Posted on 02/04/2004 5:33:51 AM PST by dixiepatriot
Your comprehension and analytical ability as illustrated by your comment quoted above is so obviously lacking and pathetically applied you are to be pitied.
Denying? Cowardly? Show me one place where I defended or promoted the Nazis and I will address it. Calling someone a Nazi because they analyze historical facts in a manner you never considered is intellectually sloppy and a cheap, cowardly, demagogic tactic.
FIVE STAR INSIGNIA GENERAL OF THE ARMY/ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET
by Stephen M. Henry
With the death of General of the Army Omar N. Bradley in April of 1981, the five-star rank passed into American history. And it is that passing which seems to make a brief survey of the five-star insignia of the General of the Army and the Admiral of the Fleet appropriate.
It was World War II which precipitated the creation of this rank. The enormity of the war and the fact that several American commanders found themselves in the awkward position of commanding Allied officers of higher rank necessitated its creation.
The original title for the grade was to have been Field Marshal (after the British title) but the Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, refused to be known as "Field Marshal Marshall!" The rank was finally approved by Congress in December of 1944, almost too late to achieve its purpose. Generals Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Arnold, and Admirals Leahy, King and Nimitz were named at that time. Admiral Halsey was promoted to Fleet Admiral in December 1945, and General Bradley to General of the Army in September 1950 -- the last to be promoted to this rank. Thus a total of nine men in America's history ever attained this elevated rank.
Hey! I know you. You owe me $5.
"Stop digging" was not what the author advocated. His approach was far more radical.
I'm glad that you do see some error in our foreign policy over the last hundred years.
Well, I'm not sure how much I agree. My point was that you could have a reasonable, intelligent debate on whether we should begin divesting ourselves of alliances and overseas obligations. But the author of this peace was arguing that we should eliminate our standing military altogether. Those are two different arguments, because you can agree with avoiding foreign entanglements without endorsing what amounts to unilateral disarmament. He staked out an extremism position that I think is indefensible.
That is not isolation. It is called peaceful interaction.
It's also saying that we will never take sides in any overseas conflict, no matter the moral issues involved or our strategic interest. It's saying that we will do nothing militarily to protect ourselves until the enemy is at the doorstep. Actually, its saying we won't due anything until the enemy crosses our doorstep. If you take the author at his word, our response to 9/11 should be to abandon all international alliances, withdraw all troops home, and eliminate our Amry, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. In a post 9-11 world, that is suicide.
And as for "peaceful interaction", what do we do if American citizens "peacefully interacting" overseas become the target of organized,state-sponsored terror? Which, I should point out, is what happened to people like Leon Klinghoffer. Is it open season on Americans overseas, because we lack the ability and willingness to punish those who target our citizens?
Even if others are unreasonable we can, using our reason, logically analyze a situation and plan our activities knowing how to handle others based on their M.O.
Sure you can. But I think the folks at Lew Rockwell too often analyze others based on our M.O.
Well the terrorists themselves said why - because we are stationed on their holy land, we war against their brother Arabs and they do not see us as honest brokers in the affairs of the mid east.
That's an inaccurate, overly simplistic view of their motives. It doesn't explain why they have tried terrorist strikes in places like Sweden that are uninvolved. An additional motive is an irrational, emotional, and fanatical religious belief that brands us as satanic not because of what we've done, but because of who we are. They hate us for our fashion, music, and culture. As long as we export those things, even peacefully, we will remain a target.
The obvious conclusion to our troubles would be to remove our forces from their lands and stop meddling in their affairs.
Right here is where you make the mistake of assuming they will react rationally. You've imputed to them our M.O. Where is the evidence that they will stop trying to kill Americans if we remove forces from those lands? Do you really expect their hatred of us to turn off like a switch?
That's the problem I have with the article. It may be a good idea to withdraw from the Middle East, and I believe that would do a lot to reduce tensions over time. In fact, it was one reason I supported attacking Iraq. But those feelings will not dissipate overnight. It is entirely possible that a rapid, unilateral withdrawal will be taken as a sign of weakness, and encourage more attacks against American both here and overseas. In fact, our withdrawal from Somalia was interpreted in exactly that manner.
Do you really think we'd be safer if we withdrew from Afghanistan tomorrow, pledged no further intervention, and permitted the Taliban and Al Qaeda to return? What if Al Qaeda announced they are developing WMD's for delivery into the United States? Do we just sit here and wait for them to do that? Because if you eliminate the standing federal military, that's your only "defense".
Therefore we decide that the whole area needs to be subdued and the entire culture remade to our standards and values.
I don't agree with that policy either. I think its unrealistic. But that doesn't mean that the extremist policy advocated in the article is any better. I think we should try to stay out of that region as much as possible, but we can't unilaterally disarm and foreswear any possible military action in that region.
In summation if we are an economic powerhouse it is in other's self interest to have peaceful relations with us.
You're right back to imputing our values to them. To radical islam, economic self-interest, education, and religious/economic freedom are evil
Our size, geographic location and strength makes us so formidable no one would invade our nation as it is not feasible.
It's not feasible as long as we have a military strength to match. But since the author is eliminating our planes, fleets, and troops, I think it suddenly becomes a lot more feasible.
Not to mention that being a global meddler and policman is a direct threat to our own liberty.
Perhaps. But just because one extreme is undesireable does not mean that the other extreme is desireable. That's why the guys at Lew Rockwell are almost always wrong when it comes to national security/foreign policy. Their approach is always binary in a world that is analog.
The point about Stimson is he was not a "stalinist spy" but was a very well connected Republican.
And no, my curiosity about the period is very active.
You might want to stop into the FReeper Foxhole and learn some real military history instead of this tin foil stuff. But be forewarned, the regulars are of the opinion that we owe our veterans a lot.
I don't think history back you up on that one. For starters, you'll never get an entire populace with guns in their hands. Well, maybe in the movies. In any case, whether a foe could completely subdue the United States is a side issue that ducks the primary reason we have a military. Namely, deterrence.
Plus, you accept his argument that the only reason someone would ever want to attack the United States or U.S. citizens is to control our domestic economy. Since I don't agree with that premise, the Yamamoto thesis isn't worth much.
Since when in the course of military history were moral issues of some distant parties' conflicts a consideration for taking a country to war? Recently morality has been a convenient excuse for whitewashing one's own interests in getting involved (like our being so worried about Spain's human rights abuses in Cuba that we took the Philippines). I can name no war where a 3rd party joined in on one side because of altruism. Please notice where we actually get involved - where there is a strategic strip of land or valuable natural resourses(or like in Guatemala where a big campaign donor has land confiscated). As for "strategic interest" that has been so loosely interpreted as to mean anywherewe feel like going. And the further our bases stretch across the globe the more risk there is of having our interests jeopardized. (on a side note - we had to take Panama away from Noriega because he went off the reservation and it was so strategically important to us. Then we sit idly by as China takes over - how do you figure that one?)
You mention Americans citizens abroad sometimes suffering from terrorism. Terrorism is a means to a political end that can not be achieved by diplomacy or military force. It is the only way for the weak to fight a stronger, unresponsive opponent (please note, I am not condoning terrorism here just defining the phenomenon). This is part of the blow back against government policies. Terrorists strike citizens because the government can not be reached. It's a case of sending a message/taking out their aggression against available targets. The government is suppose to secure our lives and liberties. If our policies jeopardize that which the government is chartered to protect perhaps we should examine those policies. (You mentioned Klinghoffer so let me ask you something. Drawing from memory, and I'm not that familiar with the case, but he was not on an American ship, right? He did have the misfortune of being an American and Jewish on a ship taken by Palestinian terrorists so the man had two strikes against him up front. I may be mistaken but didn't the terrorists make an example of him to the other passengers because he was not cooperative and was mouthing off? In others words he was not killed for who he was but for what he did?)
>additional motive is an irrational, emotional, and fanatical religious belief that brands us as satanic not because of what we've done, but because of who we are. They hate us for our fashion, music, and culture. As long as we export those things, even peacefully, we will remain a target.
Granted there is a clash between our ways and theirs and because of their rigidity there is potential for friction. However if we respected their boundaries the troubles would be minimal. That's not naive or fantastic. If change is to come to their culture it has to come from within. As goods, ideas and people exchange between our worlds people will at some point get sick of the medieval zealotrry and seek reform like the youth is doing in Iran right now. That is after all our thinking towards communist China.
What we have discussed is how there have been unintended and detrimental consequences to our actions. As you say we can not just pick up and leave our holdings tomorrow as it would be seen as weakness. I strongly disagree with our interventionist policies but I do not support sudden withdrawal. It has to be done in stages. However that is not the path we are taking. We are systematically positioning ourselves to dominate the mid east and central Asian oil and gas supplies. Our steps into the Gulf region in 1990 and our activities ever since have been toward that end. We are closing down our positions in western Europe and moving to the former eastern block as well as moving into the former Soviet republics and it all has to do with the oil deposits and the pipeline routes to get that oil out. When they said this war on terror will last beyond our lifetimes they weren't kidding because we are permanently going to be present in areas where the locals don't exactly appreciate us. Somewhere here in the FR archives is a news article explaining how certain companies couldn't get insurance for a proposed pipeline across Georgia. Only if US troops were in proximity to guard the project could the companies get insurance and start construction. Guess what happened next? Follow up article says we sent troops there to "help fight the war on terrorism", no mention of pipelines projects.
So in the end you say the fellow who wrote this article is stupid for suggesting we have no standing army. Well the founders knew that standing armies always end up getting used and that in the end threatens liberty. Our borders will not be invaded and our country overrun. Geographically we are blessed. The national guard (or militias if you will) can be federalized and expanded in time of war and they could adequately protect our territorial integrity. That's kind of self evident. As for a fleet, well having a standing navy is constitutional. The founders knew it was necessary to protect our shores and our shipping. As I posted to someone else on this thread Madelene Albright asked "what's the point of having the world's most powerful military if you don't use it?" The founders knew what they were talking about.
Since when has there been a country supposedly founded on moral premises rather than thuggery? You may think our morality should be no better than that of the Roman Empire. I think it should be.
I can name no war where a 3rd party joined in on one side because of altruism.
To avoid a historical debate, I'll just respond "so what"? If you think there are never any circumstances under which we should get involved in military action outside our borders, moral or otherwise, just say so. That's the issue because we're talking about whether or not we should have a standing military in the future. Whether interventions have been done in the past isn't relevant.
Terrorism is a means to a political end that can not be achieved by diplomacy or military force.
That's a horribly inaccurate oversimplification. Terrorism is not limited to political ends. Toss religion in there, for starters. Maybe add culture. Then ask yourself whether every death in the name of religion has been for rational reasons.
I may be mistaken but didn't the terrorists make an example of him to the other passengers because he was not cooperative and was mouthing off? In others words he was not killed for who he was but for what he did?
Yeah. He was causing a huge ruckus from his wheelchair. He obviously deserved what they did to him, and deserves no protection from the U.S.. Right?
However if we respected their boundaries the troubles would be minimal.
You mean if we agreed not to export any of our products, music, food, culture, or ideas? Because anything less won't satisfy them
. That's not naive or fantastic. If change is to come to their culture it has to come from within. As goods, ideas and people exchange between our worlds people will at some point get sick of the medieval zealotrry and seek reform like the youth is doing in Iran right now.
In the meantime, our people get murdered until however many generations of madrass-educated zealots finally forget about that big, rich, Christian nation that exports its culture all over the world.
It has to be done in stages. However that is not the path we are taking. We are systematically positioning ourselves to dominate the mid east and central Asian oil and gas supplies.
That's worthy of debate, but that's not the article was saying. The article was saying to disband the standing federal military. To use a trite cliche, he put the cart before the horse. How about first pulling back, then waiting, then getting rid of the military when its apparent there is no threat?
So in the end you say the fellow who wrote this article is stupid for suggesting we have no standing army.
No, I didn't. And I don't think he's stupid. I think his argument is. There's a difference. I do think he's an annoyingly arrogant twit for selecting a title for his article he knows will alienate much of its intended audience. He apparently cares more about being correct than on changing things for the better. He's the classic example of why most people don't take Libertarian's seriously. They try to alienate people.
Geographically we are blessed. Times change. Technology has made the world a much, much smaller place.
The national guard (or militias if you will) can be federalized and expanded in time of war and they could adequately protect our territorial integrity. That's kind of self evident.
Maybe to someone who has never been in an active duty combat unit in time of war. I'm a combat vet, and the idea that some polygot national guard would present a serious obstacle to a real military is a joke. And remember, you are making an argument on principle, which means it should be equally valid 50-100 years from now. Care to be certain there still would be no nation or group of nations who would present a threat then?
As for a fleet, well having a standing navy is constitutional.
First, so is having a standing army. In any case, the author of this article did not mention getting rid of a "standing federal army" -- he said "We don't need a standing federal military. So he's wiped out our Navy too.
I'll tell you what bothers me the most about guys like him. I'm generally libertarian, and I wish the libertarian element in the Republican Party was stronger. But its not, because people with an adolescent view towards political change are in the libertarian driver's seat. They like being a fringe, because it adds to their sense of smug superiority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.