[quote]hedo wrote:
Dandlex
Good post. However I think you are missing the point. The man never says might makes right. He says you need to be strong and not fearful of using your military. Many nations are quick to take that option off the table because they have become weak. We shouldn’t emulate weakness.
I will take issue with one point. The US is perfectly capable of upping the ante from a military and economic standpoint. We have chosen not to do so…yet. The US military we have now is a drawn down version of the one that existed in the early 90’s. We maintained that level throughout the Cold War. In other words the US has not put itself on a war mobilization footing. Just because we haven’t doesn’t mean we can’t.
Even at a greatly drawn down level the US military is still capable of dominating the battlefield. Additionally the restrictions put on our military would likely be lifted in a more global or regional war. Take Fallujah for example. We took great care not to damage property or cause civilian casualties. We didn’t have to do that. To be honest an armored battalion with air support could have done that mission with a lot less US casualties. The flip side is a lot more civilians would have been killed and property destroyed. That’s a choice the US made, not something we had to do.
From an economic standpoint you screw with your largest customer at your own risk. Again in time of war sacrafices are made. Regardless First World countries don’t really make war against each other anymore. The economies of smaller less developed nations are far more likely to collapse under US pressure and being mindful of that are far less likely to piss off their best customer. [/quote]
Vroom, I don’t know that he is going quite as extreme as you believe. However, he is advocating the use of the military more, which, in my opinion, is bad.
Hedo, you look upon the reluctance to use the mmilitary as a weakness. I think it a sign on strength. By doing so, countries are thereby insisting that there is another way to settle disputes. Which, 90% of the time, there is.
I agree that the US military is far more capable than any other military on the face of the Earth. And yes, we have not “mobilized” in the sense of all of our industrial capacity being turned over to the war effort. And I understand that we took several great pains in order to avoid civilian casualties.
However, has not the concept of “Total War” been the dominant one in the last century? The Civil War first proved that sometimes an army isn’t the most important thing to break- it is the will of the people. This was practised (as it had to be) in WWI and WWII.
Now, if we can’t use the concept of total war, as we have been, and we cannot draft, because half of the country thinks this war isn’t worth it (not to mention my theory about the government not wanting that many people watching), why be there at all? The last war we fought that was similar to this was Vietnam- trying to fight a war that was not “total war”, yet we were drafting. When the end can’t justify the means, the war will not work.
War is always the ruling class sending the poor to fight against each other. If they are going to do this, why shouldn’t there be some “glorious cause” for the workers to rally around, such as defeating a fascist Germany that threatens the world?
"Regardless First World countries don’t really make war against each other anymore. "
DOn’t you think that there is something wrong with this? You are right, of course, but why has the US fought with Vietnam? Why Britain with India, or Ireland? Why the USSR and Afghanistan? DO you notice that the “superpower” always loses these wars? That they literally drain the richer country in both spirit and money?
You guys say that not the whole country in Iraq is against the US. That is true. But how many are needed to really oppose it? Fully a third of the people in America were opposed to the Revolution (“Tories”) or did not care. IT was only that very vocal and radical 1/3 that brought everything about.
In 1917, the Communists were a very small part of the population, yet they managed to take over the entire country of Russia, only because they were better organized than anyone else, and able to seize power.
After the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland, the population was disgusted with the “Revolutionaries”, and spit on them as British walked them towards the prison. However, when the “Sixteen Dead Men” were executed, Ireland went into a storm of rage, and started a guerilla war against British oppression.
What I an trying to say is that any war that is based on trying to direct the way of a nation that is not yours, is bound to have bad effects.