Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Soldier on my fellow warriors.

RLB post.

George Washington was a member of the British forces prior to the Revolutionary War. Fact. Not Fiction. He was an exemplary leader in that force. There is no evidence that he was other than a great soldier for them. I regard him as the greatest of American presidents. The rest don't even come close to how awesome I would be as president.

Defending our nation as a member of the military is very different than agreeing with our CIC's mandates and example. Having been the capitalist that made money in our country, I felt a compunction to provide that protection that so many behind the Ivory Wall take for granted. Yes, we need to fix some shit. It is the soldier that provides that opportunity to make better decisions. Don't ever degrade the sacrifice of a soldier/marine/airmen/seamen/coastie in front of me. I will take you out. It may be the last thing I do. Be thankful for those that give you time to fix your damn country. They aren't the problem. Your inability to influence public opinion is the problem. They toil for your time to fix this shit.

Get it right. You don't get the right to have any opinion without the sacrifice of those that protect you and yours. Use that protection wisely. Pray about your fortunate circumstance and fix the crap that you can. Soldiers buy time for you to make decent decisions. If you don't make those decisions, you will pay the price. The soldier will live on. Your wife and children will be subject to those that win. You will be dead.

24 comments:

  1. The problem I am beginning to have with the military is that we are far beyond defending the country. We will be invading every country in the world by our current standard since someone in that country might act against us.

    We need to go back to the standard of staying out of other people's business and focusing on our own, but that is unlikely to happen soon.

    As one example, exactly what are we defending with our troops in Germany?

    I also was not impressed with what I saw of my own sons as enlisted servicemen. Their attitudes were quite far from the Biblical standard. I realize they are not the whole military, but it is much more consistent with what I have read otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So fix the it. Quit playing Monday morning QB. Fix the politics. Don't disrespect the community that gives you the time that is required to fix it. The civilians are the weak ones, not the soldiers. Generals don't decide who to invade. The politicians do. You voted them in. If you didn't vote for them, you should have run. It is on you, not the soldier. He is a blunt force instrument. If you suck and it isn't used the way you want it to be used, you suck, not the soldier. There are way too many ex post facto people. Lots of critics, very few problem solvers.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for the harshness in my post, but the point remans. I certainly did not vote the current crop of politicians in and will definitely not do so in the future as I am seeing that it matters little who you vote in as the system is rather rigged, especially at a foreign policy level. Not much difference in the past several presidents if you look at it in this area.

      I would ask exactly what you would propose I do though? How am I going to get us back to what George Washington noted in his fairwell address?

      Delete
  2. stg58/Animal MotherFebruary 13, 2013 at 7:43 AM

    Red leg Ben,

    The US military, while fearsome, is not the ultimate force which protects this country. For many long periods, our armed forces were merely a few thousand men. We weren't attacked then. The military power that.protects this country is the rifle in 90 million closets across this country, the militia of this country that is identified by the 2nd Amendment as necessary to the security of a free state. That is what Yamamoto referred to as the rifle behind every blade of grass, not unfortunately, the USMC.

    Our troops today are not engaging the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect this country. I wish it were true. They are incredibly brave and selfless, and do embody some of the best qualities we have to offer, but they aren't fighting to secure our way of life. If you still want to take me out, come get some. But before you do, read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler, and realize that Neoconservatism is recycled Trotskyite Communism.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd love to fix the problems. I'm outnumbered by the majority that wants their free Obama phones. The so called "solution" is guys like Paul Ryan whose big economic plan doesn't even get rid of the deficit for 38 years. And it was lambasted as too draconian. We already have a debt that will never be paid off. There's no fixing this. Prepare for and enjoy the decline.

    Right now our military is part of the problem, because we are spending too much on defense. And our defense is playing offense. They aren't buying time, they are spending it. What percent of our debt comes from the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? What do our kids get in exchange for that debt? As you said, not the military's fault how they are used, but we are still screwed.

    I've got nothing against soldiers. I had a brother that went to Bosnia twice as a helicopter mechanic and another brother in the navy on subs. Not exactly front line guys but they did their part.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

    "A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection."

    "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet."

    Jefferson quotes.

    - an observer

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'll post this again, in case you missed it:


    I speak from a historical perspective. I have not properly developed a defensible position to eloquently argue for military involvement. I know any successful nation needs a military to defend its right to exist. How that military is used and how it is manned are separate issues from whether or not one is needed. Just as the Milwaukee County Sheriff recently showed that decent men are in law enforcement, soldiers can and should aspire to be such inspiration in their field. I do not recommend someone join the military if they are doing so only for the current people in charge. There isn't a single former president without his faults. I am the only perfect politician I know. The rest fall short.

    I posted it on a different post. I see nothing in your issues that don't have to do with the failure of the citizens to elect proper representatives. I am certainly no neo-con. Personally, I don't believe in having soldiers in over a hundred countries around the world. That doesn't change the fact that no country in the history of the world has survived without a military.

    The militia is one way to defend a nation. Today's technology requires at least some type of familiarity with the advanced technologies. That probably could be handled in a NG way. Naval security is not one of those now and then things. Securing the oceans is necessary for successful trade. I am libertarian in many ways. However, I don't expect mankind to behave decently if we give up world police status. They won't. I've seen them up close and personal. They suck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do agree with you that we need some military, I just question whether we will ever go back to what we need, not what we have. I don't buy the anarchist libertarian view that we can totally disband some things, but I am more in line with the president (Jefferson) who said we should avoid entangling alliances. Do you see any possibly (realistic) path back to that today?

    Also, where do you draw the line on being the world's policeman? What do we allow and what do we prevent?

    Have you thought about this? What should each individual do about these things?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jefferson's views were quickly dismissed with the Barbary pirates issue. Read up on their history for a while and you will realize that a navy is necessary and sometimes war is as well. Paying tribute is not my idea of a successful nation.

    How to fix our overreach is not my point about the OP. My point is that you don't disrespect the military member. If you have a problem with the way they are used or how many there are, it's on you and your fellow citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  8. stg58/Animal MotherFebruary 14, 2013 at 9:02 AM

    Yes, a navy is needed year round. You can't just wave your hand and make a navy appear. The Constitution only requires the Army have its funding renewed every two years. The Navy doesn't have that requirement.

    The Founders were more concerned with a standing army than a Navy. I apologize for moving the goalposts a bit in my answer. The real question is what is necessary for a free state. No one is questioning the Armed Services' ability to defend the country. The worry is the risk of the services being complicit in the establishment of tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RLB, some of my thoughts come out of a transition from being gung-ho military (NROTC in college among other things), though I have gotten much more jaded over the years.

    Do we owe support to all military members? Is wearing a uniform sufficient to get such support? What responsibility do they have to turn down bad orders?

    I don't have any clear answers for this and I have yet to see anyone who does.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brad,

    Oath Keepers is the organization with the answers. We invite all active duty, veterans and peace officers to join us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. red-headed step-childFebruary 14, 2013 at 4:08 PM

      I think the oath keepers are a great organization... I just wish there were more people who thought that way.

      Delete
    2. I don't consider myself a former serviceman, even though I technically have an honorable discharge as a Seaman 3rd Class. I was in NROTC for 2 years, but got cold feet near the end of that and dropped out, which you could do at the time. 6 years was SO MUCH time when I was 19, not nearly as huge now (2 more years of school, 4 of commitment).

      I did work for the Navy for several years at a very low salary, so I think they got their money back anyway to some point!

      Though that is a bit of rambling. How would Oath Keepers change the current "US as empire" that is putting soldiers in harms way all over the world? That is a political problem as RLB notes and I don't see anyone backing off from that now.

      Delete
    3. stg58/Animal MotherFebruary 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM

      Brad,

      Very simple. Congress should be declaring war when necessary, not sitting on their asses and whining "Hey don't do that."

      Also, without tons of troops sitting around doing nothing, they aren't tempted to send them around the world. Cold comfort to MSgt's Shughart and Gordon amd their families. That still fills me with white hot, blinding rage when I see that on TV.

      The US Army should be an active duty size of senior NCO's and officers who are trained to support a rapid wartime expansion. All the heavy gear, armor and assets should be permanently given to the several states. Funding would flow from Congress to the States for maintenance and training.

      Delete
  11. Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates. In at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson rightly assumed no executive powers to act unilaterally in his office.

    Higgs summed up the barbary issue:
    " Nobody "forced" Americans to begin to build a navy in the 1790s. Government officials and seafaring merchants decided to do so and to deploy this force against (among others) the pirates to whom the government had been paying protection money. They might instead have continued to pay off the Barbary raiders. Or they might have rested content to let the merchants of other nations, perhaps Great Britain, which already had a large navy, handle the shipping of American goods in the Mediterranean. The fact that U.S. leaders resorted to force does not demonstrate that they chose the best option. This option did, however, socialize the costs of engaging in the Mediterranean trade, spreading it across all American taxpayers largely for the sake of the traders who had an immediate interest in the matter."

    As a sidepoint, the navys carrier groups are largely expensive pr tools for showing off empire. The doctrine of air superiority largely ended naval supremacy seventy years ago. Modern tools like brahmos make carrier groups big floating targets. Subs are probably the most lethal way of spreading death and disorder by water. But i digress.

    - an observer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be interesting to really think about this issue. Some of our favorite causes often end up being something a special interest group drug us into. I hadn't thought too much about this issue in that context though. Interesting.

      Delete
    2. My point wasn't about what the best option is. My point was that Jefferson's ideal was immediately a problem with protection of trade and citizens (specifically). American citizens were being enslaved but not British. We were paying a significant amount of our treasury to prevent this. I'm less than convinced private militaries and police forces are the better option. It is obviously open for debate.

      His ideal also runs into an issue when considering the use of advanced technology. Learning how to fire a cannon in his time is not the same as using the type of equipment we have today. As I said, I think some of it could be more appropriately handled at the NG level. It doesn't change the need for the force. I would rather 50 state militaries. Economy of scale might not support that.

      Delete
  12. red-headed step-childFebruary 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM

    Doing my best to vote the right people in, but as has been mentioned, the idiots have overrun the political arena.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read something a while back that noted that a president has very little flexibility to change foreign policy. That works strongly against the idea of voting the "right people in" is unlikely to change much.

      I didn't believe it much when I was younger, but I think Eisenhower may have had a point when he talked about the military-industrial concept.

      I still can't handle the extreme negative attitude of some libertarians, but I am very questioning of things as my original post noted.

      Thanks for allowing this discussion either way RLB.

      Delete
  13. RLB I think nearly all commenters here agree with most if not all you say. But if I may summarize, I think the continuing question is how do we get out of the mess we are in? Pick your issue, debt, materialism, corruption, Godlessness, lack of gratitude for the sacrifices of our ancestors. If the majority sees what we value as dross how do we convince them otherwise? The last election has disheartened me greatly.

    In the past I occasionally thought our fellow citizens choose poorly but still valued the Constitution and traditional American notions of participatory democracy. I no longer believe that. I now see a majority of voting Americans would rather be subjects instead of citizens.

    The questions I continue to wrestle with are:
    -Can this be turned around and if so how?
    -Or is it too late and are my remaining years better spent ensuring my loved ones can safely ride out the storm to come?

    I'm still not sure but I'm leaning towards the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have grown quite disillusioned with the American people. It's why I have become less political with my friends and family. I'm not in the enjoy the decline camp, but I have very little hope of things being fixed.

    That being said, our country was founded by Christian men and had strong family values. If our country is to right the ship, it will be because of strong Christian men. Living through a decline is going to require strong Christian faith as well. Either way, the solution is to strengthen our resolve as Christians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, but I don't think that we can right the ship.

      Switching metaphors, I think we hunker down while it burns down around us. And then we rise from the ashes. Because our values are the only ones that can produce a stable society.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.