Arguing the War

Two weeks ago, Antiwar.com received a letter from a non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps wondering what motivated our behavior. One of my jobs for Antiwar.com is handling letters like these, and since he asked like a gentleman, I’ve done my best to represent the site and the case against the war.

What follows, with his permission and with his name and rank omitted, is our discussion:Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:05:06 -0800 To: @antiwar.com Subject: Inquiry from website—-(USMC) submitted a link…here are the results! Subject: motive

I just want to know what your reason is for starting a website of such substance. As a Marine who anti-war activists commonly bash, I always seem to be on the offense while discussing the matter of war. Did I do something wrong? I want to serve my country and hopefully, keep my children from fighting these battles in fifteen years. Because, we all know that if we don’t keep the terrorists “over there,” they will inevitably, end up, “over here.” Maybe your opinions contradict. To debate would be a welcome experience. You can definitely consider that a challenge.

Best regards.

——————————

—– Original Message —- From: Scott Horton scott@antiwar.com

Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 10:46:55 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Inquiry from website

—–,

–Thanks for your challenge, I accept and mean to change your mind about some things.

–First an answer to your question why do we do Antiwar.com http://antiwar.com/?: The site was begun in 1995 in opposition to Bill Clinton’s wars in the Balkans. All the staff are libertarians – like Ron Paul – but we feature articles from all political positions in opposition to foreign intervention. (You’ll notice that most of our in-house writers are libertarians and conservatives.) As to the why, well, we do it for the same reason you fight in the Marines: To protect Americans’ freedom. Remember how the founders were wary of standing armies? It was because permanent military establishments and war are detrimental to liberty. War is the health of the state. And the U.S. has been at war or on a permanent war footing since WWII. Hence, we have the national security state, homeland security state, the PATRIOT Act (illegal searches), Military Commissions Act (legalizes torture), Protect America Act (tapping phones) and on and on *because* we have Marines all over the world waging war. And conversely, none of these laws will ever be repealed as long as we are at war.

–Now I can see how a freedom loving patriot like yourself would reason that even though our Constitutional system here at home may be suffering for the short term, it is worth it to bring the war to our country’s enemies to protect us for the long term. And you would be right, but for the fact that your first assumption about we all know that warring now prevents worse war later is fatally flawed.

–For example, if Europe, China and Russia were to send their navies to invade and occupy our land, we would all tolerate Commander in Chief Bush taking extraordinary measures to coordinate our defense, including running roughshod over state governors, seizing certain property, etc. It would be horrible, but worth it in that case. But the war on terrorism is different.

–In this case, we have a very small band of jihadists who would or could attack the U.S. They are, at this point, holed up in exile in the Hindu Kush. They don’t control a single country on earth. The local Sunnis in Iraq have shown that they could turn “al Qaeda in Iraq” off like a switch when they felt like it.

–Bin Laden was looking at a fractured bunch of Afghan-Russian war leftover jihadists and wanted to unite them. The attacks on America were his attempt to lure the US into occupying Afghanistan (Iraq was a bonus for them) so they could recreate the old war against the USSR. The plan was to bleed our treasury dry and wear our military out, thereby forcing our government out of the region permanently.

(The six objections to U.S. policy that the CIA says he cited over and over were: 1: U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, 2: Support for Israel over the Palestinians, 3: Support for tyrannies in Egypt, Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE etc., 4: Pressure on them to keep prices set where Houston wants them, 5: The blockade and no-fly zone bombings against Iraq [now replaced on the list by invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan], 6: Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims. In other words, al Qaeda recruiter schtick is all about U.S. empire in their countries [not about hating freedom and democracy]. This is why ALL of the 9/11 hijackers were from “friendly” Middle Eastern countries [Egypt, Saudi, Yemen], not Iraq, Iran or Syria.)

–As we can see, bin Laden was able to provoke exactly the reaction he wanted out of the U.S., but has failed completely at rallying the Muslim world to his cause. They are more radicalized than ever, but sure don’t seem interested in being ruled by him any more than us.

–Further, in the book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Dr. Robert Pape traced the histories of thousands of suicide bombers – all of them, failed and successful, between 1980 and 2004. What he found was that virtually all of them were attacking forces that were occupying their land. The most suicide bombing is in Sri Lanka where neither side is Muslim. Sudan is a Sunni Arab land, with a lot of Waahabi extremism and widespread violence – but no one has ever done a suicide bombing there because it’s a civil war and they are not being occupied by a foreign power – yet. Just wait for the suicide bombers to come out of the woodwork when Hillary sends the “peace force.” In 2005, the Saudis and Israelis both did studies tracing the jihadists who went to Iraq to kill Americans. 99% of them were young people radicalized by the invasion of Iraq itself. They weren’t violent fighters before the invasion at all. The CIA and British MI-6 have both come to similar conclusions. Ayman al Zawahiri has said he wants us to stay in Iraq until 300,000 have been killed, that way we won’t be back. Al-What’s-his-name who took over AQI after Zarqawi likewise complained of the danger to their movement if the U.S. were to withdraw.

–Here is a page of interviews I did with all CIA guys and Pape the author of the book cited above after Giuliani attacked Ron Paul for saying essentially what I have said above. They all said Paul was right, including the former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit who gave Bill Clinton 10 chances to kill bin Laden.

–So the best way to fight terrorism is to kill the guys who did 9/11 (finally) and then get our combat forces off of other people’s holy land. The remaining al Qaeda in the world can be wiped out by the world’s national governments’ intelligence agencies and cops – with Marines for the occasional really tough jobs – no problem, IF we scale back the empire that we shouldn’t have anyway.

–As CIA man Scheuer once told me, the choice is war or total war. If we scale back the occupations and just go after the actual bad guys, that’s war. If we let the neocon crazies talk us into a war of civilizations against the whole Muslim world, then that’s what we’ll get.

–Eagerly awaiting your reply,

Best,
Scott Horton
Antiwar.com

——————-

—– Original Message —- From: Scott Horton scott@antiwar.com mailto:scott@antiwar.com To: —-@—-.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:29:19 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Inquiry from website

—-, My responses below…

—- wrote: Mr. Horton, First let me say this. Changing my mind about anything that I feel strongly on is no easy task. I would go so far as to say that it is nearly impossible in most matters. I’m sure you feel the same way about my swaying your opinion.

–Yes, I do as well. I’ll take extra satisfaction in changing yours when I do. : )

I don’t get the impression that your organization would fall into the realm of such activists that picket servicememeber’s funerals shouting babykiller. Sadly it has happened with other groups. Now, if that is the type of activism that you advocate, well, quite simply, I hope you burn in hell. Tell your friends I said that too. But, I questioned your motives anyway because I have my qualms with these campaigns myself.

–First of all, Antiwar.com would never have anything to do with any groups that did such things, but secondly, you should know that the only group that has protested military funerals has been the wacked out church of a right-wing nut named Phelps, whose very small but dedicated supporters protest with signs saying “God hates America” and “God hates fags” – his position is that as long as there are any gay people in the U.S. Army then God-uh will strike down our sinful nation. This clearly has nothing to do with Anyone in the antiwar movement whatsoever.

–The only insincere motives I’ve seen in the antiwar movement comes from some on the communist left who want to use opposition to the war to boost themselves. I think they prefer that there’s a war just so they can oppose it. I’ve never heard of them protesting any funerals though.

Many anti-war stances have clout and I don’t mind examining them.

–That’s why I took the trouble to write that long response. You obviously came looking for an honest debate and opportunity for us to understand each other.

I can’t honestly say that I disagree with the points you make in your letter. You raise good points such as the study done by international intelligence agencies to determine the motivation of these insurgent fighters. That is a well known fact among Marines and soldiers believe me. It is an inevitable domino effect that begins with one sorrowful act of an innocent civilian being caught in the crossfire. His brother vows revenge and attacks coalition forces. He is killed and then his son vows revenge and so on. That is where the problem lies.

–Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I will tell you now why I disagree with your opinions that you have so thoroughly reinforced with he-said-she-said type of evidence.

–I do not believe I made the fallacy of argument from authority. I tried my best to make my argument myself and cite important footnotes where further reading can be found.

First: There is the implication that if we withdrew our forces from abroad it would seem to end our social and economical difficulties. Well, sure, some of it. But it would create others. For instance, hypothetically of course, if we were to return our forward deployed forces to the United States, the next step would be to downsize the military. It would only be natural. That would in turn create a massive influx of unemployed veterans who have no home, no job and a heavy reliance on government assistance. especially individuals who are handicapped due to battle related injuries.

–Right now the U.S. government spends over a Trillion dollars a year on war. That is money that is taken out of the productive economy and given to the Pentagon to waste. That’s money that would have been invested, spent on salaries, given as grants, etc., etc. Empire costs our society so much money with nothing to show for it. As the Old Right author Garet Garrett once wrote, “The winds that blow our billions away return burdened with themes of scorn and dispraise.”

–And surely you recognize that more war and more empire means more wounded veterans, not less. The economists are already saying the Iraq war – never mind the rest of it – will end up costing 3 Trillion dollars or more. Again that is all money taken from productive use by private citizens (who have no choice but to pay or go to jail, by the way).

Second: The assumption that the CIA, or any of our covert agencies for that matter, can defeat jihadists in Afghanistan without military support, is naive at best. I can tell you from personal experience working with operatives when I was there that the tactics that had to be employed by these agencies are extremely cost-ineffective and turn up little result.

–Remember, I said Marines should be used where necessary. But there’s a big difference between actually fighting al Qaeda in Waziristan and propping up Karzai and fighting the Taliban (which our ally Pakistan still supports), drug wars and the rest of it.

–In 2001 the CIA called the local general with his 4,000 marines and said help us out at Tora Bora. The general called Tommy Franks and was told no. Bin Laden escaped that night.

Third: You include a paragraph discussing the nature of motives behind suicide bombings. Well, in case you haven’t watched the news, since 2004 those figures became obsolete. Now that we have deposed the dictator of Iraq, there is no one to oppress the other secular muslim groups there. Civil violence has blown up over there. Literally. The insurgents now target Iraqis who are assisting coalition forces. As much of a hindrance as we are on the average Iraqi’s daily life, we also progress their future. That is one reason why the mullahs don’t advocate attacks against us so much anymore. But they have no problem killing members of another branch of Islam.

–Please reread what you just wrote there. The suicide bombers fight the U.S. occupation and those who collaborate with it.

–I fail to see how this does anything but make the case I’m making.

–There had Never been a suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003 – Never. Now our foreign military occupies it and suicide bombings are all the rage.

Whether or not Bin Laden’s ambition behind 9/11 was to draw us into Afghanistan to destroy our economy like the USSR is a very very thin hypothesis.

–The furthest thing from it. He said so over and over as did Zawahiri. See his October 2004 speech for example. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

Don’t forget, we funded, trained, and equipped the Afghani fighters in that era.

–I haven’t forgotten. More on that below.

The Al Qaeda fighters that were up against us had nowhere near that level of support for this campaign!

–Right. That’s just what I said in my first response. Even though the U.S. has done exactly what bin Laden wanted and more, the Muslim world has still not rallied around him and he remains nearly powerless in exile in the Hindu Kush. We’re still going broke though.

The problem in Afghanistan now is that the exiled Taliban are growing in numbers and strength. Karzai begs us to stay any time we get a foot out the door because he realizes that after we leave, his government isn’t strong enough to keep the entire nation from collapsing and creating a collage of locally controlled warlord states.

–As Governor George W. Bush once said, “What’s the exit strategy?” There isn’t one. Afghanistan is meant to be a permanent colony of the U.S., but why? What interests of America’s are served by the policy? Few to none at all. Why should Hamid Karzai be the lord of those people? What right do we have to put him there?

Plus, we slashed alot of opium and cannabis crops there. Because Americans don’t believe in drugs we have to destroy the strongest market item that the country offers and give them bags of wheat. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, 80% of the world’s heroin supply was derived from opium exported from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. So that leaves us in a pretty bad spot. We don’t want them to grow opium but we offer no reasonable alternative. It would be irresponsible of us to turn our backs to it due to the drug problem in today’s America. But then again, in the third poorest country on earth, Afghanis need to feed their families as we do. Fix that one.

–That’s easy. Let them trade in whatever they want. The destruction of their crops only drives up the price and makes growing it all the more attractive. Drug wars are stupid. Doctors world-wide use opiates on their patients every day. Why shouldn’t Afghanistanis be allowed – by Americans – to sow and reap a cash crop? Insanity. (PS: legalizing drugs would go a hell of a long way toward solving America’s domestic drug addiction problems as well.)

Iraq. If we left tomorrow there would be a genocide and a three way civil war. Then we will read about it in the papers and see it on TV and there will be an outcry from narcissistic george clooney types to “stop the violence!” So guess where the Marines go?

–Well, darn it, whose fault is that? They had a secular dictator, then the U.S. invaded and screwed everything up. Now those who opposed the war and advocate withdrawal are to be held responsible for the consequences? I don’t think so. Besides, as you probably well know, the U.S. supports all the Iraqi secessionists (who need us): The Supreme Islamic Council and Da’wa (in league with Iran) and the Barzani and Talabani factions in Kurdistan. The violence between them and the former Ba’athist Sunnis makes our permanent military bases “necessary” while the nationalists want us out ASAP. The nationalist Sunni and Shia Arabs are called the insurgency and the death squads and are marginalized. (I know Sadr’s guys are murderers, but they are no worse that the Iran-backed SCIRI/Badr/Da’wa factions who we call the “Iraqi government” and the Sunni insurgency is now on the payroll – temporarily.) The only thing “wrong” with Sadr really is that he wants to form a nationalist alliance with Iraqi Sunnis and insists on U.S. withdrawal. –Right?

I do realize that part of your cause is to ensure civil liberties as well. I know that bills such as the Patriot Act are controversial and very unfair to average people trying to live their lives. I am very skeptical of these plans as well.

–I’m a real stickler for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If the Constitution isn’t the law, then what binds the power of our government? They are forbidden from searches without warrants. Period. If the Patriot Act is worth it, then repeal the 4th amendment.

I see both sides of the argument. But I chose the opposite side of the fence on the issue than you did. Just like how I chose to put my life on the line for the country and you chose to stay and home and write about the mistakes I am making.

–Well, I think the mistakes are being made mostly by the civilian policy makers at the think tanks in Washington and New York and then implemented by some of your higher ups. Admirals Fallon and Mullen deserve a great deal of credit for telling Bush/Cheney hell no on war with Iran. I believe they stopped it.

Whenever I get into a discussion of this nature I always listen to the other person make their point and ask a simple question. So I ask you now. What, in your opinion, would be the most effective strategy to conclude this war?

–I really appreciate the honesty of this debate. It has been of a far higher standard than much of the email we get.

–Alright, short question, long answer:

–We have to understand what Ron Paul has been telling us: that the founders were right that we had to leave the world alone. No entangling alliances. Not an appeal to authority, but to their wisdom. When we intervene in wars there are always consequences. Often the consequences are used to justify the next war. We should only fight in our own defense, never for other countries interests in order to minimize these consequences (dead, wounded, inflation, taxation, lost liberty, new enemies, etc).

–Woodrow Wilson betrayed Washington and Jefferson when he got us into World War I (then known as The War to End All Wars). Because of this, the groundwork was set for the Commies to seize power in Russia and the Nazis in Germany. Also due to the American intervention the Brits got to steal the Middle East from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.

–In WWII we intervened to save the Brits and the Soviets from the Nazis. At the end, we inherited the empires of the British, French, Dutch, Germans and Japanese and accepted it all in the name now of containing the Soviets we had saved. Soon came a coup in Iran because of the democratic election of Mossedeq who leaned toward the Reds. 26 years later the people of Iran rose up and overthrew the U.S. backed dictator and got the Ayatollahs in his place. Right around the same time, the U.S. started backing the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against our old friends the Soviets and Saddam Hussein in Iraq in order to contain the Iranian revolution.

–When the Soviets fell and Hussein got too big for his britches, we put bases in Saudi from which to bomb Iraq from 1991 through the present day. This is what angered our old friends the mujahedeen and gave them common cause for their jihad. Result: September 11th.

–Now we have regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia with consequences unknown on their way down the line (Iran? Kurdistan? Pakistan? Saudi? Sudan?) The lesson here is that at some point we have to just kick the damn habit. Wars do not, in fact, prevent the next war, they cause them.

–Al Qaeda remains a threat that must be dealt with. Here’s how: As one former CIA officer has said, “Ramp this whole thing down.” It is not conceding to the terrorists for the U.S. to do what is right anyway. We should announce to the world that despite what they may have been led to believe by some of our bad policies recently that we are not an empire, that we are proud of our heritage of independence from empire, we only wanted to protect ‘em, but were doing it wrong, that we intend to leave Iraq as quickly as logistically possible, that we have no desire for war with Syria or Iran (both are avowed enemies of al Qaeda) and will be sending ambassadors to open embassies in those countries immediately, and we should insist firmly, as we withdraw our empire, on cooperation from all regional national governments to find bin Laden and his top few hundred followers. They should be captured and brought to America for trial – RICO and anti-terrorism statutes should cover it. Those who cannot be brought in alive should be blasted.

–If this had been the policy all along, the entire war on terrorism would have been over by June 2002. Qaeda ain’t no Soviet Union. They don’t even own a single county on earth. They are dangerous to civilian lives in our country, but they in no way pose an existential threat to our country itself. One division of Marines could handle this problem once and for all, I’d bet. And then we should go back to being a limited constitutional republic before it’s too late.

–By the way, don’t buy Bush line that it is new to have enemies who can strike across the ocean at us and that the founders’ advice doesn’t apply today. Back when the founders gave their advice, the Brits and French occupied Canada and Louisiana right on our borders and had the most powerful armies and navies in the world.

I look forward to your response.

Best, Scott

—-USMC

————————–

—-wrote: Mr. Horton, Hello again. I’ll tell you right off the bat that I appreciate your complement. At the same time I should tell you that you aren’t half as shallow as I thought you might be. You also have well formed opinions, although I may disagree. You can consider that a compliment, as reluctant as it sounds. Trust me when I say that it is. I have been approached by my share of ignorant and nonsensical individuals who can’t contemplate the breadth of the situation that we are dealing with. It’s ridiculous at times and I have to walk away laughing because there is no chance for an intelligent discord. So I give you credit for that. But don’t break out the party hats too soon! I’m not done yet.

There’s a topic that I want to hit first because it kind of made me laugh when I read what you wrote. It is the part where you are presenting your withdrawal strategy. Basically scale down the offensive forces in Iraq and send a Marine RCT into Afghanistan to flush and and capture/kill the enemy. Do I pretty much have that summed up? Well, the irony is, That is EXACTLY what General Conway proposed to the Joint Chiefs. I’m sure you read about it. His proposal was to withdraw the Marines completely from Iraq, (because we aren’t designed or intended to be an occupation force anyway) and send us to Afghanistan and take care of the problem once and for all. Meanwhile the army would withdraw it’s forces from Afghanistan and focus on aiding in the rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and training Iraqi security forces while scaling back troop strength. Well, The plan got shot down. It’s too bad because I’m pretty sure it would work. They want to keep NATO in there.

–Ha! You know, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me! Am I a regular strategic genius or what? : )

That’s another thing that has become a common complaint among Marines. We are an expeditionary force. We are intended to be employed as a force in readiness capable of rapid deployment worldwide. Now, of course, I have my rivalry with the army. That rivalry has existed for many, many generations, dating all the way back to the very founding of the Marine Corps, which occurred three months after the formation of the army in 1775. But I think that it is safe to say that the army is better suited for the occupation of Iraq. Albeit a progressive reduction in forces. Not to mention that the situation in Iraq has made vast improvements over the last year since I was there. Mostly in Al Anbar, where the Marines control. But it is commonly viewed by the Corps as a whole that we are not needed over there anymore. I would like to see us take up our position again as the quick reaction force that we are designed to be. Marines out is a good first start.

There is no need to attempt to educate me on the political ties that we share between certain groups that hold power in Iraq. Here it is plain and simple. We work with the first insurgent organization who is willing to cooperate. We form these alliances knowing full well that we were fighting them last week! I will give you an example. The Iraqi division that we were partnered up with, had an old crusty Sergeant Major. He spoke pretty good English so I was asking him about his history. He was 36 years old and had been in the Iraqi army for 24 years. Got his start in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s when he was a kid. He fought us in ‘91. Inevitably, he fought us again during the invasion. But there we were, a couple of patriots just having a smoke and talking military life. In, fact he told me that over half of the Iraqi soldiers that we had with us had fought against us during the initial push. Many had become insurgents after the Iraqi military defeat. But they were persuaded to join the army and do the right thing instead of killing the wrong people. Now, I don’t know who’s logic it was that decided these alliances but the truth is clear. We had to start getting these groups on our side of the table before we could discuss negotiations. I’ll tell you another story. There was this one section of road through the city that we always got attacked on. Usually sniper fire or a small IED buried in the dirt next to the road. Anyway, I made friends with one of the local community leaders. In fact most of that stretch of road was his extended family. We were bringing him back to the FOB to talk to him and our truck got hit with an IED. The trigger man misjudged and blew it early so it was mostly superficial damage. Well, we took care of him and talked to him for a while. We bring him back later on and to this day, there hasn’t been an attack on that stretch of road. Understand, I’m not telling you stories because I like to wave my ego flag. I’m communicating a few things to you. I don’t know if you have ever served in an infantry unit in combat or not. I’m just explaining to you my appreciation of certain issues and how it directly relates to the subject at hand.

–No, I’ve never been in the military. That is interesting, but, no offense intended, I’m afraid I don’t really understand what you’re getting at there.

Now, I have seen you write ‘American Empire’ in some form or another, a few times. Is that to say that you think that a forward deployed, operationally ready military force should be abandoned? Should we isolate ourselves and put blinders on to any injustices occurring in the outside world? That is the impression I get. That’s alot like a ‘it’s none of my business’ attitude. Being the world’s truly, lone superpower I feel that we owe civilization a bit more than that. The United States as a whole probably throws away more food in one day than Africa eats! But I’m not interested in talking about Africa. So don’t bring it up. It has nothing to do with me not caring.

–An operationally ready military force is fine with me. Forward deployed is not. I think the fact that we are the most powerful nation is all the more reason that we should lead by example and show the world that we believe empires are immoral and that we mean to keep our constitutional republic and that if they want to be badass like us, they should embrace liberty too. I also believe that private citizens should be allowed to intervene if they want – such as U.S. pilots who volunteered to fight the Germans for England before Pearl Harbor. If you want to be a peacekeeper in a humanitarian crisis, that’s fine, but I think it is a mistake to expect government to ever get these things right and wrong to tax your neighbor for any reason other than basic mutual defense.

–Like I was saying last night, here we are 90 years later still fighting Wilson’s War. Intervention just doesn’t work. The worst humanitarian crisis in the world right now is Iraq – caused, not prevented, by U.S. intervention.

You are right that this war has been a massive financial drain on our economy. There is no disputing that. Money could be spent elsewhere. But you seem to be stuck in the past. Sure, we would be a lot better off financially if we didn’t have to fund such an expensive campaign. But guess what? It happened. So now is the time to look towards the future and make the right choices.

–Well the past is only prologue, but it isn’t that I want to go backwards so much as I want to get the lessons right so that as we go forward, we go in the right direction.

Best,
Scott
—-USMC

———————

—- wrote:

Mr. Horton, The only point that I want to dispute you on at this time is the issue of forward deployed forces. I’m not going to quote you because you know what you wrote. I understand your concept and agree that it would be an IDEAL function of our military. However, what you speak of is a utopian society that does not exist in this world. You have to realize that our military, especially the Navy and Marine Corps, our forward deployed to be used as a deterrent force at times. If we didn’t have the presence in more volatile parts of the world, things would be far worse I assure you. We have treaties with nations who allow us to occupy small areas of their sovereignty in order to project their interests politically as well. Take Japan for example. The United States, most notably the Marines, have a major base on the island of Okinawa. But, we have to pay for it. This is the result of an agreement that was reached to promise the Japanese a lack of imperialism on our part. Imagine the lack of even the threat of a superior force in places like Somalia and Israel. This world would be in a frenzy if there wasn’t some sort of balancing power. I’m sure you don’t view our projected power as such but take a step back and imagine what the world would look like if we weren’t here.

—-USMC

————————–

Scott Horton wrote:

–Why should the American people subsidize Japan? Seriously. You point out that we don’t even make any money off our empire. We pay them to allow us the privilege of fighting for their sovereignty? Everything goes out, nothing comes back. Who’s going to attack Japan? Why should we believe for a minute that they would be in any worse position if we left? Little dudes nearly took over the whole pacific themselves back in the day, but now they’re helpless without us?

–What about Germany? Why are we still protecting Western Europe from the USSR? Why are we expanding NATO into Eastern Europe? They would all be at war now if we weren’t? Come on. Most of this is just welfare for Lockheed.

–The last time the U.S. military did anything in Africa to their benefit was back when they defeated the Nazis. Ever since Bush had the formerly Soviet dictator of Ethiopia invade Somalia for regime change a year ago, there have been hundreds of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands of refugees. For what? To install some UN-created “government” over those people for their own good? That same UN now admits that the crisis in Somalia is worse than in Darfur.

–By what right have we done this to these people who have never so much as threatened us?

–There is nothing whatsoever that is utopian about my view. If anything, you are the one who is choosing to ignore 100 years of chaos spread by American intervention in your belief that somehow there will come a point where things are great. This is simply not true. We back dictatorships all over the world and those bases you talk about – more than 750 of them in more than 130 countries – are what causes people to hijack planes and kill Americans, as we’ve already established.

–Think of it this way. If they had given us a choice at the end of the Cold War: “Okay folks, we’re going to go be the police man of the world, solving everyone else’s problems and every once in a while people are going to come here and kill thousands of American civilians by way of showing their gratitude,” would we have taken them up on their offer?

–What about when people hate their government and want to get rid of it – democratically or otherwise – but their government is on the U.S. payroll, its security forces trained by you guys and thus cannot be overthrown?

–Sorta like when the Chinese government paid for Clinton’s election campaigns in 1992 and 1996 – pissed me off man. Maybe pissed you off too. Now what if the Chinese had funded and trained our cops and soldiers for use against us? Had military bases and combat troops in our counties?

–We would want to kill them, right?

–We are trying to make a unipolar world at a time when power is spreading out all over. We are trying to impose an empire. It’s morally wrong. It costs way too much. It does not create peace but more conflict. It costs us our liberty and our republican form of government. It creates enemies for regular Americans who want nothing to do with empire at all.

–And another thing. If this imperial policy is really being carried out for the good, why do they lie about every single freaking word out of their mouths?

–Kosovo 99: Hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians massacred by the Serbs. Lie.

–Iraq: has reconstituted nuclear weapons they had never constituted in the first place, mobile bio weapons labs, uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, friends with Osama, remote control planes that can fly across Jordan, Israel, the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean to spray germs and chemicals on the U.S. east coast (remember that one?), threat to his neighbors, refused UN inspectors, still holding Scott Speicher, want us to invade them… All lies.

–Iran: building nukes, openly declared they’re building nukes, secret nuke program, refuse to negotiate with us, support our enemies in Iraq, friends with Osama, threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” support the Taliban, want us to bomb them… All lies.

–North Korea: secretly enriching uranium and so they broke the Warren Christopher deal, not us. Lie.

–Syria: Got Saddam’s missing weapons, secret nuclear weapons program, friends with Osama. Lies.

–Georgia: Osama’s friends are there. Lie.

–Somalia: Osama’s friends in power. Lie.

–Ukraine: FSB poisoned heroic candidate. Lie.

–This is empire. Not some stabilizing force of love.

–And even another thing: The people who’ve come up with this doctrine of “benevolent global hegemony,” the neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute, for example, are a bunch of sissy-pants, draft doging, soft handed, air conditioned “theorists” of a doctrine that has been alien to America. It is the will to dominate and export revolution along the lines of the French Jacobins and Trotskyite communists. It is Washington and Jefferson turned upside down.

–If you’d like I could recommend some interesting reading about these neocons, their origins on the communist left, and how they took the conservatism of Robert Taft http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rp-mr-republican.html
–And turned it into the “conservatism” of Rudy Giuliani.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3027

–Well, there’s a couple.

–Would you mind if I posted our discussion on my blog? I would omit your name and rank, of course.

–Either way, Merry Christmas to you and be careful.

Best,
Scott

———————–

—- wrote:

Mr. Horton,

No worries. I’ve been really busy lately… It may be a few weeks before you here from me again. But the discussion isn’t closed yet. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Author: Scott Horton

Scott Horton is editorial director of Antiwar.com, director of the Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio on Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles, California and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from ScottHorton.org. He’s the author of the 2017 book, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan and editor of The Great Ron Paul: The Scott Horton Show Interviews 2004–2019. He’s conducted more than 5,000 interviews since 2003. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott’s Twitter, YouTube, Patreon.

40 thoughts on “Arguing the War”

  1. Man, that was good stuff. Facinating. Kind of a microscope into our culture, educational system, political system all mixed together. Read it all in one sitting beginning to end. The soldier is a genuinely decent and thoughtful man, struggling with the ideas of violence, honor, patriotism, duty and just plain doing the right “thing”. You can see the wrestling within.

    Scott, this soldier is the kind of stock that has historically made this country great. Continue to pass on your “wisdom” with the utmost respect you have displayed. Embracing the kind of liberty and all of the enlightenment that produces that you clearly now possess, and which I am daily endeavoring to adopt in my journey, is not only euphoric, at times intoxicating, but at other times saddening. And frightening. To firmly and finally realize that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even amongst a “good” people, a good nation and a good military.

    Isn’t there a bibilical reference about the “journey to humility being the path to holiness”–something like that? I can’t remember.

    GSpala

  2. This sort of content is great to see on the site. Very constructive. Keep up the great work in 2008!

  3. Scott, nice work! Excellent and illuminating summary of real antiwar philosophy. I’ve got a lot of respect for you and your correspondent. I thought that intelligent debate was dead in America.

    You wrote:

    “–No, I’ve never been in the military. That is interesting, but, no offense intended, I’m afraid I don’t really understand what you’re getting at there.”

    I’m not sure either, but in any case he’s helping to prove your point. For a long time the US government did not want to talk to terrorists. As a result, we were losing. Now, we’re talking to the terrorists, and we’re doing better. This is exactly what the antiwar movement wants to do around the world. Even if Bush gets the credit for the idea.

  4. Ah, Mr. Horton, you’re a good and patient man. Military folks often make the same two mistakes: they think the first-hand experience of their facet of the war gives them irrefutable evidence of the entire war’s worthiness, and that their wartime sacrifices somehow necessarily hallow the war’s existence.

    In most Americans’ minds there’s a constant Himalayan non sequitur churning. We are a great and powerful nation, therefore we have the duty to interfere across the earth. It’s a sort of “might makes right” argument. Oddly enough, many of those same Americans make excuses for an omnipotent God not setting the world’s affairs right, yet fully expect that fallible humans in America can do exactly what God has not.

    When David Limbaugh tells Mark Levin that any side America is on in a war is necessarily the right side, he’s serious. That explains why we feel entitled to do anything we wish, break any law, kill any person guilty or not, because by definition we are right. It’s pretty near blasphemy. Good luck changing that mindset in America.

  5. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving so much time and energy to our cause, Scott. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

  6. That was a very good dialogue. I hope that the Marine keeps some of this in mind. I feel that in the future he may come to realize the truth. At present, I suppose he has to hold the views he does in order to perform his job. In any case, I wish him the best of physical and psychological health. And thank you, Mr. Horton, for presenting what are the views of many here. We need to de-imperialize and get back to shaping the world through example and trade and not via force.

  7. A civilized conversation with a US Marine? Aren’t those guys supposed to go “hurrr… me break wall with head!”?

    (just joking about that one, for the dense amongst us)

    The whole “oh no the Afghan farmers are growing opium” bit… I’m intrigued by the alternative proposal, actually. Let them grow the opium, and have the various big pharma companies buy them, under the auspices of the US Government (and we take a cut, of course). It won’t piss off the farmers, will keep illegal drugs off the streets, drive down the price of legitimate opiates, and everyone gets a tidy profit.

  8. To add to R. Nelson’s posting about the way the military tends to look at war, that in some way the very fact they are fighting and dying justifies it, I’ll cite a short quote from Oscar Wilde:

    “A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.”

  9. How nice and refreshing, a courteous and civilized discussion between people with oppossing views. I am impressed.

    One point that Mr. Horton made, and I believe this is essential to his overall case, is that the Jihadists are a “small band” and basically they do not pose any grave threat to our nation. This is I think the heart of the matter. And I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Horton. When you have reliable research and polls(The Pew Global Attitudes Survey for example) that show very substantial numbers, in some cases majorities, of Muslims supporting suicide bombing and admiring Bin Laden, that is no “small band” of Jihadists holed up in a cave.

    When George Wasthington spoke about staying away from alliances, we had two oceans to protect us. And if this was 200 years ago, perhaps I would agree with Mr. Horton. But with the advent of jet aircraft, and the desire of Islamic terrorists to get their hands on nuclear and chemical weapons, the threat we face is very real, very grave, and very imminent. Sadly, people don’t realize the threat until too late. They close the door to the barn after the horse is already out.

    1. Hi Tim,

      I understand that the above is extraordinarily long and a bit redundant, but I believe I have already addressed both of your concerns:

      “So the best way to fight terrorism is to kill the guys who did 9/11 (finally) and then get our combat forces off of other people’s holy land. The remaining al Qaeda in the world can be wiped out by the world’s national governments’ intelligence agencies and cops – with Marines for the occasional really tough jobs – no problem, IF we scale back the empire that we shouldn’t have anyway.

      “As CIA man Scheuer once told me, the choice is war or total war. If we scale back the occupations and just go after the actual bad guys, that’s war. If we let the neocon crazies talk us into a war of civilizations against the whole Muslim world, then that’s what we’ll get.”

      And:

      “By the way, don’t buy Bush line that it is new to have enemies who can strike across the ocean at us and that the founders’ advice doesn’t apply today. Back when the founders gave their advice, the Brits and French occupied Canada and Louisiana right on our borders and had the most powerful armies and navies in the world.

    2. When you have reliable research and polls(The Pew Global Attitudes Survey for example) that show very substantial numbers, in some cases majorities, of Muslims supporting suicide bombing and admiring Bin Laden, that is no “small band” of Jihadists holed up in a cave

      I see no conflict here. While a substantial majority may have supported Mr. Osama and co., I am willing to bet one of my limbs that the percentage of those who would actually do something to actively help him conduct any sort of terror attack is very, very low indeed.

      In short, they are merely cheerleaders; but pass the cap and ask for donations (or try to recruit them to do some work), and we will see the percentage of willing people drop considerably.

      Also, removing the reason why they would support Osama, I suspect, will cut down his number of supporters. Take care of their old grievances, and they’ll get back to their lives. And oh, hating Israel.

      But with the advent of jet aircraft, and the desire of Islamic terrorists to get their hands on nuclear and chemical weapons, the threat we face is very real, very grave, and very imminent.

      If any terrorist groups managed to get a fully-functional jet aircraft, I would be very impressed indeed. Same for nuclear weapons; an active warhead with the innards not fried by the natural radioactivity? No terrorist group have that much financial and technical capability.

      (one of the main challenges of having nuclear weapons is having to regularly replace the components that have been corroded by the nuclear core; at close proximity, even gold can be corroded by the inherent effects of radioactivity).

      Also, if no one used chemical weapons in real battlefield, do-or-die conditions that is Afghanistan and Iraq, I highly doubt that the terrorists would’ve gotten hold on any chemical weapons by now. And no, chlorine gas don’t count; this is not WWI era.

  10. Destruction of evidence in terrorist investigation is a :

    FELONY VIOLATION of the USA Patriot Act.

    Just imagine if those responsible for the destruction of CIA Tapes showing the interrogation of high level terrorist suspects were pinned by the media with FELONY VIOLATION of the USA Patriot Act.

    What would bush say if we pointed our fingers at him and accused him of fumbling the ball on terrorist evidence and that he was harboring those persons responsible for these FELONY VIOLATIONS of the USA Patriot Act.

    bush would be forced to destroy the Patriot Act in the courts in order to protect the rats biting at his arse.

    Use the Patriot Act to prosecute the CIA tapes destroyers, and you will see a media response so huge it will take them all down.

    Oh yeah … read the Patriot Act and you will find the parts of this law that provide for Felony Prosecution of those that willfully destroyed evidence in a congressional hearing, evidence, HIGH LEVEL evidence in the War on Terrorism.

    Now that’s … UNAMERICAN

  11. I am hoping that the Marine and Mr. Horton checks these comments because I would like to pass on two things that might make good reading.

    The first is fellow Marine Major General Smedley Butler, way back in the 30’s he wrote a book called “War is a Racket”. Major General Butler was no supply sergeant – he won TWO Medals of Honor – fought in the Boxer Rebellion (China), Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and served during WWI.

    His Wikipedia entry:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

    What he had to say about war:

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

    His book is online here:
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    The second is another site I would highly recommend reading:

    http://www.d-n-i.net

    It goes into serious discussion about what the Marines themselves refer to as “4th generation warfare” . For somebody who is on the ground – it might help to see what the people who have a more theoretical view of this whole thing think about the war on terrorism.

    Finally I would ask – what good does it do us to fight against terrorists if we destroy the nation in the process? I believe as a member of the US Armed Forces an oath is sworn the defend the Constitution. What good does fighting a war do – if the Constitution it was meant to defend is gutted? What good does the war do us – if the nation is bankrupt? (I believe Mr. Horton provided the links to Bin Laden’s speeches where he states this is a goal of his). The fact that our government has whipped us all into a frenzy over terrorism has always struck me as fake. The reality of terrorists is that they are weak and cannot bring down this nation unless we help them along in that process. This may sound like I am bordering on conspiracy theory – but why do we fight wars overseas, when the backdoor of this country is wide open and govt. agencies have acknowledged that terrorists have come in across the border? I ask this as a serious question – because if the threat of terrorism is high enough and dangerous enough to warrant multiple wars overseas – shouldn’t it warrant actually defending us here at home? Do you leave your firebase unguarded and open when you go out on patrol?

    I would hope that this dialogue continues – we are not here because we are reflexively anti-war for the sake of being anti-war. I personally feel that there is great danger to this country – from without – and from within. The US is a strong country – and as such we should not as afraid of terrorism as we are of our own ability to destroy ourselves. That ability to destroy ourselves is what Bin Laden is counting on – if we were truly fighting this war to win it, shouldn’t we be cognizant of that fact?

    1. Calsdad,

      Thank you for the great comments. I was thinking about Gen. Butler myself in regards to this exchange. Gen. Butler said he had some suspicions during his active service as to what the real drive behind US policy of interventionism was, but once he retired he was able to see clearly its purpose. The marine in this exchange apparently has very little doubt about the rightness of his cause. His statement, “Just like how I chose to put my life on the line for the country and you chose to stay and home and write about the mistakes I am making.” shows how convinced he is about his position and his contempt for anyone who does not share his convictions. He has a lot “invested” in the US’s interventionist policy. It could be very difficult to turn him.

  12. Great thread,

    One thing that would make the argumentation more relevant, an knock a prop out from the “I’m here so I know better what’s going on” soldier, is if you actually went to Iraq as other peacemaker/activists have (and are currently).

    It’s really hard for someone to counter when you have both academic and first-hand understanding.

    This is easier, and less dangerous, than you might think.

    Charlie Jackson
    Texans for Peace

  13. “Most of this is just welfare for Lockheed.”

    Thank you for posting this correspondence.

    More emphasis would be welcome on the above quote, as clearly the weapons manufacturers benefit endlessly from endless war; and any politicians they support or conspire with are therefore suspect.

  14. Page has been bookmarked awaiting the brave soldier’s next correspondence. I’m glad you have both kept it very civil which must be rather difficult considering both sides are so very passionate about their believes. Thank you both for sharing this with the rest of us.

  15. What I said on a different thread:

    “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.”

  16. “–Kosovo 99: Hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians massacred by the Serbs. Lie.

    –Iraq: has reconstituted nuclear weapons they had never constituted in the first place, mobile bio weapons labs, uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, friends with Osama, remote control planes that can fly across Jordan, Israel, the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean to spray germs and chemicals on the U.S. east coast (remember that one?), threat to his neighbors, refused UN inspectors, still holding Scott Speicher, want us to invade them… All lies.

    –Iran: building nukes, openly declared they’re building nukes, secret nuke program, refuse to negotiate with us, support our enemies in Iraq, friends with Osama, threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” support the Taliban, want us to bomb them… All lies.

    –North Korea: secretly enriching uranium and so they broke the Warren Christopher deal, not us. Lie.

    –Syria: Got Saddam’s missing weapons, secret nuclear weapons program, friends with Osama. Lies.

    –Georgia: Osama’s friends are there. Lie.

    –Somalia: Osama’s friends in power. Lie.

    –Ukraine: FSB poisoned heroic candidate. Lie.”

    Can you site your sources? I don’t buy all of it, and I think this is where anti-war types turn into fringe whackos

  17. Very interesting debate with a Marine, who are by far the most patriotic of our military forces. I am in the Navy, but I don’t buy the whole BS that comes down from the higher echelon in DC. To be honest I am all for a massive reduction in the size of our military, there is just too much redundancy between all the services. How many air elements do we really need? Do we really need a Navy and a Coast Guard? If counter-insurgency type of operations is the future, then what is the point of a massive Army? I think the Marines would fit the mobility needed to react to situations…like getting our embassy staff out of countries, Kenya comes to mind right now. I am far from being an expert, but whatever happened to us using our soft-power?

    I spent many a boring day doing circles around an oil rig on a large deck Amphib, in the Gulf asking myself, “Why the hell are we here.” Actually, I knew why but again I didn’t buy into the BS being thrown at us each and every day at our daily muster. Now I sit in another controversial place, think Caribbean, and ponder why is this base even here.

    I would like to add that as far as pre-positioning a rapid response force is a simple solution and is currently in the works, if that is an objective. A large element of the 31st MEU is planned to move to the Island of Guam, considering that all policy makers are pointing to Southeast Asia as being the future hotbed. It wouldn’t surprise me if they decided to move the Amphib ships from Sasebo to Guam, reducing our footprint throughout Japan. Hell, the Japanese are tired of footing the bill for us being there and I can’t blame them, considering recent debate in their diet. But more importantly, the Ryukuans are tired of housing our military machine.

    1. Maybe a Fast Reaction Corps is needed. Not specifically specialized Airborne or Marine Divisions, but just Fast Reaction troops capable of both Marine and Airborne landing. Maybe even some kind of Specialized Commando Brigades that fit many different parameters.

      I think Guam is more defensible and has less traffic than Japan. Maybe some are worried about a Chinese Bomber assault and don’t want to be too close to China.

  18. Scott,

    One point I have not heard addressed by the Ron Paul wing is the idea that the fundamental goal of US policy is to ensure no other power rises that can challenge the US. I agree that in a sense at least we are an, or even the, empire. However, I would argue you have not suggested any practical way for us to avoid that role without allowing a different and greater empire to arise that would then have the ability to control, or at least invade or threaten, us. I have no real argument with your concerns or goals. I just have yet to hear you provide a practical way to achieve them that does not leave us worse off than our current situation. You could argue we have gone too far and should scale our efforts back but that is not what you seem to say. You seem to be opposed to the entire concept of the US acting to prevent or postpone the rise of a greater power. If we don’t fill the vacuum, then someone else inevitably will. Why do you not believe that to be the case?

    1. Why does the US keep those 500 or so Minuteman III ICBMs around? Here I thought it was to prevent an invasion from this “hypothetical” Superpower waiting to attack the US over the horizon.

      You know what, this “hypothetical” Superpower does not exist. And won’t for decades. You think China or India are going to be doing an “Okinawa” style invasion of the US West Coast? With what forces? A dozen modern Guided Missile Destroyers and a Helicopter platform training vessel(in China’s case)? All the Major countries other than the US are organized around a Defensive Force structure. China’s Warships don’t even have a long range Land Attack Missile in service. The US Navy has how many Arleigh Burke Destroyers and Ticonderoga Cruisers in service? Compare that with any Fleet in the World, the US Navy has more Modern major warships than all the Major World Navies combined. The Structure of the US Military is designed for Empire. Why do you think they got rid of the Missile Hydrofoils and built more Destroyers? Because defense of the country is irrelevant, it is Global Control they are looking for in the Pentagon.

  19. Interesting debate and I’ll be the one to thank you for having it yet side with my fellow jarhead. It has been enlightening and I commend you both. I am especially proud of my Marine for having the patience, courage and intellect to engage in what I cannot bring myself to do.

    I would ask you Mr Horton however that you show as much courtesy as he does by presenting his posting uninterupted as you are awarded the luxury of doing so here. The constant interuption of his every point with your self justification for debate is rude and quite frankly, a bit shrill.

    Thank you and Semper Fi

  20. Bill, another superpower does not currently exist because we have not let it. There is the old saying that nature abhors a vacuum. Such has always been the case throughout human history, everywhere. Do you really think the Soviets would not have conquered Europe if we had not stopped them? Would the UK or Russia have been able to holdout against Hitler if we had not stopped the Germans? The navy so totally controls the world’s oceans and to challenge that control is so expensive that no one is seriously trying to do so. However, if the US Navy were not there then why would someone else not step in? Are you arguing we could make do with a smaller force and it is valid to stop another superpower from forming or are you trying to say that we should shutdown our military forces outside the US or our coastal waters and trust that for the first time in human history no one else will try to expand or build a powerful military?

    1. You have a point there. It would be quite a risk to just see what would happen if we minimized our military no one could really say

  21. I have to say that this is an very interesting debate. I have to say at first when i came across this i was a little angered. Anti war protests always make me wonder what i am fighting for some times. Because when we do i always think of my famliy and every family in the U.S. and all of my brothers and sisters fighting for you. But i see you make a very good point with your debate tho i cannot agree with you. Being in the USAF i don’t fight anywhere near as much as a marine but i am so proud to be beside them i don’t feel any rivaly or anything. Because when you are over there you are all one. I guess i have become more drawn to these things. I very much like your respectable approach and i thank you for atleast that.

  22. MARINE-I’ll tell you another story. There was this one section of road through the city that we always got attacked on. Usually sniper fire or a small IED buried in the dirt next to the road. Anyway, I made friends with one of the local community leaders. In fact most of that stretch of road was his extended family. We were bringing him back to the FOB to talk to him and our truck got hit with an IED. The trigger man misjudged and blew it early so it was mostly superficial damage. Well, we took care of him and talked to him for a while. We bring him back later on and to this day, there hasn’t been an attack on that stretch of road. Understand, I’m not telling you stories because I like to wave my ego flag. I’m communicating a few things to you. I don’t know if you have ever served in an infantry unit in combat or not. I’m just explaining to you my appreciation of certain issues and how it directly relates to the subject at hand.

    SCOTT–No, I’ve never been in the military. That is interesting, but, no offense intended, I’m afraid I don’t really understand what you’re getting at there.

    I believe the point the Marine was trying to make is that once both sides put down their weapons and engaged in a dialogue, both sides had a better understanding of each other and the attacks stopped. The conclusion you draw from the Marine’s anecdote is irrefutable.

  23. well, any reference to me being a soldier is a bad mistake, Mr. Gerald Spalda in particular. Thank you for your complimentary commendations. I am a Marine until I die.

  24. Through my readings on Okinawan history, society, and the Battle of Okinawa, I am rather confused.

    From my readings I have found the following:

    The beginning of the Pacific War

    -Pearl Harbor appears to have been a stand down operation as shipping lanes were cleared for the Japanese, and various other bits of important information withheld; all very likely to have been orchestrated by the State Department/CFR/Freemasons.

    The end of the Pacific War, like the beginning was even more mysterious.

    – General Macarthur stated in his memoirs that the battles fought at the end of the war were all mismanaged, resulting in high loss in human lives on both sides.

    – Prior to the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese moved the 9th Army from Okinawa to join the 10th Army Taiwan, late 1944, to Janaury1945. The 9th Army was known as one of the best fighting units. Researchers are still questioning this move.

    – The Americans walked onto unprotected, undefended beaches on April 1, 1945. As an afterthought, the Japanese military reported that the beaches should have been protected

    – An airport was constructed by thousands of Okinawans just prior to the battle. The undefended airport was immediately captured and secured by the Americans.

    – Civilians on Okinawa were divided. The elites were mostly moved off the main island to Taiwan, northern Japan, and possibly other islands. Some talented people were told to move to the north part of the Island of Okinawa. The remaining poor civilians were in the southern battle zone. They were told to fight the Americans with sticks and commit suicide rather than surrender. Japanese soldier murdered Okinawan civilians.

    – The American Commander on Okinawa, General Simon Bolivar Buckner, was inept. Bought from his recruit training position in Alaska, coordinated the effort which was questioned by many of his subordinates on Okinawa. Buckner was reportedly killed by a fragment of coral, which had entered his chest after a Japanese mortar landed nearby, on June 17/18 1945.

    – Days later two Japanese Commanders on the Island committed suicide and the Battle was “officially” over on June 21, 1945.

    Background:

    Nations have used foreign conflicts to manage domestic issues.

    Freemasons were getting a foothold in Japanese politics in the 1930s.

    There was a eugenics program in place that promoted the sterilization of genetically inferior people. The wording appears to be very similar to the League of Nations’ eugenics proposal.

    Okinawans were of very low human capital value.

    Social disorder, Diaspora, and famine were driving people out of Okinawa since the 1890s.

    The Japanese left the League of Nations in 1934, however, continued to pay membership fees until 1938.

    During the Cairo Conference on November 27, 1943, the Cairo Declaration intended to separate Okinawa from Japanese Mainland, once Japan had surrendered.

    Okinawa was made a UN Trusteeship immediately after the surrender of Japan. This is a secret to most people, however, document are open to the public.

    Could we not conclude that the UN is at least partially responsible for the genocide on Okinawa? Any insight would be helpful.

  25. Please move to Iraq or Afganastan… I am very tired of people being so negative about what our country is doing and what we stand for… Bottom line is, we suffered from 9-11… Our econimc hardship today is what the Terrorist were trying to accomplish (they are much smarter than we give them credit for). They are barbaric. What would our lives be like if we never did anything… Imagine this; once a week there would be suicide bombings in Times Square, downtown Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly, Atlanta, D.C. etc… Your family is on a tour bus of Manahattan and is blown up for no reason but for the fact that they are American.

    I can assure you that there are many people in the countries that we are fighting for who will thank the US in 15-20 years. Have some patience and more importantly, some pride. If it weren’t for the liberal media this war honestly would be over by now… but the problem is our soldiers are constantly under the microscope, handcuffed by their own people which slows down the process tremendously and costs US soldiers lives. This point is explained in “Lone Survivor”; every American should read this book by the way.

    Please leave this country if you don’t like it… If you want the war to end, leave the military alone and let them do their job…it would be over in about a year.

    I support our troops, I support humanity and what it takes to ensure people all over the world live free. Remember those videos of the Hussain boys making innocent people walk off of two story buildings, blindfolded and handcuffed? The mass graves and executions? Who knows what else they were doing. Yeah, your right, that country needed no intervention. Saddam, great guy; right?

    Sometimes it doesn’t go exactly as planned; that’s war. But you still have to keep your eye on the prize at all costs, no matter how long. Many people in our Country have lost their focus and the media sometimes is our own worst enemy on the battlefield… I do hope the war is over soon…however under our terms… Being defeated or retreating is not an option because our world will be much, much worse if that were to happen.

    Sincerely…

Comments are closed.