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
Consolidation the American continent by the US could be considered aggressive expansionism but most thought it was a natural enough phenomenon to control the area coast to coast. Late in the 19th century when that job was done suddenly that wasn't good enough. We wanted to be a major power of the European model. We wanted to project force through the world. We built up our navy to compete. Then we grabbed Hawaii and picked a war with Spain in order to grab her holdings. We have been meddling in other's affairs ever since and have been at war ever since at the coast of millions of US casualties and tens of millions of foreigners. Not to mention the billions and billions of tax dollars.
So in order to play big shot instead of just being a peaceful bastion of freedom and prosperity we suffer the results of heavy taxation, government/corporate alliances, foreign enemies where they need not exist, the occasional draft, the surveillance state, increased police powers, foreign aid and a host of other evils. As the founders understood a standing army was a threat to freedom. And we certainly are a lot less free since 1898.
To sum up the problems we have today are what the CIA phrased as blow back. The unintended results of our actions. Absolutely no comparison to the Barbary pirate situation.
P.S. To prove the wisdom of the warning against a standing army presenting too big a temptation for politicians here's a Madelene Albright quote: "what's the point of having the world's most powerful military if you don't use it?"
It is, of course, a big what if the war went well for Germany.
Germany was building an aircraft carrier during WWII (the Graf Zeppelin) and had plans to build others.
Germany did have a long range bomber (Heinkel He 177 ) and long range airplanes (Condor). They had plans for long range jet bombers and long range ICBMs.
Germany was also working on the atomic bomb and probably would have developed it in 1946.
Throw in captured and salvaged capital ships from France, (assuming) England and (assuming) Russia, and yeah, it could have happened...
Correct. He declared war on us because he knew once Japan attacked the US and Britain made us officially allies and our aid to England and our actions in the Atlantic would increase drastically. In short when Japan brought us into the war on England's side war with Germany was inevitable. Hitler figured to make the best of a bad situation and declare war first so it looked like he was sticking by his ally Japan in the hopes they would reciprocate by attacking Russia.
P.S. Butler also was breveted to captain for action in China before officers were eligible for the CMH. So technically he could be considered a 3 time recipient.
No wonder I feel so left out here. You're all a bunch of damn neo-cons.
Paleo and Proud!!!
With a nation full of rifle-toting rednecks ...
I resemble that remark.
All in all, an interesting supposition on the authors part, but I vote we keep the military. In case anyone invades the US, I don't want to have to have the militias trying to battle lean, mean professional soldiers without air cover and artillery (and a bunch of other stuff) provided by the US military.
Apparently, the author can envision no reason for the United States ever to wield military force overseas. So I suppose the lives of human beings other than Americans have no value to the author. He'd have let the Holocaust, or something even more horrific proceed without a note of concern from the U.S. He's also have had no problem with letting Britain get overrun by the Nazis, or with all of Europe falling under the thumb of the Soviets after WWII. He doesn't seem to consider how that might have affected us here over time if we were the only free country remaining on earth. And one without a standing military. No Navy to ply the oceans, no Air Force.... We couldn't even have stopped the Soviets from putting missiles in Cuba.
What has made the US an uninviting target for 200 years is the oceans and our gun ownership.
Oh boy. This guy is so locked into his little rationalistic world that he assumes everyone plays by the same rules. 9/11 didn't happen because someone wanted to conquer us. It happened because they wanted to kill us. The oceans are no barrier (particularly if the Navy is eliminated), and gun ownership is no barrier to those kind of attacks either. If you permit terrorists who target the U.S. to operate freely outside the U.S., its only a matter of time until they succeed.
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.
How expensive was it for Al Qaeda to kill 3000 Americans? And am I reading this wrong, or is this guy saying that we shouldn't have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Actually, that must be what he's saying, because he advocates eliminating the standing army that is engaging in that war.
Universal gun ownership means an occupying force can never succeed.
That's just false. I'm thinking this guy's military knowledge is limited to computer games or something. Plenty of armed people have been successfully repressed throughout history. In the real world, every person in an occpied country isn't willing to sacrifice his life gloriously. The vast majority will be cowed over time if faced with overwhelming force. But even if he's right, an invasion and ultimately unsuccessful occupation still would mean the deaths of millions, destruction of our economic life and property, and decades of oppression.
Just look at Iraq. Tons of guns there, yet our loss rate is only 1 per day. That's a political issue here, but in military terms, its insignicant. Our occupying force could stay there forever if we wanted it to, particularly if we didn't have the type of scruples we have now. Start wiping out whole villages, murdering mullahs, etc., and you'd see resistance collapse pretty quickly. A little brutality doesn't work, but a lot of brutality does.
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.
Yup, as someone pointed out, too many viewings of Red Dawn here. He's lost in his own romanticism without checking reality. A "nation of rifle toting rednecks"? I dunno, I think most of the people in Greenwich Village probably don't fall under the rubric of "rifle toting rednecks." Lots of rifle toting rednecks in Washington D.C., right? And I'm willing to bet the author doesn't fall under that description either. I'm sure he fancies himself one of the "intellectual leaders" of the resistance.
There is no incentive for any nation to do that to any other
That's just terrible reasoning. This guy is so locked into his own worldview its amazing. When Rome conquered Carthage, it didn't try to take advantage of Carthage's economic power. It didn't try to steal anything. It wanted to eliminate a potential rival. So it intentionally destroyed the economic viability of Carthage by razing the city and sowing the fields with salt. We could become a target not because someone wants to take our wealth, but because someone perceives us as a potential threat, either military or economic. Everyone else in the world does not act solely on the basis of rationalistic economic thought.
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.
Actually, they are. The majority of the U.S. miltary is stationed right here at home. As for those guys overseas, they're killing enemies in Afghanistan before they can come here and kill more Americans.
I'd expect something better from a site that purports to follow the teachings of a brilliant guy like von Mises.
We have contingency plans to fight wars against everybody in every conceivable circumstance. Some are pretty far flung. How could Hitler drop paratroopers in the Canadian Rockies when he didn't have one plane that could fly across the Atlantic? Let alone across the continent to boot.
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.