The Ability to Wage War

Phillip
"It is Starwars that made the Russians give up on their theory that they could survive a first strike on the United States."
"
You do realize the US still hasn't anything remotely resembling Starwars?

CMG& dr. Bob
"I can't understand that total destruction was something invented by a Yankee during the Civil War."
"
It is indeed much older, there have been several attempts throughout history to restrain some of the horrors of war. A number of these had some temporary effect, Sherman's acts violated some of the most restraints in place at the time.

 

I wish I had more time right now to respond to all your points. I think though, that all can be answered somewhat thru this one and then let you draw your own conclusions to the rest.

Let me just preface my response with the fact that I have been an engineer for nearly 30 years now and so I do appreciate the benefits of technology. But, at the same time, as a student of miltiary history and science, I recognize its limitations.

Certainly the body count is down but such a response is indicative of thinking that cannot put oneself in the side that is receiving those weapons. Imagine yourself an Iraqi father who's child has been killed in a bombing that targetted some bad guys who were hiding in his neighbor's house. It is no consolation to him that our bombs are a lot more accurate and therefore did not kill everybody in his neighborhood but only his child. And, it is counterproductive in that he now is looking for an outlet to vent his rage - he finds it in the insurgency. So while we kill a few bad guys, we create more in the process. That is the inherent shortfall of bombing. Which brings up the other falacy in your response - it is the falacy of the age old maxim that when your only tool is a hammer, all things appear to be nails. You are arguing as if bombs were our only option and therefore the key is to make them smarter. That is a falacy - bombs are not our only option.

The smartest bomb is still stupid compared to even the dumbest grunt. There is no substitute to human beings on the ground befriending the people and letting them know they can trust us. It is difficult to convince them of that when we are dropping bombs from a distance.

Is it difficult and dangerous? You bet. But it also makes the difference between winning and losing. Bombing will not win. In bombing we are, as Liddel-Hart used to say, attempting to counter mesquitoes with a sledgehammer. Bombing is playing into the hands of the insurgency. It is their strategy to draw us in close like General Giap in Vietnam said, "grab the enemy by the belt." If they're holding us by the belt, it is impossible to use large destructive without hurting our own cause. And that also, by the way, is one of the other inherent strengths of the militia.

 

I think the point of the 2nd amendment is to make us all members of the militia.

 

I think the point of the 2nd amendment is to make us all members of the militia. </font>[/QUOTE]Artful dodge.

 

Stratiotes,

Those "rotten imperialists" you speak of relied heavily on the militia. It was the militia system that supported the army. It is the intent of the 2nd amendment to make certain the militia stayed strong. The very ones you would offer as examples were themselves some of the biggest advocates of the militia.

But they also knew the weaknesses, which is the reason Washington argued for a sufficient standing army. In his September 24, 1776 letter to the President of Congress, General Washington argued that "To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a borken staff." From experience, he continued, "Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Mililtary skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows."

And my earlier points about the false choice you raised remains.

 

I would also add, from Hamilton's Federalist 25:

In number 26 he discussed "the origin and progress of the idea, which aims at the exclusion of military establishments in time of peace."

Framer and chief proponent in the Pa. ratifying convention James Wilson, in his State House Yard Speech of October 6, 1767 argued:

Federalist writer "Alfredus" asked, in January 1788:

 

There was nearly as much contraversy over standing armies then as now-I don't think anybody would deny that. And, to say we need a standing army of some kind is not an endorsement of our current model of a large army lacking a militia.

 

Carpro:

Exactly what US History are you referring to? Do you mean the South's loss in their war of independence? What other war has the US Lost where the militia could be considered a factor? I have to disagree with you on the effectiveness of a well armed civilian militia.

 

Stratiotes,

To argue

There was nearly as much contraversy over standing armies then as now-I don't think anybody would deny that.

is to deny history. There was far more controversy then than now, hence the need for Federalists to address it. It was a constant refrain of the anti-Federalists.

Your point, however, to which I responded was

For "defense" nothing beats a militia...for an empire, nothing beats a large standing army. Which is our real goal?

I think you differ with George Washington on your first statement, who took a far different position having had to actually conduct a defense using both (though he did have problems with the army too, with enlistments running out). As to your second, what would constitute a sufficient standing army? And where is the empire? Where do we maintain colonies? Or have you over-reached?

[ February 02, 2005, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

My point is, I was not arguing at any point that militia alone was all we need. I only argue that nothing is better than a militia for defense and it should be common sense that no invader is going to have an easy time with a decentralized opponent with every citizen potentially armed. Its why insurgencies have proven so difficult to deal with.

On the other hand, a centralized force such as a regular army is often defeated once decapitated. With a militia, there is no "capital" city on which the enemy concentrates. Read T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars for some of the reasons for that and note his computations on how many troops it will take to stop such a force.

 

Oh. OK. It is an excellent point, but the quote from Washington should above should be instructive too on the advantage of a standing army/disadvantage of relying on a militia.

Also, I took part of your post to be arguing that America is seeking/pursuing empire. Is that part of your argument?

BTW, and I don't want to misunderstand you again, you said that it was the intent of the Second Amendment that the militia stay strong. Are you arguing, therefore indirectly, that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable us to defend ourselves from an aggressor nation? I disagree with that:

(1) if militia is understood to be a community-based military organization that could also protect against abuse of power by a central government, I could more readily agree, as it was such a militia that kept kings in check.

(2) as you probably know, the militia was considered all able-bodies males above 16 and up to a varied maximum age. Some anti-Federalists argued against the select militia concept implied in the Constitution, arguing it would displace the general militia as the concept had earlier stood and that giving Congress any powers over it would endanger some of the very reason for a militia.

(3) I agree with argument made by others that the Second Amendment was not about creating or equipping a militia, but was about a right, as the organization of the militia was discussed already in Articles I and II.

 

I'm not sure we disagree at all.

My point, and maybe I made it poorly, is that reliance upon a militia, instead of a strong national defense force in addition to a militia, is a recipe for disaster and may even invite attack. Especially in modern times.

 

I'll try to respond to both of you with one post but I might miss something...

The second amendment begins with a clause about a well-regulated militia and ends with a clause about the right to bear arms. To think the two were not meant to go together when one is used to introduce the other does not make sense to me.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see any way around thinking that the first phrase must have something to do with the rest of the sentence - otherwise, why is it there?

On empires -
It is good you are a student of the federalist/anti-federalist debates. As you might guess, I generally fall into the anti-federalist camp. I don't think either one can claim it is the "real" US spirit - just one of them gained the upper hand. Gaining the upper hand does not make one right. And, throwing out the anti-federalists is throwing out some key players in our founding, such as Patrick Henry.

That said...here's how I think we have an empire...and I'm certain you will disagree but..oh well. The presence of an overwhelming force in one's country is an implied threat. We have very large bases in many countries that, by implication, indicate we will only allow so much self-determination in that country so long as it approves our base being on its soil. This is indeed one of the complaints of many nations - that we have bases on their soil which make them, in effect, a colony. I would define national defense as protecting our borders - others define it as projecting our power all around the world in an attempt to intimidate potential enemies with our presence. It is a fundamental difference in philosophy that we cannot agree on I'm afraid. Its the difference between the stricter constructionist view of "common good" and the losey-goosey view that justifies anything the federal government wants to do. Make national defense as broad a brush as you like, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on that one

One last thought on standing armies - an inherent weakness they possess is that found in peacetime. Like any organization, they tend to develop organizational structures that match their needs at the time. When we are at peace, the military becomes bogged down with a lot of red tape and a lot of "blubber" that has little to do with fighting wars. In so doing, they become less able to react quickly - which is why the argument that they're needed for a quick response is not much of an argument. The fact is, for instance, the military did not react swiftly enough at Pearl Harbor (one of the examples indicated for its necessity) and it was purely by the grace of God and not by military planning that we had some aircraft carriers left....especialyl since the peacetime navy had come to view carriers as not very useful. They became useful because we were forced to fight without our battle ships sunk in the harbor. Read some Paul Fussell works on the world wars and I think you'll agree that it was very difficult for the miltiary to shake that peace-time blubber too. A smaller army has the advantage of not have the resources to create so much blubber.

[ February 03, 2005, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Stratiotes ]

 

Strat,

I agree with you, though, that the right to keep and bear arms does promote the general militia.

I also thoroughly agree with you on the value of the anti-Federalists. If it weren't for them we would not have a Bill of Rights. Also, were they alive today, they would be able to thumb their noses and give us an "I told you so" on such things as the necessary and proper clause, the general welfare clause, and their warnings about consolidation and the growth of the central government.

We do disagree on empire, but that's OK. I don't believe our bases constitute an empire. We are in those countries only with their consent and to protect them from other countries.

We also disagree on the need for troops around the world. But it's not a matter of Constitutional interpretation. Please show me where it is prohibited under the Constitution. Granted, I'm sure the Founders did not envision it, but it is quite a stretch to say it is based on a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Again, I can live with disagreement, especially when made in amicable debate as you have done. You are absolutely right, though in the structure that develops with expansion. Part of that goes with the size of the organization, but I'm sure part also has to do with long time presence and the elephant squatting there for a while.

Take care, Strat. I enjoyed it.

 

A miltia IMO would fight not only for survival but for victory. The only other option would be surrender to the invader or die defending your home. Here in America it is estimated that we have 80 million legal gun owners. We (I include myself) would never willing to point our guns at anyone unless our lives were threatened to the point of no other option.

Now tell me an invader would not ponder the damage that could be done to his war machine that isn't fighting on it's home turf by a militia that is defending it's home from it's home.

A standing army comforting as it seems can be used against the same population that funds and supports it. By order of the 'high command'.

Ask the Chinese students at Tianenmen square or the students in Ohio, the Branch Davidians what few survived, or Randy Weaver (there is little difference between the military and police forces these days).

I support the idea of a citizen militia.

 

poncho,

They are excellent points and in the main I very much agree with you. One problem, though, with the Constitution as framed, is that the militia is subject to be federalized, and thereby turned into an arm of the central government. It was an issue that also troubled some of the anti-Federalists.

 

No Militia is effective if it is unorganized and unprepared - does not the organization and the equipping of the militia in effect create a standing army?

Without organization and training and preparation all you have is a armed mob. There is no invading army in the world who would not welcome such a reception in place of a well organized, dug in, standing army.

 

I thought that was why the militias, the National Guard, were all run by the individual States. At times, they have been used against citizens (Kent State, labor strikes), but if they were unified under a single head, the temptation might be too much.

 

Largest standing army at present is located in North Korea!

The best way not to wage war is diminsh envy, poverty, hunger, fear of other cultures.....stuff we aint too good at yet!

 

I used to have six guns in the house. (Doesn't everyone in the heartland?) Right up until I got my PI license and had to go through weapons training.

During that training I fired several thousand rounds and had my gun taken away from me by my instructor about ten times and pointed right back in my face.

We learned how prisoners in the state Pen. practice with sticks taking guns away from trained police officers.

Now I have ONE gun in the house. It is either under my belt and loaded (while I'm working) or unloaded with a lock through the chamber and magazine slot.

I am NOT against gun control, but I have seen more bad guys kill more good well-meaning people with their own guns and then use the gun to kill someone else--usually for drugs.

I think if militias are to be formed and organized that they should at LEAST have the minimal firearms training we had, with full psych test and background checks.

...and I do NOT mean the little eight hour gun safety course for concealed weapons (that you can't carry into any public, state building, hospital, church, on and on).

I know this is a little off thread, but I thought it would make a good addition to the mention above that militias must be organized AND trained.

Another thought. Do we, in America, really wish to have a militia that is willing to take on the government of a democratic nation such as ours?

Would we really know when we are crossing the line and pulling a McVeigh stunt or we are really being surpressed to the point that combat is warranted?