War and Peace

We are all aware of Washington’s comment that we should be strong so as to avoid war, and to deal with all but form binds with none. Clearly we have failed to follow his advise. This can be good or bad, depending on one’s viewpoint. There are, however, some important issues to be hashed out before we can stand cleanly and decide what exactly we want of us and the world.

Political theory has for some time contended that kings rule for their own aggrandizement, and not that of the people. This is the heart of the whole concept that the king rules by divine provenance, when in point of fact he rules by his own ambition and grip on the reins of power. If we conclude this, then we can also come to the conclusion that kings are the source of war, almost exclusively. The corollary would then be that the people desire peace. Left to themselves they would seek out peace in order to promote their lives for their and their progeny’s sake.

These philosophical concepts were very much understood, and implemented in the formation of our republic. The power to wage war was divided between the executive and the legislature. Neither side, then, can easily fall into intolerance as the British Parliament did in the 17th century. Furthermore, there was a real fear of a standing army, an armed group who could, at the direction of the government, force the citizenry to comply with whatever irrational or illegal order it wanted. Take a careful look at the police forces around the nation and tell me how they differ in force and action from the red coats the colonial governors turned loose on the colonists of yore.

An argument can be made that in today’s world, as opposed to the world of our framers, a strong standing military is necessary, simply for self protection. Perhaps, but you will have to convince me a good bit on that. Note that the framers did NOT have a problem with having a Navy, which was a means of projecting power and protecting our interests around the world. Even at our inception, when we were very weak relative to the European powers, we felt a need for naval protection. Reserve and National Guard units would be something I believe our framers would approve of; large regular units stationed around the world would not.

?So why do we have them. I will leave that question to you and continue this discussion in a bit.

Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to War and Peace

  1. TKC1101TKC1101 says:

    Our ideology is descended from our viewpoint and our viewpoint is descended from our last disaster.

    After the mobilization of the Civil War and WW1 we demobilized, as was our history.

    Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, the hot mess 1950 Korea was along with our first global adversary formed our viewpoint for most of the last few decades.

    We are now trying to replace Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima with 9-11 and Iraq as our history.

    We now have three global adversaries who fight economic, information and kinetic warfare and are nuclear armed.

    Pearl Harbor can happen again. 1950 Korea can happen again. 9-11 can happen again.

    My take, we need to fight economic, information and kinetic war and stop apologizing or pulling punches.

    That should exclude wasting troops in hopeless actions. If we go in, use kinetic force to break things and get out.

  2. 10 Cents10 Cents says:

    The world changes. We live in a global economy. We need a force that deals with that reality.

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      I think this was addressed well around the time of the founding. The original purpose of the Navy and Marines was to help ensure freedom of navigation and trade.

  3. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    TKC raises the current justification – that we are faced by world-class enemies, and so need world class resources to combat them. One then asks, ?to what end. ?Do we really need a full-time Army to have nukes. Not really. We have impressive Minuteman fields in the Dakotas (THE central position of the North American continent, insuring longest flight time for an incoming missile). And we have the ballistic subs, probably THE most dangerous weapon we have as no one knows where they are.

    Brent notes the founding view of Navy and Marine Corps – vs Army. One should add to Brent’s comment that at the time we were among the weaker nations about. England, in a less than serious effort, managed to meander in and burn our capitol in the War of 1812. Yet despite this weakness in condition vis a vis the European Powers, we felt no need to have a great standing army.

    ?Could not we do kinetic ops with the Marine Corps, smaller sized ones with specops and leave it at that.

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      Disclosure: I am nowhere near the military historian like some of our crew.

      My understanding is that the standing army concept was about projecting power and national guard/militia was about protecting the homeland.

      Dev, what am I missing.

      • DevereauxDevereaux says:

        You have put it one way.

        I believe the framers equated war with central control – a king. Kings (or whatever label you wish to apply to the head mongo) live basically for self-aggrandizement, which they do by fighting wars for greater glory/land/resources/empire. The other class that fights wars is politicians – often for bad reasons (think Falklands, to distract Argentinians from their internal problems, which were gargantuan.) They (the founders – sorry, my construction is poor) felt as many philosophers of the times that peace was what people wanted while war was what kings wanted.

        You cannot go to war without an army, and having a significant standing army is a temptation for anyone to go to war. When you read about the events leading up to WWI, you begin to realize just how few men were involved in the decision to plunge the whole continent into war. In the War of 1812, the feds tried to invade Canada. There was one battle on the Canadian shores of Lake Champlain, wherein the feds were being badly beaten by the Canucks. Across the water a NY militia unit calmly watched. Winfield Scott, the fed commander, demanded to know why they didn’t come over to help. They answered, “When the Canadians invade New York, we will fight.”

        Projecting power is more Navy than Army. England had probably THE finest infantry of the 18th & early 19th centuries in its redcoats. Yet it had very few of them, especially compared to France, Prussia, Austria. But it projected power with its Navy. So did the Netherlands, who despite their size were serious competitors of England – both in Navy and in trade. We came on the scene and mostly had a huge trading fleet, but little in the way of a Navy. And no Army (think Mexican-American War).

        • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

          I don’t think the original intent of the Navy or the Marines was to project power which I equate with invading or supporting the invasion of other countries.

          The original intent was to keep international waters free from pirates, ensure freedom of navigation, and free trade.

          Way back in the day the business of America was business and the Navy existed only to ensure we had the ability to conduct international business.

          • DevereauxDevereaux says:

            True, but then look back. We invaded Tripoli, another country. They may have been bad behaving pirates but they were a nation as it was conceived then.

            ?How would you deal with ISIS. They have officially declared war on us, done numerous war-like acts, and routinely threaten us. ?Do we leave them be or put together a Regimental Landing Team, surround Raqqa, and kill all the ISIS fighters there – then go home.

            You tell me what you think.

            • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

              I don’t believe in ISIS as an individual threat because I can’t tell where ISIS ends and ‘non-radical Islam’, whatever that is, begins.

              Once you start killing ISIS wholesale the seeds of more ISIS planted long ago around the globe just spring to life. If we are going to deal with ISIS we have to deal with Islam and that begins to look like genocide of Islam. Not that I am immediately opposed to that.

              The best we can do with them now is contain them. If we declare war on them we had better be prepared to kill everyone that reads the koran and buys into barbaric pedophilia.

              When we invaded Tripoli my understanding was that we did it solely to address the pirates. Had the pirates stayed on shore (then I guess they wouldn’t be pirates) we wouldn’t have gone ashore is my guess.

              Tripoli was still about freedom of navigation in the Med and global commerce.

            • DevereauxDevereaux says:

              Well, OK. But that was a radiologist’s favorite plant – a hedge. ?So what do you do about islam. I don’t believe in “non-radical islam”. I would submit it is only temporarily “non-radical”.

              ?So what do you do about islam. Because we clearly have a problem with islam. You may or may not have a point about creating another islamist if we kill a bunch, but at least those who are currently killing us and enticing others to do the same would be gone. Let’s remember something. There is a point to terror. When you apply a nuke to EVERYONE muslim, it isn’t terror any longer. But killing any number of known bad guys tends to have a quieting effect on other islamists. Take out some of the noisy imams. Then check and see how many other imams will be so noisy.

              Your turn.

              • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

                Your reasoning about killing the killers having a quieting effect on the rest of the mob is valid when applied to folks like us grounded in learning and reasoning.

                I think we err in applying our rational thought to a barbarous cult that has endured since sometime around 600 AD.

                I think it reasonable that there are moderate/non-radical muslims witnessing the carnage done by their fellow cult members that will also witness the carnage done to those same cult members and ultimately re-consider their position. I just think they are a minority.

                • DevereauxDevereaux says:

                  ?Remember how quiet “the street” got when W invaded Iraq. He scared the stuffing out of them. Indeed one of the late night comedians made the joke that Bashar Al Asad said something and W responded Salam, which is Arabic for ‘You’re next!’

                  Rational people are guided by rational rules. Islamist don’t seem to be. I don’t believe ANY – with the exception of a VERY VERY SMALL minority – are peaceful because I don’t believe islam is peaceful at its core. So I would propose that the Army saying, “Kill ’em all and let God sort it out.” to be reasonable policy vis a vis any combative muslims.

                  This does not mean that I want to fix their countries. But the killing of BG’s is helpful. Larger scale elimination, when the circumstances present themselves, is useful.

            • DevereauxDevereaux says:

              BTW, I tried to take your other point of America’s business is business in Part Deux and see if there was any opportunity to make the military a paying proposition.

  4. 10 Cents10 Cents says:

    One only knows till later that one has been unprepared for the unforeseen. I live in Kobe, Japan. It had a big earthquake in 1995. Tokyo was prepared but my part of the country was considered safe till it wasn’t.

    From what I see modern warfare needs things up and running yesterday. The weapons systems are a far cry from WWI boxkite days. They are moving computers with added weapons systems. Could we produce them fast enough to replace them if we had too?

  5. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Aha, Centime! You hit upon one of THE big problems with today’s kinetic ops – supply. The Arab-Israeli wars were only a week or so mostly because both sides ran low on munitions. Today’s weaponry uses ammunition at a prodigious rate. The bullet-per-kill ratio is getting larger and larger. Then there are always the arab fights, where spray-and-pray are the guidelines.

    If one reads Grossman, then you recognize most men don’t want to shoot someone. But modern military teaches men to hit targets – the psychological and moral issues to be dealt with later.

    • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

      Can’t we jam their frequencies with MSNBC and worry about the war crimes later? Does anyone know how to translate “Lean Forward” into Arabic?

  6. Trinity WatersTrinity Waters says:

    If it is desired that this site grow, then the dynamic must change so it is more welcoming and not so apparently a closed club. More informative responses would generate interest. Inside references are off-putting. The commentary is presently, to me, interesting, but how does is reach out?

    • Trinity WatersTrinity Waters says:

      Of course, how does it reach out?

      • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

        The simple answer is to invite people. Also I take Instapundit as a model. Glenn Reynolds has a lot of variety and mixes up the politics with hobbies and family.

        We are getting new people and new connections. Ctlaw has been putting up posts so people can talk on a conference call. Nanda has a book club conference call. John Walker has had two weekend read posts. Dev’s F-1 posts add new info to me.

        I don’t know if you know my record but I helped connect people before. More posts were written and more comments came about through things I was privileged enough to work with others on.

      • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

        I am not sure the goal is to grow the site or if it is to grow to do so at anything other than the present organic rate.

        I’ve no idea if BDB intends to be a commercial enterprise. Right now it is a charitable place to commune with very smart, dynamic, like minded folks and 10 Cents. I am most appreciative of the opportunity.

        Growth mostly just place additional burden on Admin and MLH. Absent compensation there is a ceiling/limit to how big we become.

        • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

          Brent, you and your apartoed comments. I am just as smart and dine-namic as the next guy. When do we eat? I hope not at that high price cafeteria with the snooty staff. “Cleanest tables in town” is their motto but they can’t even pay their bus boys as they raise their prices.

          • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

            If you tell me what ‘apartoed’ is since I can’t find it on the interwebhinterlands I will formulate a witty retort.

            • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

              I will take a half witty retort, Brent, since I have no time to tell you anything.

      • DevereauxDevereaux says:

        I would echo Brent.

        It is not clear what future ambitions BDB has for the site. As it stands, it has interesting, smart conservatives.

        I for one am not really interested in hearing the “center” of “center-right” I have heard no new ideas from there that make it worth while listening. The Left, of course, is simply crazy.

        So far the site has generated politics, policy, cars, racing, catching ball, and in the chaplain corner faith – and occasionally even in the main pages. Seawriter has asked an interesting question of people. History gets regularly reviewed, just to keep everyone on the same page.

        I am happy to see new people but sincerely hope they are in the same category as those here. And how much housework BDB & MLH wish to invest is a serious question.

        • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

          I second Devereaux’s position. When we used to meet for lunch at the cafeteria down the alley I had no use for center right, aka Carter Democrats. I was often challenged “Do you want an echo chamber?” Yes, Yes I do, especially if I am paying for it.

  7. TKC1101TKC1101 says:

    So far this site has a group of interesting and well mannered people who seem to have the maturity to disagree without being disagreeable.

    Perhaps because many of us have seen it done wrong.

    We also do not have the Conservative Celebrity Groupie Cultism, where a person who pundits is smart because they pundit.

    I too hope we grow organically and enjoy the different posting styles. I also hope we stay classy…

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      >>>We also do not have the Conservative Celebrity Groupie Cultism, where a person who pundits is smart because they pundit.<<<

      Amen Curmudgeon (Reserve Status)

    • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

      “Perhaps because many of us have seen it done wrong.”

      We have also seen it done right and I feel some of that rightness here. (No pun intended.)

      When I started Group Writing and had no idea the voices I would attract. That is what is important to me. I like creativity and uniqueness. I have seen where that is lost by going for style and seemingly self-importance.

      By Alexa.com our US rank is coming up.

      • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

        I know Alexa is not the best metric but it is just nice to have a metric.

        • DevereauxDevereaux says:

          If that floats your boat. I know the metric I use is am I still interested. ?Is it still engaging. ?Do I still read almost everything rather than skip a bunch.

          So far my metric has been running good.

          • 10 Cents10 Cents says:

            Dev, where am I on the scale? Am I a person of interest? I should at least rank a 4. You know Dev Con 4 that is.