-
Excellent reading. Thanks for posting.
War put an end to the governmental systems that were specifically based on these ideologies. The underlying ideologies of Fascism and Soviet Communism still thrive in American liberal fever swamps. If you don't believe me, spend a week over at DU or the DailyKos. Of course, you won't come back the same person.
The answer is simple:
1.) Liberals detest the military and everyone in it.
2.) By and large, liberals control the curricula in schools, both public and private at all levels.
3.) Liberals control what is placed in textbooks, and which textbooks are chosen for schools.
.
3 Lifesaving Heroes of the 1st Major Battle for Freedom of the Vietnam War in 1965:
.
BRUCE CRANDALL, Medal of Honor Recipient
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48215
.
RICK RESCORLA. 9/11 Lifesaver
http://www.RickRescorla.com/The%20Statue.htm
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
.
HAL G. MOORE, an American Warrior Supreme
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14752
.
Signed:..”ALOHA RONNIE” Guyer / An In-person Witness
(Battle of IA DRANG-1965 Photos)
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set2.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set3.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
Studyin wars also developers an understanding of what caused them and how to avoid those pitfalls.
Liberals prefer to study things that have no productive use.
This is a subset of the discussion, “Why teach history?”, which can be a pretty complex argument. However, some of the finer points:
History can be taught by way of organizations, such as empires and nations; events, such as wars; cultures, by their uniqueness; about individuals, in their milieu; as progression or evolution of ideas and technologies over time; by statistics; with respect to its recording and analysis, that is, by the records people wrote and their interpretations of the same; for the interesting trivia and phenomena contained within; and by combinations of the above.
While often taught from the past to the present, it can also be taught from the present to the past, to create links with what went on before—effects and causes. It can also be used to connect with current events and extrapolate the future.
Importantly, it must always be remembered that it is a deep and abiding principle of socialism that history is socialism’s greatest enemy; that it must be distorted and eventually discarded in the socialist state. In the short term, they actively make efforts to corrupt it, and to discourage its scholarly study. Witness the “Greater Soviet Encyclopedia.”
So where does this leave war? Unfortunately in the same bucket as history overall. This is because that history, among all school subjects, is most likely to raise arguments. There is little in history that cannot agitate students, their parents, administrators, and the public at large. And such irritation are to be avoided, if a teacher is to avoid being fired.
So before you can teach about war, you must explain to the students the philosophy of war. Good reasons, and not so good reasons, that nations come into conflict. War must also be described as “diplomacy by other means” (and vice-versa), which leads to including diplomacy with war as a subject.
Wars must also be taught with respect to what they achieved, not just in tactical and strategic goals, but also indirectly.
But the list goes on and on. In the final analysis, teaching history and war matters most to students in the way it will affect their future, both in their daily lives, and during wars of the future.
Our goals must be to create and maintain a force so powerful and respected that any adversary would think long and hard to challenge that fighting force.
As a culture we must also be very careful in the manners with which we choose to use that military might. Our men and women are not toy soldiers to be placed upon a shelf until needed to conduct actions when our diplomacy is so failed or inept that the weakness of our hand necessitates its use.
there’s a lot to respond to here, so i’ll keep to one point.
our country cannot survive without an informed electorate.
there’s a nativist “know-nothing” attitude that i find intolerable.
combined with the tv 8-12 hours per day,
and a culture of hedonism, drug use, shop-till-you-drop, gangs etc,
this know-nothing attitude becomes destructive.
“”Numerous causes lay behind the lack of interest in military history in the 1960s when I studied it. The most obvious explanation: this was the immediate post-Vietnam era. “”
Love the article, but I don’t get this timetable.
Because peace is so damned boring?
We study war in order to win. Refusing to do so means defeat first and bloody shambles second. The rest is commentary.
As my friend Rudolph Rummel, of the Political Science Dept. at U. of Hawaii has written, "Wars begin when the combatants disagree about their relative strength. Wars end when the combatants agree about their relative strength."