Posted on 02/04/2004 5:33:51 AM PST by dixiepatriot
I Still Owe the Military Nothing
by Brad Edmonds
My article on the military drew more emails than I've seen since I wrote a couple of years ago that Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry was a commie rat. Then Paul Craig Roberts wrote this week a few good reasons why it's sometimes no fun to be a columnist. Just because it's enlightening and amusing (and a little informative), I thought it would be interesting to discuss the responses to my military article.
Free Republic was the most fun. As Paul Craig Roberts pointed out, some people will invent things they believe were in your article, and focus on those. One reader acted offended that I considered the rank of major "lowly," which I didn't suggest (I was putting it in relation to 2- and 3-star generals); another assumed my dad retired as a major, which I didn't suggest, and which wasn't the case. Others understood that I retired from the CIA, which I didn't. I was there for a relatively short time, and left in 1990. There was little of substance – mostly empty invective – on Free Republic, though one reader successfully corrected my simplification of US foreign policy in the Middle East to "40 years of bombing." I should have linked this article by Adam Young, and referred to "50 years of ham-handed, violent, dictatorial, capricious intervention" instead of "40 years of bombing." I stand corrected. Freepers, as they're called, are self-selected, and virtually all neocons; almost no libertarians are among them. I counted, just for fun, about 70 different posters, 65 of whom were opposed to my viewpoint (about 60 of those without substance).
My emails, also subject to self-selection, were just the opposite. I counted, just for fun, and heard from 114 different people – so far. 105 were in agreement, nine disagreed. Of those who identified themselves as military veterans, 32 agreed while only three wrote to disagree. None of the three claimed to have been a combat veteran, while many of the 32 mentioned the wars in which they saw combat.
Without exception, those who disagreed simply restated the point I wrote to dispel: That we owe our freedom to the military. A few thought they had me on a legal point: Since I noted that Americans' freedoms have decreased, some readers thought I'd confused the purpose of the military (defense from foreign invasion) with civil government (the enactment of laws, the existence of which limits freedom). No, they didn't have me; they made my point – that the military has little to do with freedom.
The only thing the military can do for our freedom is to repel an attack from an invader who, in occupying, would offer us a less free society than we have now. I mean, we must consider the possibility that an occupying force can increase our freedom, right? Isn't this Bush's point in Iraq? So, for our military to have been effective in protecting our freedom, the enemy must be (1) credible; (2) willing and prepared to attack; (3) likely to reduce our freedom if he wins; and (4) repelled by either the action, or the threat, of our military.
This circumstance has never obtained in our history, and probably never will. The British, in 1812, were the single most credible invading threat we've ever faced, and if the British invaded successfully they still might not have had a tremendous impact on our liberty either way. (Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? Our liberty was threatened by our own government in 1791.) Further, the most effective defense we had in 1812 was privateers – private ships, paid only in captured booty (which gave them incentive to preserve the enemy and his ships). So much for the government's military there.
The next "invasion" was the Union army invading the sovereign CSA, which only established once and for all that there was nothing voluntary about the US government. We have never been in any credible danger of being forced to speak Spanish, Japanese, German, or frankly, Russian. (We were in some danger of being hit by Soviet nuclear weapons, but the only deterrent was our own bombs – not men and women, not command structures, since ICBMs could be launched on Moscow from inside the US.)
The USSR was credible, likely to reduce our freedom, and somewhat hampered, if not repelled, by our military (but really mostly by our under-the-table payments to, for example, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan; and our placements of missiles in Europe), but the USSR was never prepared to attack us. Hitler and Germany never constituted a credible threat to the US, and Hitler himself made no secret that he thought the new world order should consist of Germany, England, and the United States. Japan was goaded into Pearl Harbor, starving and desperate to break up our blockade of oil, steel, etc. against their island; but Japan never had any wish to invade the US. (Freepers take note: Yes, Germany, Japan, and the USSR were evil. Yes they were. I agree. They were still never a threat to us, with our without our military.)
What has made the US an uninviting target for 200 years is the oceans and our gun ownership. As Iraq and Afghanistan have proven in the last three years, making war halfway around the world is expensive, risky, and difficult even for the US, even today, even when attacking pathetically weaker opponents. Universal gun ownership means an occupying force can never succeed. To occupy, you have to step out of your planes and humvees and move on foot. The more the natives own guns and want to resist, the more ground area you have to occupy continuously. With a nation full of rifle-toting rednecks, a hostile foreign power can never succeed. To obliterate us, they would be forced to nuke us.
There is no incentive for any nation to do that to any other: There would be nothing of value to steal afterward, and it would be costly and dangerous for the nation using the nukes. America did it to Japan because we knew Japan was already defeated, and we were the only ones in the world who had nukes. Indeed, to prove the disincentives work: Truman bombed Japan because the Japanese demanded as their only condition of surrender that the emperor remain emperor. They continued to demand this after both bombings, so Truman just gave in. The bombings were for nothing. And with no retaliation for Truman or the US to fear, Truman still stopped, and gave the Japanese what they wanted. They didn't even have rifles.
We have rifles.
Heck, I'd be more prone to believe we owed our freedom to the military if they were here, defending our borders (or even their own headquarters). They're not.
And as to my point that the military is just a tool for Congress and the president, you don't have to listen to me. Listen to a retired Marine general, twice winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, on the subject.
We don't need a standing federal military. If someone invades, militias can pop up, with rifles and perhaps a government commission (while we still have forcible government) to get the job done and then disband until the next invasion. I'll be there, ready to go. Let me know when it happens.
February 4, 2004
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds181.html
Why would they have needed long range bombers, fighters, an aircraft carrier, or a navy? The author eliminated the standing federal military, so we don't have a navy, and nothing with which to prevent a seaborne invasion. No air force either. Just a bunch of "rednecks with rifles."
But even if we did have that stuff, the Germans wouldn't need it anyway. They'd just land in eastern Canada without declaring war on us. And of course, we've got no military to help the Canucks, so they'd go down pretty easy. Ship over troops in transports, set up a nice base of operations in Canada, and then roll into the U.S. when ready. I'm sure our citizen militia would have done great against the Wehrmacht.
If the Germans were really clever, they could send a bunch of weapons to the Mexicans, and promise them Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California if they help us out. Of course, with no standing military, we would lack the ability to intervene in Mexico too.
It's numbskulls like that author who give libertarianism a bad name.
Its the same thing every time and the people seem to go along with it.
This was great though:
A state of war is most often the opportunity for the elected or appointed government to seize even more authority over the daily activities of the citizens than would otherwise be permitted or tolerated.
England, Iceland, Canada. Then the U.S.. If Germany had won the war in Europe and taken England, it would have had the shipbuilding resources to build a monstrous fleet if it chose.
Even assuming that the author is right, and that an invasion may not have ultimately been successful, can you imagine the cost in lives of defeating the Wehrmacht on U.S. soil?
Moronic statement of the year.
True enough. And the weapons of the time were what? Muskets and cannon and wind-powered ships.
Now, go out and select a group of farmers and store-clerks who have no formal training other than what they've used for hunting, and let's put them up against a modern combined arms force.
Let's look at actualities instead of fantasies about how Germany could be a threat to the US. Germany was engaged against England and Russia. They were under strength when they went into the Soviet Union in the first place. Because of this weakness they could not finish the job in 41. By 42 they did not have the strength to continue the assault along the entire front so they held in the north and center while pushing only in the south. Germany was way over extended and in a death struggle in Russia. Invading the US was not a consideration or even possible even if they had the inclination.
Developing the technology for long range planes is not the same as having fleets of them. As far as cross Atlantic invasions go we were in a much stronger position in 44 but still we could not have pulled it off if we didn't have the land mass called England as a huge base and supply depot. Germany would have had no such advantage.
As for atomic weapons and rockets and supposing Germany had conquered Europe one still has to be realistic. What is the difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union? We deterred Russia so why not Germany?
cordially
All of these revisionist dimbulbs can't seem to get this through their thick heads. Their ideology cannot stand the light of truth, and so they keep their minds closed.
Actually, that's the wrong way to do it. The author is advocating abolishing a standing military looking forward, so we have to consider not only what did happen in the past, but what might happen in the future. And in looking at those "might" scenarios, a little bit of historical tweaking and "what ifs" show what might be possible in the future.
They were under strength when they went into the Soviet Union in the first place. Because of this weakness they could not finish the job in 41.
They couldn't finish the job in '41 because they wasted six weeks in Czechoslovakia, which shortened the summer campaign season by the same period. Give the Wehrmacht six more weeks of summer in '41, and Moscow falls.
As far as cross Atlantic invasions go we were in a much stronger position in 44 but still we could not have pulled it off if we didn't have the land mass called England as a huge base and supply depot. Germany would have had no such advantage.
If successful in Europe, Germany would have had the shipbuilding resources of an entire continent. And instead of England, it would use Canada as the staging point. Which is far more convenient relative to an invasion of the U.S. than Britain was for an invasion of Europe.
The truth is that Hitler was too big an idiot to ever have pulled it off. But someone who is more savvy, who would try to work with people they have conquered, could have created a much larger military and been a much bigger military threat.
We represent only 5% or so of the world's population. To think that we could stand alone, without a standing military, is laughable.
My article on the military drew more emails than I've seen since I wrote a couple of years ago that Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry was a commie rat.
"Aunt Bea, you know religion is just the opiate of the massess...Barn, let's get those rich people outta town they're just here to oppress the proletariat."
Then Paul Craig Roberts wrote this week a few good reasons why it's sometimes no fun to be a columnist.
Well if Paul Craig Roberts thinks it's no fun being paid thousands of dollars per year to write his opinion. He can have my job and I'll take his. Weee!
Just because it's enlightening and amusing (and a little informative), I thought it would be interesting to discuss the responses to my military article.
Plus, I had nothing more substantive to write.
Free Republic was the most fun. As Paul Craig Roberts pointed out, some people will invent things they believe were in your article, and focus on those.
And others will extensively quote the great Paul Craig Roberts.
One reader acted offended that I considered the rank of major "lowly," which I didn't suggest (I was putting it in relation to 2- and 3-star generals); another assumed my dad retired as a major, which I didn't suggest, and which wasn't the case.
I see the big holes in their arguments.
Others understood that I retired from the CIA, which I didn't. I was there for a relatively short time, and left in 1990.
So it's the readers fault that your writing's unclear.
There was little of substance – mostly empty invective – on Free Republic, though one reader successfully corrected my simplification of US foreign policy in the Middle East to "40 years of bombing." I should have linked this article by Adam Young, and referred to "50 years of ham-handed, violent, dictatorial, capricious intervention" instead of "40 years of bombing." I stand corrected. Freepers, as they're called, are self-selected,
So, your complaint is that FR isn't an invitation only forum?
and virtually all neocons; almost no libertarians are among them. I counted, just for fun,
tee hee
about 70 different posters, 65 of whom were opposed to my viewpoint (about 60 of those without substance).
It's nice to know that we have a self-selected judge of whose without substance. Although an argument such as "unpatriotic jerk bump" is probably not substantive. Also, it seems your problem with FR is that not everyone or even a clear majority think like you.
My emails, also subject to self-selection, were just the opposite. I counted, just for fun,
tee-hee
and heard from 114 different people – so far. 105 were in agreement, nine disagreed. Of those who identified themselves as military veterans, 32 agreed while only three wrote to disagree. None of the three claimed to have been a combat veteran, while many of the 32 mentioned the wars in which they saw combat.
So, let's see, you post your message on extreme libertarian anti-war sites and you get responses from people that indicates they agree with you. Is there a correlation here? Try reading it at the next VFW meeting for a more represenative sample of veterans
Without exception, those who disagreed simply restated the point I wrote to dispel: That we owe our freedom to the military. A few thought they had me on a legal point: Since I noted that Americans' freedoms have decreased, some readers thought I'd confused the purpose of the military (defense from foreign invasion) with civil government (the enactment of laws, the existence of which limits freedom). No, they didn't have me; they made my point – that the military has little to do with freedom.
So lets disarm the disband the military and see how long our freedom lasts or how many idiot wars of invasion we have to fight every year to keep our freedom.
The only thing the military can do for our freedom is to repel an attack from an invader who, in occupying, would offer us a less free society than we have now. I mean, we must consider the possibility that an occupying force can increase our freedom, right?
Sure, the Romans were a lot more free under the Barbarians and the Scottish were so much better off under English rule. If we don't like our government, disband the military and hope we get some benevolent invaders. Brilliant!
Isn't this Bush's point in Iraq? So, for our military to have been effective in protecting our freedom, the enemy must be (1) credible; (2) willing and prepared to attack; (3) likely to reduce our freedom if he wins; and (4) repelled by either the action, or the threat, of our military. This circumstance has never obtained in our history, and probably never will.
I'm glad that he's omniscent and knows that if we had no military we would never have been invaded and that our possession of nuclear weapons and the greatest fighting force on Earth has not deterred invaders.
The British, in 1812, were the single most credible invading threat we've ever faced, and if the British invaded successfully they still might not have had a tremendous impact on our liberty either way. (Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? Our liberty was threatened by our own government in 1791.)
By that tyrannical George Washington. Darn it! Why don't more people on Free Republic agree with this guy!
Further, the most effective defense we had in 1812 was privateers – private ships, paid only in captured booty (which gave them incentive to preserve the enemy and his ships). So much for the government's military there.
Well, thanks for simplifying the War of 1812 and the numerous land and sea battles to pirate ships fighting the British.
The next "invasion" was the Union army invading the sovereign CSA,
It's time for the weekly refighting of the Civil War! Yeah!
which only established once and for all that there was nothing voluntary about the US government. We have never been in any credible danger of being forced to speak Spanish, Japanese, German, or frankly, Russian.
Unless you're a college student.
(We were in some danger of being hit by Soviet nuclear weapons, but the only deterrent was our own bombs – not men and women, not command structures, since ICBMs could be launched on Moscow from inside the US.)
Great moments in simplification!
The USSR was credible, likely to reduce our freedom, and somewhat hampered, if not repelled, by our military
And I contradict myself.
(but really mostly by our under-the-table payments to, for example, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan; and our placements of missiles in Europe), but the USSR was never prepared to attack us. Hitler and Germany never constituted a credible threat to the US, and Hitler himself made no secret that he thought the new world order should consist of Germany, England, and the United States.
That's why Germany invaded England---no, wait.
Japan was goaded into Pearl Harbor, starving and desperate to break up our blockade of oil, steel, etc. against their island; but Japan never had any wish to invade the US. (Freepers take note: Yes, Germany, Japan, and the USSR were evil. Yes they were. I agree. They were still never a threat to us, with our without our military.)
So the whole world could have sunk into chaos and evil and we would have been okay and nobody would have bothered us and we don't even need a military. Wow, I stand in awe of your libertarianness.
What has made the US an uninviting target for 200 years is the oceans and our gun ownership. As Iraq and Afghanistan have proven in the last three years, making war halfway around the world is expensive, risky, and difficult even for the US, even today, even when attacking pathetically weaker opponents. Universal gun ownership means an occupying force can never succeed. To occupy, you have to step out of your planes and humvees and move on foot. The more the natives own guns and want to resist, the more ground area you have to occupy continuously. With a nation full of rifle-toting rednecks, a hostile foreign power can never succeed. To obliterate us, they would be forced to nuke us.
And they can do that. So, what comfort is this?
There is no incentive for any nation to do that to any other:
Well, you drop about three or four nukes and the good old boys will think about surrendering. And since when are national leaders immune to petty wickedness and senseless acts of violence? This is the history of the world.
There would be nothing of value to steal afterward, and it would be costly and dangerous for the nation using the nukes.
So without our military, we rely our friends in the International Community: the French to bravely stand up and avenge us.
America did it to Japan because we knew Japan was already defeated, and we were the only ones in the world who had nukes. Indeed, to prove the disincentives work: Truman bombed Japan because the Japanese demanded as their only condition of surrender that the emperor remain emperor. They continued to demand this after both bombings, so Truman just gave in. The bombings were for nothing. And with no retaliation for Truman or the US to fear, Truman still stopped, and gave the Japanese what they wanted. They didn't even have rifles.
We have rifles.
So we shouldn't have any problem keeping our emperor?
Heck, I'd be more prone to believe we owed our freedom to the military if they were here, defending our borders (or even their own headquarters).
The Pentagon is not well-defended? Oh really, I guess I'll just sneak down their and find out what's at Area 51, but I'm sure YOU already know that.
They're not.
Which was implied by my last sentence which means I wasted your time by writing that.
And as to my point that the military is just a tool for Congress and the president, you don't have to listen to me. Listen to a retired Marine general, twice winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, on the subject.
Per chance did the General receive a head injury? Seriously, so many generals say so many different things about war and strategy based to a great degree on politics, why should the fact that a General said something be considered absolute proof when in fact most Generals and Admirals would disagree.
We don't need a standing federal military. If someone invades, militias can pop up, with rifles and perhaps a government commission (while we still have forcible government) to get the job done and then disband until the next invasion. I'll be there, ready to go. Let me know when it happens.
Sure, why not? Militias worked great for the Chechnyans, oh wait! And also the Kosovo Liberation Army! Oh wait again! And the Iraqi Kurds handled things quite nicely on their own before we came on the scene. I detect perhaps a flaw in your argument but this post is most likely not substantive so you can ignore it.
Your first mistake. They went into Russia with something like 200 or 300 divisions. They went in too late in the year, and they took a wrong turn (toward the oil fields) instead of driving on to Moscow. Plus which, they decided to abuse the Ukrainians, instead of treating them as allies, which the Ukrainians were willing to be.
Whether Germany could have held Russia is an open question -- the Russian partisans were very effective -- but they could have and should have defeated the Russians in '41.
Also -- had Germany done the smart thing in North Africa, and had Germany taken Malta, the entire Allied Mediterranean campaign would have been impossible. Germany would have gotten to the Middle Eastern oil, probably have linked up with the Japanese, and so on.
Actually, that's the wrong way to do it. The author is advocating abolishing a standing military looking forward, so we have to consider not only what did happen in the past, but what might happen in the future. And in looking at those "might" scenarios, a little bit of historical tweaking and "what ifs" show what might be possible in the future.
They were under strength when they went into the Soviet Union in the first place. Because of this weakness they could not finish the job in 41.
They couldn't finish the job in '41 because they wasted six weeks in Czechoslovakia, which shortened the summer campaign season by the same period. Give the Wehrmacht six more weeks of summer in '41, and Moscow falls.
As far as cross Atlantic invasions go we were in a much stronger position in 44 but still we could not have pulled it off if we didn't have the land mass called England as a huge base and supply depot. Germany would have had no such advantage.
If successful in Europe, Germany would have had the shipbuilding resources of an entire continent. And instead of England, it would use Canada as the staging point. Which is far more convenient relative to an invasion of the U.S. than Britain was for an invasion of Europe.
The truth is that Hitler was too big an idiot to ever have pulled it off. But someone who is more savvy, who would try to work with people they have conquered, could have created a much larger military and been a much bigger military threat.
I might agree with the author that a policy of isolationism may have been prefereable if we'd followed it consistently since the 1800's. But we haven't. Adopting such a policy now, when then clearly are large numbers of extremists who really don't like us, and when Europe looks like it is slowly circling the drain, is dangerous.
We represent only 5% or so of the world's population. To think that we could stand alone, without a standing military, is laughable.
Lew Rockwell is "intellectually satisfying" only in the sense that I find myself feeling very satisfied that I'm not a whackjob like the folks who spew there.
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.