Fewer Voters Believe U.S. Troops Sent Into Harm’s Way Too Often

Rasmussen Reports ^ | January 03, 2019 | Rasmussen Reports

[ImpBill]

Here is a topic we are in complete agreement.

Spending even one life in combat to maintain a status quo should be a crime punishable by death of the politicians who want to do so.

So many have paid the ultimate price in war’s without victory. In fact every war since WWII has ended in a draw at best. And coincidentally it was the last war we engaged in though adherence to our Constitution.

[Openurmind]

Yep. As soon as I read it I called BS. Just here on the FR there has been a huge swing in the last two years. Good... Common sense for a change. Just as we are still paying for Vietnam and Korea, our great Grandchildren will still be paying for these.

[Openurmind]

Yep... It’s just that plain and simple.

[nathanbedford]

I take your point entirely and I agree with its entirely. What follows is not a quibble.

Our framers were learned men well acquainted with the classics who fully understood what happened when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. So they gave us civilian control of the military and to further ensure that concept we enacted legislation known as posse comitatus.

But you ask the deeper question, why are our foreign entanglements so cavalierly undertaken and so difficult to extricate from? Clearly, it is just as difficult to get out as it is to frame an order of battle while we are in, and order designed to accomplish the very purpose of the incursion in the first place. Why is mission creep such a prevalent virus even as our rules of engagement become more anemic? Why do our leaders lie to our people and even to themselves about whether we are succeeding or failing in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq?

My belief is that we have to analyze these failings from the bottom up rather than complain of the symptoms. Is it to be forgotten that academia reacted to the gravest foreign attack on the American homeland since the war of 1812 by blaming America for 9/11? We contracted amnesia over Korea, shattered the country over Vietnam, and undermined every war since World War II. We are in fact a divided nation not just about what the proper course of action for our country might be but whether in fact we have a proper country. The postmodern American left does not believe in American exceptionalism. In fact it is worse than that, the left does not believe that America deserves to prosper as a functioning democracy much less prevail in foreign conflicts. In the face of this division, it is hopeless to expect our politicians to rise above demagoguery and it is unfair to ask our generals to solve a problem in the face of the enemy which rots at the core of the country.

So we deal with symptoms.

I must be careful about casting the first stone on this issue, I was flat wrong about the war in Iraq and had to recant in a mea culpa vanity for my support of that ill-conceived war. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are in a race against time and the immutable laws of economics which dictate that if we do not get our fiscal house in order it will not matter where we locate troops, or what sort of sophisticated weapons we develop, the disintegration at home will wipe everything away. We cannot get our fiscal house in order until we get our moral house in order for our budgets, like our rules of engagement, are merely another expression of the same moral malaise.

The problem which terrorists understand and seek to exploit is a moral one. Benjamin Franklin got it right in 1776 when he said, "if we do not hang together we most assuredly will hang separately." This country is not hanging together.

[grumpygresh]

“I was flat wrong about the war in Iraq and had to recant in a mea culpa vanity for my support of that ill-conceived.”

Same here. Probably like most people here, I voted for the bushies, mittens and mclame. We bought the lies fed to us by our globalist uniparty leaders of supposed existential threats from eternally quarrelsome far flung regimes. We viewed George Washington’s admonition against entangling alliances as naive, quaint and outdated. Madison’s warning that a powerful military abroad could eventually be used at home was unpatriotic. Eisenhower’s military industrial complex speech was paranoid.

We do need a strong defense. We need emp hardening, a border wall. Troops should be deployed at the border, and we need a strong rapid response force to oppose China and Russia. Right now, our forces are dispersed and overextended. We are sitting ducks.

[familyop]

"I have a question.

Why are overseas deployments of US troops always open ended, no withdrawal date and with constantly escalating mission requirement but US troops deployed ( not very often) to our own southern border are always small in number, defined limited mission, and have fixed withdrawal dates?

WHY?"

I doubt we'll convince our military forces to set an end date for U.S. participation in any particular war overseas. They would laugh at any suggestion of a deadline.

For enough soldiers to secure the southern border without good obstacles (like the mighty fine fence), the cost for each year would be monstrous (trillions of dollars for two divisions). On cost, for example, there is about one-eighth of a division of troops in Syria now. But in regards to the border, with the fence and other non-human security measures completed, the Border Patrol could do it just fine at far lower cost per year.

[familyop]

There are also the legal restrictions for the Trump Administration against keeping regular Army soldiers on the southern border for long (”emergency,” etc.). The Democrats and some Republicans will put up a really ugly fight against that. We can’t afford to lose Republican cohesion, which loss would allow the Democrats to win elections.

I think the Trump Administration is doing the best that they can.

[central_va]

There are also the legal restrictions for the Trump Administration against keeping regular Army soldiers on the southern border

That is a huge myth.

Those who invoke Posse Comitatus as a reason not to defend our border do so because they're looking for an excuse not to defend the border at all. Their claims are based on a complete distortion of what Posse Comitatus means (i.e. not using the military as a police force). It's just as specious an argument as the idiotic refrain we keep on hearing about illegal immigrants: "Well, we can't deport them all [so why bother deporting any of them]."

[central_va]

For enough soldiers to secure the southern border without good obstacles (like the mighty fine fence), the cost for each year would be monstrous (trillions of dollars for two divisions).

O bull crap. There are two division in the USA now sitting on their butts now.

You missed my other point also. I am not criticizing the open ended arrangement for overseas deployment. I am criticizing the border deployments as half hearted and as such, they always have a fixed end date. There should be a permanent Army presence on the border. Regular Army. The DoD is not out friend any more. They leadership is definitely Deep State™.

[familyop]

"There should be a permanent Army presence on the border. Regular Army. The DoD is not out friend any more. They leadership is definitely Deep State™."

I read that contradiction as a joke.

[central_va]

What is the contradiction? DoD must be brought to heel. The Generals and Admirals are not going to like it but they WILL defend our border or they will be cut off from the money supply. Notice how important money was to Mattis. Not the border, not anything else. It was all about the budget.