Comments on: What Is the Purpose of the Military? http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/ Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:30:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: emma http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-164098 emma Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:38:06 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-164098 i looked up this cause my dad & older sis are fighting over wat the purpose of the millitary is.though,my sis is right by reading this sight. i looked up this cause my dad & older sis are fighting over wat the purpose of the millitary is.though,my sis is right by reading this sight.

]]> By: Eugene Costa http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-93780 Eugene Costa Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:50:09 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-93780 The military has not provided the United States with Freedom of Speech, nor any other freedom. The recognition of these freedoms as pre-existent to government in the Constitution, and in the Bill of Rights especially, provides and maintains such freedoms, including Freedom of Speech. The military has not provided the United States with Freedom of Speech, nor any other freedom. The recognition of these freedoms as pre-existent to government in the Constitution, and in the Bill of Rights especially, provides and maintains such freedoms, including Freedom of Speech.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-90585 Bill K. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:18:32 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-90585 US involvement in WW2 was just a matter of time. The US had exercised significant influence on the Pacific Ocean since the Spanish-American War through Naval power. The British Empire was declining and the Japanese Empire was rising as one of the greatest Naval powers of the Pacific, this could have been predicted in the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan defeated a European power. Japan was part of the Axis Powers, so its allies had to align with its foreign policy. This foreign policy after WW1 became aimed at expanding Japan's territory and Japan launched several "pre-emptive" strikes against Korea, China, and the USSR, except for the last the first 2 were successful "nation-building" operations(the Expedition against the Soviet forces in Mongolia was a disaster). US Corporations were hit hard with these "regime change" wars as they had invested Millions of $ in Asia and saw these evaporate. This is where the US could have chosen to do nothing and slowly increased its troops numbers across the Pacific. It embargoed Japanese oil imports, the result of these actions was obvious, Japan would be forced to make a "surgical strike" against US Military forces in the Pacific and would have to seize its own oil resources. If the US had done nothing the result might have been the same. Today this is simply speculation and Alternative history. Japan could have ended its full China campaign(which was draining huge amounts of resources and killing and wounding Millions of Japanese soldiers) and withdrawn to Manchuria and used local "anti-Insurgent Security forces" formed from expendable Manchurians to defend against Mao's PLA and Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Army attacks, which were quite ineffective when both tried to go on the offensive. Korea could have become the secondary defensive line along the Yalu river. After Japan had built up a force of at least 6 to 8 Aircraft Carriers the threat the US posed would have shifted to 1st place as the US was the only nation with 3 of their own in the region, even without Japan German U-boats were wiping out British capital ships so the UK would have been unable to concentrate its Naval resources in the Pacific. In fact the Japanese might have been able to make some kind of deal to release British troops captured in Malaysia and Singapore in exchange for a Cease-fire with the UK, they really would have few choices until maybe 1943. The Japanese likely would have gone for containment of India and Australia while skirmishes would continue in Manchuria. Shifting combat hardened troops to the Kurile islands after a short break they could have begun forming an invasion force for Alaska. A 100,000 men Expeditionary Force could land on the western shores of Alaska by early 1942 and form a beachhead on American soil, simultaneously Japanese subs could be tasked with locating US Navy Carrier assets, and once found an Air strike from their own Carriers could sink these. Without these there would be no Battle of Midway, no victory in the Pacific. Hawaii is quite a long way from the US, a coordinated Japanese Air assault much larger than the Pearl Harbor attack could theoretically do great damage to the US bases on the islands. And so the entry into WW2 would be accomplished. Within weeks there would likely be street battles and urban combat in Anchorage, Alaska with both Japanese and US bombers hitting various sections of that city with bombs and US National Guards troops trying to hold off the likely superior armed, equipped, and experienced enemy. And it it possible Hawaii would be invaded and likely captured. US involvement in WW2 was just a matter of time. The US had exercised significant influence on the Pacific Ocean since the Spanish-American War through Naval power. The British Empire was declining and the Japanese Empire was rising as one of the greatest Naval powers of the Pacific, this could have been predicted in the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan defeated a European power. Japan was part of the Axis Powers, so its allies had to align with its foreign policy. This foreign policy after WW1 became aimed at expanding Japan’s territory and Japan launched several “pre-emptive” strikes against Korea, China, and the USSR, except for the last the first 2 were successful “nation-building” operations(the Expedition against the Soviet forces in Mongolia was a disaster). US Corporations were hit hard with these “regime change” wars as they had invested Millions of $ in Asia and saw these evaporate. This is where the US could have chosen to do nothing and slowly increased its troops numbers across the Pacific. It embargoed Japanese oil imports, the result of these actions was obvious, Japan would be forced to make a “surgical strike” against US Military forces in the Pacific and would have to seize its own oil resources.

If the US had done nothing the result might have been the same. Today this is simply speculation and Alternative history. Japan could have ended its full China campaign(which was draining huge amounts of resources and killing and wounding Millions of Japanese soldiers) and withdrawn to Manchuria and used local “anti-Insurgent Security forces” formed from expendable Manchurians to defend against Mao’s PLA and Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Army attacks, which were quite ineffective when both tried to go on the offensive. Korea could have become the secondary defensive line along the Yalu river. After Japan had built up a force of at least 6 to 8 Aircraft Carriers the threat the US posed would have shifted to 1st place as the US was the only nation with 3 of their own in the region, even without Japan German U-boats were wiping out British capital ships so the UK would have been unable to concentrate its Naval resources in the Pacific. In fact the Japanese might have been able to make some kind of deal to release British troops captured in Malaysia and Singapore in exchange for a Cease-fire with the UK, they really would have few choices until maybe 1943. The Japanese likely would have gone for containment of India and Australia while skirmishes would continue in Manchuria.

Shifting combat hardened troops to the Kurile islands after a short break they could have begun forming an invasion force for Alaska. A 100,000 men Expeditionary Force could land on the western shores of Alaska by early 1942 and form a beachhead on American soil, simultaneously Japanese subs could be tasked with locating US Navy Carrier assets, and once found an Air strike from their own Carriers could sink these. Without these there would be no Battle of Midway, no victory in the Pacific. Hawaii is quite a long way from the US, a coordinated Japanese Air assault much larger than the Pearl Harbor attack could theoretically do great damage to the US bases on the islands. And so the entry into WW2 would be accomplished. Within weeks there would likely be street battles and urban combat in Anchorage, Alaska with both Japanese and US bombers hitting various sections of that city with bombs and US National Guards troops trying to hold off the likely superior armed, equipped, and experienced enemy. And it it possible Hawaii would be invaded and likely captured.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-90191 Bill K. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:09:29 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-90191 There is no "new" Cold War. The last one never really ended, all the creations of the "last" Cold War are still in place, meaning it is still on. The "objectives" of the "last" Cold War were not accomplished. It simply entered a new phase. The word "asymmetrical" has become a favorite word of the Russian Government if you have been paying attention. The response to everything is "asymmetrical". I'm not even sure they know what they are talking about. Their "asymmetrical" response has so far been: send turbo-prop bombers on a predictable course towards the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans and head home. This accomplishes nothing. Not like they are Stealth bombers, they are always detected. This response actually shows fear, when you don't have much in your corner you try to mask your fear and weaknesses with such moves. And NATO/US knows this. This is why they keep advancing into the Russian sphere of influence, NATO/US are confident they have the advantage. As to Russia benefiting from a "new" Cold War, they have yet to recover from the last one! What does Russia have? Nothing. Qatar has Oil and Natural Gas too, that does not make them a "Superpower". Pakistan is not a Superpower even when it has nuclear weapons, it also has a huge population, which is not enough. In every aspect Russia is behind. And this is directly related to the Yeltsin years, who the US Government promoted 100%. There is no “new” Cold War. The last one never really ended, all the creations of the “last” Cold War are still in place, meaning it is still on. The “objectives” of the “last” Cold War were not accomplished. It simply entered a new phase.

The word “asymmetrical” has become a favorite word of the Russian Government if you have been paying attention. The response to everything is “asymmetrical”. I’m not even sure they know what they are talking about.

Their “asymmetrical” response has so far been: send turbo-prop bombers on a predictable course towards the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans and head home. This accomplishes nothing. Not like they are Stealth bombers, they are always detected. This response actually shows fear, when you don’t have much in your corner you try to mask your fear and weaknesses with such moves. And NATO/US knows this. This is why they keep advancing into the Russian sphere of influence, NATO/US are confident they have the advantage.

As to Russia benefiting from a “new” Cold War, they have yet to recover from the last one! What does Russia have? Nothing. Qatar has Oil and Natural Gas too, that does not make them a “Superpower”. Pakistan is not a Superpower even when it has nuclear weapons, it also has a huge population, which is not enough. In every aspect Russia is behind. And this is directly related to the Yeltsin years, who the US Government promoted 100%.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-90119 Bill K. Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:16:50 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-90119 The similarity to a Bush speech is almost scary. The similarity to a Bush speech is almost scary.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-89676 Bill K. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:54:17 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-89676 Encounter any "Al Qaeda" Mechanized Divisions? These guys are quite efficient for somebody who has 2,000 guys in Iraq max. Encounter any “Al Qaeda” Mechanized Divisions? These guys are quite efficient for somebody who has 2,000 guys in Iraq max.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88195 Bill K. Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:10:43 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88195 Having a Military is fine. A National Guard of citizen soldiers and a Coast Guard of volunteers can protect the nation from invasion. BUT, what the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have become are nothing more than Specialized Imperial Legions. They are not the Swiss Army. Consider how many US Military Bases there are around the globe. Over 600, even subtracting Embassies and Missions of similar purpose you are still left with about 400 facilities. 400 bases with US troops around the globe, almost twice the number of actual countries! Just in Germany the US has around 80,000 ground troops, enough to attack a fairly large European nation. These bases serve no "benevolent" purpose, their purpose is simple, CONTROL. The US can influence German politics because it has a whole Armored Division within driving distance of Berlin. You know why there is little love for France? They won't allow US Military bases(this might change with Sarkozy). Most of the US "allies" have US military bases within their borders, so it should be no surprise that those countries "fall in" with US policies, they are not being generous, the US has them by the balls. Essentially the US Military Forces Globally serve EXACTLY THE SAME PURPOSE as the Roman Legions, yet on a much more grander scale. The Roman Empire looks like a joke compared to the US Empire(which stretches across the whole globe). They expended 1,000's of troops to control North Africa and the Middle East, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan(which were never actually conquered by the Romans), the US does this with about 2,000 total. Iraq and Afghanistan are currently the only places where the local population is actively resisting US efforts to conquer them. And this requires over 170,000 troops to "pacify" the locals. The Romans never captured Germania successfully, but with extensive Soviet help the US was able to claim 1/3 of Germany. And now 62 years later the US has absolutely no plans to leave. The garrisons are in place. Like the Romans, the only way they are going to leave is if the Empire collapses and other "invaders" take over. Having a Military is fine. A National Guard of citizen soldiers and a Coast Guard of volunteers can protect the nation from invasion. BUT, what the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have become are nothing more than Specialized Imperial Legions. They are not the Swiss Army.

Consider how many US Military Bases there are around the globe. Over 600, even subtracting Embassies and Missions of similar purpose you are still left with about 400 facilities. 400 bases with US troops around the globe, almost twice the number of actual countries! Just in Germany the US has around 80,000 ground troops, enough to attack a fairly large European nation. These bases serve no “benevolent” purpose, their purpose is simple, CONTROL. The US can influence German politics because it has a whole Armored Division within driving distance of Berlin. You know why there is little love for France? They won’t allow US Military bases(this might change with Sarkozy). Most of the US “allies” have US military bases within their borders, so it should be no surprise that those countries “fall in” with US policies, they are not being generous, the US has them by the balls.

Essentially the US Military Forces Globally serve EXACTLY THE SAME PURPOSE as the Roman Legions, yet on a much more grander scale. The Roman Empire looks like a joke compared to the US Empire(which stretches across the whole globe). They expended 1,000’s of troops to control North Africa and the Middle East, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan(which were never actually conquered by the Romans), the US does this with about 2,000 total. Iraq and Afghanistan are currently the only places where the local population is actively resisting US efforts to conquer them. And this requires over 170,000 troops to “pacify” the locals.

The Romans never captured Germania successfully, but with extensive Soviet help the US was able to claim 1/3 of Germany. And now 62 years later the US has absolutely no plans to leave. The garrisons are in place. Like the Romans, the only way they are going to leave is if the Empire collapses and other “invaders” take over.

]]> By: Bill K. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88165 Bill K. Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:44:17 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88165 The Legions serve the Empire and its Consul and Proconsuls, who today wield more power than the Sovereign of the land. The Legions can crush internal rebellions caused by the wrath of the god Neptune on the southern ports and those caused by weary laborers who are tired of war and conquest. They also crush the enemies of the Empire. Like the conquest of the occupied nation of Grenada which had been under the control of the barbarian craftsman from the island of Cuba. The Legions serve the Empire and its Consul and Proconsuls, who today wield more power than the Sovereign of the land. The Legions can crush internal rebellions caused by the wrath of the god Neptune on the southern ports and those caused by weary laborers who are tired of war and conquest. They also crush the enemies of the Empire. Like the conquest of the occupied nation of Grenada which had been under the control of the barbarian craftsman from the island of Cuba.

]]> By: Kenneth http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88067 Kenneth Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:18:32 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88067 <i>You are right about the military… however! Our governments sole purpose is to protect Us from foreign invaders (via through the Military)… and protect it’s citizens from harming eachother</i> I believe that is the function of paramilitary organs such as the police. <i>Grant it… there are those that have alterior motives… but the Military still has the Sworn Duty to Protect it’s Citizens irregardless what activists or the talking heads think!</i> The military can make all the oaths it likes. Until we get a material demonstration of this "protection" (which was not forthcoming in New Orleans), votive proclamations of this sort will remain so much hot air. <i>Without Our Military… You can Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye!!! Like it or not… We have Many Privliges because of Them. You have the Right to speak out and protest against Them… because They have Given All of Us that Freedom to do so, by laying down Their Lives…</i> The military is made necessary by others like themselves who wield undue influence abroad. <i>Maybe we all can just sit down and talk it out… till we all understand one another. That way… peace will abound. Yeah… Right???</i> That's called "solving one's problems like an adult" and is generally held to be the backbone of civil society. You are right about the military… however! Our governments sole purpose is to protect Us from foreign invaders (via through the Military)… and protect it’s citizens from harming eachother

I believe that is the function of paramilitary organs such as the police.

Grant it… there are those that have alterior motives… but the Military still has the Sworn Duty to Protect it’s Citizens irregardless what activists or the talking heads think!

The military can make all the oaths it likes. Until we get a material demonstration of this “protection” (which was not forthcoming in New Orleans), votive proclamations of this sort will remain so much hot air.

Without Our Military… You can Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye!!! Like it or not… We have Many Privliges because of Them. You have the Right to speak out and protest against Them… because They have Given All of Us that Freedom to do so, by laying down Their Lives…

The military is made necessary by others like themselves who wield undue influence abroad.

Maybe we all can just sit down and talk it out… till we all understand one another. That way… peace will abound. Yeah… Right???

That’s called “solving one’s problems like an adult” and is generally held to be the backbone of civil society.

]]> By: Steve http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88004 Steve Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:46:57 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-88004 You are right about the military... however! Our governments sole purpose is to protect Us from foreign invaders (via through the Military)... and protect it's citizens from harming eachother. That's it... Right??? But the people fell asleep in this Country, and didn't heed the Warning of Our Founding Fathers... therefore the Government has become Far Beyond what it was intended to be! Our Military now... has been expanded to protect the interests of the people in this Country of Ours. Grant it... there are those that have alterior motives... but the Military still has the Sworn Duty to Protect it's Citizens irregardless what activists or the talking heads think! Without Our Military... You can Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye!!! Like it or not... We have Many Privliges because of Them. You have the Right to speak out and protest against Them... because They have Given All of Us that Freedom to do so, by laying down Their Lives... just so You can have that! Maybe we all can just sit down and talk it out... till we all understand one another. That way... peace will abound. Yeah... Right??? You are right about the military… however! Our governments sole purpose is to protect Us from foreign invaders (via through the Military)… and protect it’s citizens from harming eachother. That’s it… Right??? But the people fell asleep in this Country, and didn’t heed the Warning of Our Founding Fathers… therefore the Government has become Far Beyond what it was intended to be! Our Military now… has been expanded to protect the interests of the people in this Country of Ours. Grant it… there are those that have alterior motives… but the Military still has the Sworn Duty to Protect it’s Citizens irregardless what activists or the talking heads think!

Without Our Military… You can Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye!!! Like it or not… We have Many Privliges because of Them. You have the Right to speak out and protest against Them… because They have Given All of Us that Freedom to do so, by laying down Their Lives… just so You can have that! Maybe we all can just sit down and talk it out… till we all understand one another. That way… peace will abound. Yeah… Right???

]]> By: Eugene Costa http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-85612 Eugene Costa Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:38:33 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-85612 Coincidences happen, naturally. If it is not a coincidence, however, tracking down the investors and financing might be of some interest. Coincidences happen, naturally. If it is not a coincidence, however, tracking down the investors and financing might be of some interest.

]]> By: Eugene Costa http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-85610 Eugene Costa Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:36:03 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/16/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-military/#comment-85610 Is one allowed to conjecture that Charlie Wilson's War was perhaps planned and timed to appear just as Bush and Cheney have succeeded in reegineering the beginnings of a new Cold War--perhaps even something warmer than that--with the Russian Federation? Is one allowed to conjecture that Charlie Wilson’s War was perhaps planned and timed to appear just as Bush and Cheney have succeeded in reegineering the beginnings of a new Cold War–perhaps even something warmer than that–with the Russian Federation?

]]>