likes of China and Iran may be more crippling to them and more beneficial to us than shooting warfare. The only way to keep any military edge is to keep an economic edge. I see this edge slipping badly.
The answer to that is we need more light Infantry, MPs, and perhaps more Special Operations Forces.
Yes! Light infantry. That’s the word is was looking for. China has ton of these guys. They are great for after the real nasty battalions tear through an area. (like what Mr. Wavering was talking about)Light infantry is perfect for suppression (if you are the US)/repression (if you are China) duty.
So you could have like 2 or 3 light divisions for every heavy division. And draftees make good candidates for the light infantry. The ones that like the military could be encouraged to join the more elite, heavily-equipped divisions, and the ones that don’t serve their time and go home. None of that stop loss crap.
Of course, you wouldn’t give the draftee guys in the light divisions the same kind of perks because the whole point is to keep costs down. So you wouldn’t get college money or anything unless you “graduated” to the “techno-army” heavy divisions.
True leftists love this kind of set up, because then everyone is contributing something other than just taxes for all the services the government provides. Again, I mentioned that I would be thrown out of a Democratic caucus.
And it’s important to realize that if we’re creating that kind of capability, we’re also tacitly acknowledging that we will (in the near future) require it, e.g. future occupations of other nations.
Yeah, I’m still not convinced that occupying third world hellholes is worth the price tag, but maybe a compromise situation would be to reduce the cost of said occupation.
The thing is, we actually DO possess these light forces, but not in sufficient numbers for protracted occupations. Well, unless we were to mobilize 100% of our reserves.
For that matter, we actually have not sufficient forces period. Which is why the plan was to add several tens of thousands to the Army and Marines (who, of course, bear the brunt of the fighting). And these are light forces – increases in the three combat arms I mentioned.
So we’re actually having to go the opposite direction: not shrinking/economizing the military, we’re increasing it’s size.
For that matter, we actually have not sufficient forces period. Which is why the plan was to add several tens of thousands to the Army and Marines (who, of course, bear the brunt of the fighting). And these are light forces – increases in the three combat arms I mentioned.
If that’s the plan, that’s a start. But that’s a lot of professional soldiers. Not to mention the contractors that support them. I’m not sure when they decided to start using these contractors, but it was a very bad idea, because they cost super $$.
So we’re actually having to go the opposite direction: not shrinking/economizing the military, we’re increasing it’s size.
Again, the size is not the issue. Bigger is certainly better; fewer rotations for individuals, more area covered, etc.
However, professional soldiers, while best in quality, are very expensive. Contractors are even worse. I really think the US really hosed itself when it gave up on the idea of the citizen-soldier. So, yeah, getting rid the draft was a bad idea.
The equipment is an entirely different issue. We are almost going back to the days of Marlborough, when the armies were so expensive to equip, no one could afford to actually field one and take losses without bankruptcy soon following.
Well, on the matter of sheer cost, one particular dictum that’s important to remember is, “there is nothing more expensive – and useless – than the world’s second-best Army.”
Well, on the matter of sheer cost, one particular dictum that’s important to remember is, “there is nothing more expensive – and useless – than the world’s second-best Army.”
I’m not so sure about that. Being number two is fantastic as long as you never face #1. It’s even better to be #1′s ally. This, however, is rare.
It also works fine if say #4, #5, and #7 are your buddies. The #1 slot is really only for those nations who suck at diplomacy. What does this say about us? It is REALLY expensive to go it alone. So you better make sure you are getting a worthwhile result.
If you think about it, it has been a while since the side that STARTED with the #1 army or better army actually won a war.
We lost in Vietnam, drew in Korea, the Germans lost WWII, the Germans lost WWI, the Confederacy lost the Civil War, Napoleon lost the Napoleonic Wars, and Britain lost the Revolutionary War. Oh yeah, the “superior” armies lost in the Crimean War as well. And the “superior” Mexican army lost to the US in the Mexican-American War.
Exceptions to this would be the Franco-Prussian War and the Spanish-American War. I’m not sure I like those odds.
Besides, even if we can kick everyone’s ass at once, why would we want to? What does this gain us? No one else seems to be playing this game anymore.
The huge military is not stopping the rise of Asia economically and has not stopped the further slide of American purchasing power. Has anyone ever stopped to think that China could be playing us like fools on this?
If our intention is to say, outspend China 3:1 or 5:1 on military, they can intentionally build up their military without the intent of ever using it just to get us to spend money we don’t have. All they have to do is sit there and LOOK scary and actually do nothing.
Does this sound familiar? It should, because its what we did to the Soviet Union. And you see where they are today.
There is a concept in naval terms, at least, of fleet-in-being. Just having a fleet of sufficient level X means that for an opposing navy to beat you that must have say a level of 2.5X. If 2.5X navies either either too expensive or not a possessed by a conceivable foe, then a fleet in being is just fine.
Extending this idea, any major power with a real army has to factor nuclear weapons into the mix. Nuclear weapons are what really make the super-conventional army look a bit dated. Look at how well NATO handled the super-conventional army of the Warsaw pact by hiding behind the wall of nukes. Similarly, the super-conventional army is of limited use against powers like Russia and China because of the mere existence of nuclear weapons.
Nations without nukes are extremely vulnerable to the super-conventional military. I submit the rofl stomping of Iraq in 1990-1991. This is why jokers like Iran are so desperate to get the bomb, in my opinion. At least, if I were them, I would just sit on it for deterrence, not actually use it on Israel.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we don’t need so much uber high-end gear to beat down nations that can’t even build a 1945 nuclear bomb. The uber high-end gear is never to be used against the targets it was intended for, because of nuclear weapons. So the result is a lot of mud huts destroyed by expensive cruise missiles. Made by Japan, of course.
“Look at how well NATO handled the super-conventional army of the Warsaw pact by hiding behind the wall of nukes. Similarly, the super-conventional army is of limited use against powers like Russia and China because of the mere existence of nuclear weapons.”
That’s more than superficial, as NATO undertook vigorous efforts to make their conventional abilities much stronger during 1977-1985 – the specific point being that the all/nothing nuke options wasn’t a terribly good one, and that a strong conventional force would be able to handle a conflict without resorting to nukes.
And here’s the actual prof of that: when we took on Saddam in Desert Storm, we simply outclassed and pounded flat the Iraqis in short order. The Russian Generals were aghast – inasmuch as Iraq was a Russian style army, from C3I to equipment to doctrine.
They realized that it was actually a really good thing that they hadn’t gone for broke in the Central Region of Germany, as their forces were merely a larger version of the Iraqi – and they saw what they got.
Frankly, if they had done so in say, 1985, it would have been the Soviets having to seriously consider the nuclear option – not NATO.
That’s more than superficial, as NATO undertook vigorous efforts to make their conventional abilities much stronger during 1977-1985 – the specific point being that the all/nothing nuke options wasn’t a terribly good one, and that a strong conventional force would be able to handle a conflict without resorting to nukes.
All or nothing nuke options work great against nations with something to lose. Also, you still can’t use the conventional force to “handle” a nuclear power.
Okay, Soviets of the 1970s then. By the 1980s they had serious, serious problems. But the point is is that they did have the nukes to fall back on.
So who did our conventional superiority help then? We still couldn’t BEAT the Soviet Union militarily without getting fragged ourselves. Kuwait? I guess they made out like a bandit. I don’t see how we got any benefit out of this equation.
Martel732
Spent the weekend putting up hay. I love country living! Anyway; looks as if we still have some work to do.
“Yes, but that’s why their military budgets are small. They don’t see the need to move hardware/troops into a battle zone.” NO their military budgets are small because we took over the defense role for Europe after WW II and they decided a military that was actually ‘functional’ wasn’t a requirement any longer.
“Sweep the country, leave nothing standing.” “That’s never going to be mission anymore and you know it.” Only until 2012. I wouldn’t care to place any bets on what a future military mission might or might not be
“Why? Why is the subject sacrosanct? Either impose mandatory military service for all or deal with it, because civilians need to have input on the military as well.” Carry all the personal opinion you want. This is The US. Most people unlike yourself, seem to temper such ability with a little fact checking first. I apologize I forgot exactly whom I was dealing with; facts mean nothing to progressives.
“…is because I realize how strong the military is that I feel it could easily stand to scaled by considerably from a budget standpoint. Why pay for a force multiplier of 200X when 75X might do?” This didn’t happen when I was serving, nor should it happen now. You don’t send your best and brightest off to do the best they can; you send them off to win. You give them every opportunity to survive at the ‘sharp end’ that you can engineer.
It is a most difficult proposition; surviving the battle space. You literally have to lay aside EVERYTHING you were ever taught; by your parents, your teachers, your pastors, your past relationships. If you cannot successfully assume the persona of the dispassionate killer and be actively seeking the next target as the former is still falling, you may not come home. You kill, and kill, and kill again; acting against every influence you were ever exposed to. Live under that type of awareness for 13 months, then return to the world and shut off the switch and go back to being sheeple. You may learn to act the part, but you’ll never turn it off, trust me.
“Again, I see a huge expense with very little return.” Really? How about the very country and all its freedoms you wake up into each and every day? Being able to bitch about your work hours, lousy salary, uphill educational battle, and not having enough ‘free’ stuff provided for the payroll tax you have to pay. Wringing your hands over global warming, the cost of gas, and all those idiots that still; oh my God, use incandescent light bulbs.
I’ve watched two men beat the crap out of each other in order to discover which of their families will have the privilege of spending the night in the refrigerator carton they were fighting over. I’ve seen children, deliberately mutilated by their parents, because they thought the visible injury might draw a few more donations in the begging cup. I’ve seen parents sell their twelve year old daughters to some pimp for the equivalent of $100. I saw a security officer shoot an eight year old boy in the head, in a crowded market, because he stole a sailor’s watch. He calmly picked up the watch out of the bloody mess, brought it back to the swabbie that was busy throwing up against a wall, and expected a tip for returning the watch as other people just stepped over the young man’s body. You have no idea just how cheap life is in practically every other country on earth. You think your life is so tough, and your opinions so ‘informed’.
“Military solutions have their place, but they must be employed very judiciously, and are often not the most effective solution.” How could you even know? You’ve never witnessed a 100% military solution carried through and witnessed its effectiveness. Believe me Vietnam, Bosnia, two Iraq wars, and Afghanistan. None is an example of an effective military solution because the military entered each conflict with ankle chains and one hand tied behind their backs.
“However, professional soldiers, while best in quality, are very expensive. Contractors are even worse. I really think the US really hosed itself when it gave up on the idea of the citizen-soldier. So, yeah, getting rid the draft was a bad idea.”
First about those contractors. This is part of the ongoing ‘leaner’ military. You hire people to cook, you don’t’ train military cooks. You hire people to drive forklifts; you don’t use military manpower to do that. Military people fight, that’s what they so. Second, getting rid of the draft was exactly the correct thing to do. The last thing you want when it drops in the pot is a person who is not committed a person that doesn’t want to be there. I’m not placing my life in the hands of someone that might say “screw this’ and take off in the opposite direction leaving my flank open. An all volunteer force eliminates a lot of that although not all. There are still a couple that sign up for the benefits, but renege on the oath once they get their orders.
“…one particular dictum that’s important to remember is, “there is nothing more expensive – and useless – than the world’s second-best Army.” Once again, I want to reference the first Iraq War. When Bush senior gave the green light for the Army to begin its advance, Saddam Hussein started that day with the world’s fourth largest army; before sundown he wasn’t even in the top twenty any longer. The world’s second largest Army is super-effective; as long as it picks fights with everyone except the country that owns to first most effective one. You don’t’ judge an Army by sheer size, you judge by effectiveness. China’s Army is much larger than ours. They mount 3.4 million, we mount 1.4 million. In a ‘full-on’ no-holds-barred engagement (the type you say would never happen) the difference in effectiveness of the two forces would fall in our favor about 50:1. That means we’d take 68,000 causalities; they, on the other hand, would be done. No men left, squanto.
You have no idea just how cheap life is in practically every other country on earth.
Life isn’t cheap here? It’s just cheap in a different kind of way. Abortions, the ever-increasing American work week, the almost complete lack of mental health awareness and resources, and the utter depraved indifference of the American corporate structure all serve to cheapen American life.
No, I’m quite aware of living standards of practically every nation on earth. That’s how I know how people live in the dreaded “socialist nations”. It would be silly to not be aware of this. Some nations are truly impoverished (pick an African nation), others bring it on themselves through crazy power structures. (Iran)Other are up and comers (Brazil, China) I find that good decision making usually trumps actual government implementation.
Really? How about the very country and all its freedoms you wake up into each and every day? Being able to bitch about your work hours, lousy salary, uphill educational battle, and not having enough ‘free’ stuff provided for the payroll tax you have to pay. Wringing your hands over global warming, the cost of gas, and all those idiots that still; oh my God, use incandescent light bulbs.
You would propose that the modern US military somehow keeps this all at bay. Yet, there are many nations that enjoy a comparable standard of living to ours and also have a paltry military budget. How does say, Australia get away with a minimal military? Do we protect all these other nations? I don’t see this as the case. Also, protect them from whom exactly again?
Also, the US seemed to do just fine with a minimal military between the Civil War and WWII. In fact, those were actually our most industrious years. Were there no “bad guy” nations back then?
Yes, combat is hard to survive; I get all that. No one is questioning your ability, the Marines’ abilities, how hard the job is, or anything like that. I’m questioning whether being able to set up a 6000 man beachhead in 24 hours is NECESSARY and worth the expense.
You’ve never witnessed a 100% military solution carried through and witnessed its effectiveness.
I’ve read about them; and I have a vivid imagination. Even a civilian can learn a lot about the use of military force by learning from history. The instances you are looking for are the Roman destruction of Carthage and the Nazi extermination of Jews. Those are 100% military solutions. Well Rome tried economy first, but they were unsuccessful. You get the idea.
100% military solutions are rare throughout history indeed. War is usually a mix of military, political, and economic factors. Often, both sides have used terms of engagement to limit the damage to the losing side. Because its never 100% for certain who is going to win. Get used to handcuffs and ankle cuffs; that’s the way war is usually fought, with rare exception.
You think your life is so tough, and your opinions so ‘informed’.
Tough? Maybe not. But everything is relative. Using the misery in other nations to justify injustice in rich nations doesn’t work. The US and the Western world have completely different standards compared to these places you bring up. So compared to someone in Norway, I think my life is very tough. Compared to Zimbabwe, not so much.
This is part of the ongoing ‘leaner’ military.
It’s not leaner. The contractors are even more expensive. I would much rather have draftees in the military to do these jobs than contractors.
The last thing you want when it drops in the pot is a person who is not committed a person that doesn’t want to be there. I’m not placing my life in the hands of someone that might say “screw this’ and take off in the opposite direction leaving my flank open.
That’s funny, a draft army defeated and stymied the last real threats the US faced in WWII and Korea. Let’s see, they fought Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Red China.
And another thing, American soldiers in WWII were easy to make retreat but hard to BREAK. There’s a big difference. This particular trait actually caused the Germans fits because they kept running into the same units over and over, after they thought they had beaten them. It also kept casualties down.
Do not underestimate draftee armies. Granted, I’m not sure what you would get from modern America, but in the past, there have been MANY kick ass draftee armies.
You don’t’ judge an Army by sheer size, you judge by effectiveness.
No shit, sherlock. Do I need to describe in grim detail how 2000 Swedish troops were able to defeat Catholic mercenary armies of 20000? It was done by a guy named Gustavus Adolphus. You, know, the guy who invented the regiment.
They mount 3.4 million, we mount 1.4 million. In a ‘full-on’ no-holds-barred engagement (the type you say would never happen) the difference in effectiveness of the two forces would fall in our favor about 50:1.
So why don’t we go kick their ass and be done with it? Oh yeah, those pesky nuke things again. So how exactly is our 50:1 kill ratio helping us now? And you wonder why I think China is rope-a-doping us on military spending. It’s not like we just didn’t get done doing the same thing to the Soviet Union. In fact, I bet there were people in the Soviet Union offering the exact same arguments.
It may be hard for you to see, but the military is not the end-all be-all. You act almost as if the state’s sole purpose is to support a military. This is called a military dictatorship; these are generally not very successful. A military has an important place in the total arsenal of a nation, but it is only a component. History is borne this out time and time again.
The Germans had the superior military in WWI, but horrible public relations and intelligence, and so the Brits were able to get the US to help them defeat a force they themselves couldn’t beat.
Therefore, I still question the policy of outspending the world on military spending; and I always will unless somehow we end up at war with the entire world. So far all I see are wars with nations that could be beaten by a far weaker military than the one we employ.
I had a reply, but perhaps we should just call it quits on this.
NOW it lets me post.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander, IC Politics. IC Politics said: The Jewish State Under Siege: Angry demonstrators fire back. As the world continues to demonize Israel for her ro… http://bit.ly/9Hb3sc [...]