I Don't Owe the Military Anything

Lewrockwell.com ^ | January 29, 2004 | Brad Edmonds

[dixiepatriot]

I Don't Owe the Military Anything

by Brad Edmonds

I get impassioned emails from readers who are military veterans or relatives of military veterans, saying, in essence, "You go ahead and say your terrible things. The men and women of the armed forces will continue risking their lives to defend your right to say it." These readers claim that the only reason I'm free to say the things I do, and the reason I owe the military all sorts of my money, is because the military has for 200 years defended my freedom all over the world.

I say, Hogwash!

First, let me distinguish between "the military" and "the men and women." The "military" is the administrative unit that constitutes the careers of millions in the US, and gobbles up a huge chunk of our federal budget. The "men and women" are individuals, all of whom entered the military for personal reasons. Such people are often honorable individuals. My father served 25 years in the Air Force, running accounting and finance operations, and was so successful that even as a lowly major, two- and three-star generals sought his advice and ignored his bosses. Yes, I'm proud of my dad, and of his record.

I still don't owe the military anything, and my case is based on two facts: (1) That these men and women served does not create a positive obligation on my part to pay for their medical care or anything else (it is dishonorable, by the way, when women are involved in any way in combat; chivalrous men would not have women serve except in administrative and medical positions, far away from combat). (2) The military has failed in its duty to protect our freedoms.

With regard to (1): Most, probably nearly all, in the military entered for personal reasons, not just to "protect our freedoms." I entered the CIA for adventure, an income, and federal benefits. This would apply to most, particularly those in the most dangerous and glorified jobs (Seals, Rangers, etc.). I did not ask these people to serve, just as nobody asked me to serve in the CIA; and the only people whose report of self-sacrifice I believe are those who accept salaries far below their potentials. How many Wharton MBA or Harvard law graduates run to the military? I'm prepared to accept the self-sacrifice testimony of careerists in the Salvation Army and the YMCA. Anyone else enjoys too many personal benefits for me to accept much of the "selfless" claim.

With regard to (2), I have three questions:

If the military is supposed to be defending our freedoms in the US, why is all the action in other countries? The only foreign action the US has seen is Pearl Harbor, into which the Japanese were goaded by FDR with his full knowledge and intent, as has been declassified only recently; and 9/11, which was most plausibly retaliation for 40 years of bombing women and children in the Middle East. I would be more willing to believe that the military was about defending our freedoms if they would limit themselves to defending our borders, and if they would do so successfully. Remember, on 9/11, the military couldn't even defend the Pentagon.

It is much more plausible that the military is merely a tool for Congress and the White House to enact their foreign-policy desires. "Defending American interests abroad" explains the last 200 years far better than "defending freedoms at home." Unfortunately, Congress and the White House lost track of the fact that entangling alliances with none, and free trade with all, furthers individual Americans' interests more successfully than the policy we've embraced since Jefferson: Entangling alliances with whomever, free trade only with those with whom we have entangling alliances.

Second question: If the military has done such a great job of defending our freedoms at home, why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? Wasn't the Department of Defense supposed to provide defense? Instead, the Department of Fatherland Defense is an open, if unwitting, admission that the Department of Defense is in reality the Department of Offense, going abroad to force Congressional and White House foreign policy on whomever they want, whether the foreign party is willing or not. Just as one example: Hussein is accused of killing some 185,000 of his own countrymen. The Sudan is accused of killing perhaps 2 million. Why select Hussein for regime change? The 9/11 connection and WMDs (the only ones of which Hussein ever had he was given by the US to begin with) have both proven false. Oil interests are a much more plausible explanation.

Finally, if the military were doing such a great job of defending our freedom, why do we have so much less of it than we had in 1787? In 1865? In 1912? In 1932? In 1960? Our freedoms, particularly our property rights (specifically, our right to our own earnings) have been eroded dramatically. Our tax burden, approaching 50% for those of us who pay taxes, is monstrously larger than it was in each of those other years. The military has done nothing to keep Congress and the White House from treating us as chattel slaves. Again, that the military exists for the benefit of the White House and members of Congress explains military events and outcomes of the last 200 years far better than "defending our freedom" does.

An additional note: It is by this point uncontroversial that our freedoms would have been better defended without a standing military. The founders knew it; and Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto knew it, saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." He didn't say you should not, or that it would be costly or difficult. He said "you cannot." The gun rights we had then have only been eroded since, hence the military has done nothing for the real power of the US to defend itself.

I'm sorry that so many honorable military men and women have been misled. I'm sorry that so many believe they fought for our freedoms. I'm sorry that a smaller, but significant, percentage of those believe that I personally owe them an involuntarily-taken chunk of my income. Morally, I do not owe them this. I did not ask them to do what they did; they already have been, and are being, paid; I believe my freedom has only been eroded, not enhanced, by their presence; and I believe my actual personal safety is more threatened by their existence, not less, as a result of how they have been used by Congress and the White House.

I don't idolize, but I do admire those 99% of the members of the armed forces who have served honorably. But I owe them nothing.

January 29, 2004

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds177.html

[Squantos]

Agree... just one more free thinkin dipsh*t turdburgler clearing his flatulence flute chute for money. What is Lew Rockwell .com ...... Was the painter a seditious SOB that would promote such as this ? Or just some losers that use the name ??

Stay Safe !

[snippy_about_it]

Thanks for the ping Colonel. These readers claim that the only reason I'm free to say the things I do, and the reason I owe the military all sorts of my money, is because the military has for 200 years defended my freedom all over the world. I say Hogwash.

I have a word for this writer but we're not allowed to call names on FR, especially if we are using "foul" language. I'll just say this guy doesn't understand history.

[StarCMC]

If the military is supposed to be defending our freedoms in the US, why is all the action in other countries?

Because you idiot, it's a lot nicer for our people if we take the fight to the bully than let him bring it to us. Would you prefer another 9-11? Ok, I'm so ticked I couldn't read past his first point.

[StarCMC]

You all wanna weigh in here??

[Old Sarge]

I could care less any more about all of these anti-military FReepers. I can't fight them anymore than I can change their minds. They will continue to give us articles and make posts like these, and there's nothing we can do.

Not worth my comment anymore. Don't ping me to these threads again.

[Richard Axtell]

I have nothing more to say to Brad Edmonds, other than "get out". You do not belong here. You do not deserve to remain in this country one more day. Get out. Leave. Vacate. You are not worthy of licking the boots of the lowliest buck private in the US Army. Get out!

[W5X]

The military has not protected us? Your right! The Central Intelligence Agency is RESPONSIBLE for FOREIGN threats, advises the boss, boss tells the JCS to get the military into action should the threat deem like force. So you were in the CIA? Don't you mean YOU failed by not protecting us? I really don't blame you for nobody can stop all threats that are out there to our nation. I just wish you could understand we (the military) cannot either.

You are correct, you don't owe the military a thing other than your tax dollars. If you hate that then I'm sure Al Queda is willing to take you. "Provide for the common defense..." You don't like it, I don't care, just pay your taxes and if you really have that much of a heartache about it then just renounce your citizenship and move off to one of the poor countries you think we as Americans muscle around. I'm sure they would love a former CIA guy to keep them up to date.

I appreciate your admiration for the American G.I., but I'll be sure to NOT tell the twenty year old kid I just evacuated that there are Americans who don't feel they should have to "pick up the bill" for the leg he lost on a raid. I'll be sure to NOT tell him some Americans who sleep safe tonight EXPECT him to die or be wounded for doing a job "they" never asked him to do. Mr. CIA man I think you are NOT the man you say you are or you are an ingrate! I think the CIA should seriously consider deporting you to a country that REALLY hates Americans so you can feel what it is like. If you are who you say you are I must say you strike me as the office water boy, NOT any form of a field agent. Before you go and say "I never said I was a field agent..." Remember this; Unless you have been in the field you are an Armchair Warrior and I think that is the case here.
Oh, did you receive any health care while you spent time in the CIA? I'm pretty sure you did for the CIA, FBI, NSA & DOD all have similar health care. You James Bond are the pot calling the kettle black. You have every right to speak your mind, but be more intelligent next time and NOT include your bio. You sound like a guy who is ashamed of all that is American.
I leave it at this for my sand bagged bunker/ home is calling my name. It has been a day of flying evac missions and our camp has already been mortared once tonight.

Sleep safe tonight CIA man for the United States Military has got your back, wish you had ours.

-Ba'Qubah, Iraq - -

[Abe Froman]

Yeah that's a great quote by Jessup, ironically used as a defense in tyrannizing and ultimately killing a weaker person. Personally I prefer Weinberg's assessment of the situation: beating up on a weakling.

Is it neccessary for anyone to stand on a wall with a gun in Cuba? How is this keeping me safe? Are they Florida's last bastion of defense from the Cuban hordes chomping at the bit for Amercan conquest? Yeah, right. You're really performing a critical service there, Jessup. Perhaps the Cubans want to kill you because you invaded and are occupying what rightly belongs to them.

The military doesn't simply defend. They do lots of other things nowadays, mainly offensive conquest. That it is still labelled as "defense" doesn't make it so. However, I have no problem with the actual men&women in service. They are conditioned to think that it isn't their job to decide what is just and what is not, what is defense and what is aggression. They are simply doing their jobs (although that isn't enough to exonerate the Nazis or the KGB, now is it? Maybe military personell SHOULD start thinking for themselves.)

[brownsfan]

Yeah that's a great quote by Jessup, ironically used as a defense in tyrannizing and ultimately killing a weaker person. Personally I prefer Weinberg's assessment of the situation: beating up on a weakling.

You cover a lot of ground. First, the quote, in or out of context makes a point, and I agree: The military is a necessary evil.
Policy is made by the politicians. The questions of who we are defending ourselves against, and whether we are conquering or defending, all political.
I personally believe that we need a strong military, and yes, you do neeed defense from Cuba. Are they keeping you safe? Has the US been attacked since 9/11? You can't be 100% safe, but I believe the military and the current administration are doing a stellar job of national defense.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, hence the action in Iraq. There are bad people out there. We can't ignore that. I am fully behind what happened in Iraq for many reasons. I have paid attention to what's going on, and for those against what happened, (as I gather you are), we will just disagree, there is no disuading me on this one.
Finally, you state: Maybe military personell SHOULD start thinking for themselves.
The answer is no. A military unit can't function as a group of individuals. Just can't. That won't work. An individual has the option of serving, or not serving in the military, but once in, it's not a democracy. One must do as you are told, it is a team that requires everyone to not question. Imagine a tank line engaging the enemy, but stopping because individual units had questions about the ethics of the confrontation, and the relative strengths of forces.

[Abe Froman]

The putrid invective and ranting by blindly imperialist/militarist/high-horse-ism Freepers has reached new heights.

Allow me to say that I don't owe the military anything either. The WTC attacks were the acts of criminals, not an act of war by an organized government.

When the Canadian hordes storm the border into Minnesota, I will be taking up my own arms in defense of my land. We don't need any more defensive military than a few guys in planes lining the border, a few subs patrolling the coasts, and a few post-adolescent boys manning the big red buttons and SDI satellites while playing Counter-Strike on their PC's.

There is a case in which we DO need a great, big, huge, offensive war machine, however: if our objective is to enforce world peace and hedgemony with our own government.

The point of Brad's article is the time-proven maxim that the greatest threat to your liberty is not other governments, neccessitating huge capacity to wage war----it is the government in your own backyard that robbed its people blind to create that capacity. Other than running off a few nukes from Cuba in the 60's, there has been virtually NO American military action in the past 50 years that has had anything to do with what is rightly the military's only duty: defense of American borders.

Apparently most Freepers deem it unnacceptable to let the rest of the world conduct itself as it sees fit. The world MUST be crushed under the iron fist of American supremacy. The lives of Americans are more worthy of existence---therefore rest of the world must be forced to exist soley for their protection.


Count me out. I would rather keep my liberty and take my chances with the terrorists. Oh, and to all the indignant nationalists foaming at the mouth with fear about terrorism: if you're so concerned about life, you would do well to stop worring about terrorists and 1) don't ride in a car and 2) don't smoke and 3) excersize daily. My favorite hobby is riding high-performance motorcycles on the street and on the racetrack and I risk my life every single time I do it. Why should I care about terrorists?

I would rather die on my feet at the hands of a terrorist than live on my knees as a 1/2 slave to 1) the government that claims to protect me and 2) the rest of you milquetoast, bandwagoning lemmings. It's clear that nothing unites people like a common perceived enemy. You were probably the same people that would gang up on the poor social reject in high school simply to bolster your own social position.


"Live free or die, death is not the worst of evils."----General John Stark

[Abe Froman]

Finally, you state: Maybe military personell SHOULD start thinking for themselves. The answer is no.

Remind me again, who did the fighting in the revolutionary war? And who did their thinking for them? Funny that this country was founded by simple, civilian men, who each made their own personal decision to take up arms in defense of their liberty----and that they intended for it to STAY that way.

[brownsfan]

Remind me again, who did the fighting in the revolutionary war? And who did their thinking for them? Funny that this country was founded by simple, civilian men, who each made their own personal decision to take up arms in defense of their liberty----and that they intended for it to STAY that way.

You may be a bright person, but that is an incredibly stupid argument. You reach back over 200 years for an example? Ok, tell you what, as soon as you can guarantee that any enemy will dress in red coats, and line up nicely to be shot, I will agree that a self run self maintaining civilian force will work.

[Abe Froman]

If the nature of civilization has changed to the extent that the principles of the founders are invalidated, then the Constitution must be changed by the process that it alone provides for itself. Any other method of changing the rules by which our federal government conducts itself opens (and has opened) the door to unlimited rule by men----not of law. Tyranny.

What was it that Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said as recently as WW2? Well into the age of fighers and bombers and rockets and on the verge of nuclear weapons? "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

It is NOT the military which secures the liberty of the United States. In fact it remains the free citizen with a gun in his hand. Brad is exactly right. It is impossible for a foreign power to take control of America. It can be obliterated, eliminating virtually anything of value in its conquest----but never militarily defeated and occupied.

[Abe Froman]

"Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, hence the action in Iraq. There are bad people out there. We can't ignore that."

Taken to its logical end, of course, this argument would result in seeking out and destroying each and every "bad person" on the face of the earth and American control of the entire world to ensure that no more "good people" become "bad".

I don't care if there are bad people out there. My life is no more worthy than anyone else's. I have no right to rid the earth of every potential attacker in advance. I only have to right to offer resistance when they actually DO attack.