why does the United States even need an army?

[dysfunctional press]

who is going to invade us, and from where?

in iraq, their "army" was basically a non-issue, as far as stopping us from getting to baghdad and "conquering" the country. what ended up REALLY fucking us is the insurgency- and while many of those may be trained military/revolutionary guard troops/officers, a lot of them are also just regular guys-even kids, with weapons.

with this in mind, and knowing how well-armed the u.s. populace is- who in their right mind would ever try to invade and conquer us?

instead of a huge standing army, why don't we just rely on better trained/staffed/equipped national guard units in each state/region, with militias that could be called up as needed.

keep a strong navy/air force to protect shipping routes and combined with the coast guard, our shorelines, and skies.

i just feel that we spend WAY too much in terms of manpower, money, and resources on the military, and mostly for no really good reasons.

[dkf]

1. Because we have done a lot of awful things in the past and made enemies?

[dysfunctional press]

16. and which ones would we have to fear an invasion from if we had no army?

:shrug:

[dkf]

21. Well I do live in Hawaii and my dad remembers

being attacked during Pearl Harbor...

[dysfunctional press]

25. and the army stopped (or would have) that "invasion", how exactly?

remember- i still see the need for navy, air force, and national guard troops.

btw- pearl harbor wasn't an invasion- it was an attack.

[dkf]

38. Well when you are attacked surely you need to retaliate.

And then you need everyone.

Besides, if we only had a Navy and Air Force, our equipment would mostly be the super duper expensive stuff, like subs, boats and fighter planes. eek.

[dysfunctional press]

43. to retaliate in kind to pearl harbor would not have required an army.

a navy and an air force would do that quite nicely.

[elizfeelinggreat]

2. why does the United States even need an army?

why? Because it makes a LOT of profit for the military industrial complex.

That's the simple answer.

(I totally agree with you that we spend too much, BTW)

[Florida22ndDistrict]

23. re:

While I do agree that military spending could definitely be reduced, abolishing it would be detrimental to our long term security. While many here probably hate the military industrial complex, we do need them to a certain extent. In the event of a war (like WWII), where a foreign power threatens the sovereignty of our country and that of our allies we need to be able to manufacture our own weaponry. If we do not keep our arms dealers in business, then we must depend on another nation to supply us. Unless you want to fight off invading tank brigades with baseball bats and molotov cocktails you have to compromise a little. That being said, I do not believe our military should ever be used to defend the interest of corporations.

[dysfunctional press]

26. there really wasn't the same huge arms industry prior to ww2...

we've already shown that when the need arises, we can gear it up pretty quickly.
it doesn't make much sense, in peacetime- to continue building massive stockpiles of munitions and weapons that are generally never used for their intended purposes before they become obsolete, and a whole new batch of unnecessary weapons gets built, until they become obsolete and the cycle starts again.

[NewJeffCT]

30. We had manufacturing back then, though

Most of that is overseas now - China, Vietnam, Thailand, India.

[dysfunctional press]

33. and btw- i never said that military spending should be abolished.

but it needs to be reduced Dramatically.

and i've already said that a strong navy and air force are important in this day and age, as are national guard units of the states.

[NewJeffCT]

36. I agee

I should be reduced drastically. However, I still think we need some.

[elizfeelinggreat]

58. whoops

Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

It's pretty obvious the OP wasn't referring our giving up all defense again an attack on our country by a foreign power. And please, tell us where the invading tank brigades would come from?

Seriously, please tell me.

Also there's a big difference between your "many here hate the military industrial complex" platitude and the obvious fact that the few are making huge profits at the expense of the many in our country as a hateful activity. Most notably people in this administration who make decisions that directly affect their personal wealth - that's not widely known and debated and it certainly should be.

You say our military should never be used to defend the interest of corporations? In case you hadn't noticed, this administration takes it marching orders from the corporations who are making obscene profits from their actions. They're inseparable.

[KansDem]

3. Protect corporate interests abroad...

A nation's people tend to get upset when they discover AnyUSACorp is in their country to rape and pillage...

[B Calm]

9. BINGO!

[Yavin4]

4. Larry Elder, A Conservative, Stated Recently That Bush Kept Us Safe By Invading Iraq

I screamed, "SAFE FROM WHAT?" Kept us safe from a country that never attacked us, not once. We invaded and currently occupy a nation that never did anything to us nor even had the capacity to do anything against us.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I believe there's a need for an army (for a whole military, actually) ...... but ......

..... not one as big as ours. Ours is far more than a defensive army. It is a offensive organization that is used to project strength and power and intimidate the shit out of people. It has failed to do the latter for the last 30 years.

But we need a military as a defensive measure. The world will always have bad actors and we need to be ready.

No .... I am not an advocate of endless war. I think our military and our DoD can get by on 1/4 the budget they now have **exclusive** of the obscene amount spent on The Bush Family's Embarrassment's wars.

[pitohui]

6. try the "search" function, you or another person asked the same question in same words last week EOM

,

[KatyaR]

7. Because we're a peace-loving people . . .

and starting wars is the only way to make peace.

:sarcasm:

[superduperfarleft]

8. We don't.

It's an enormous waste of resources that only exists to make certain industries extremely rich. I'd be comfortable with a very localized National Guard-type force, but the major branches of the military should be completely abolished.

[dysfunctional press]

13. i can still see the need for a navy and even an air force...

possibly even the marines to some extent- for embassy security, as well as specialty-type "missions"- rescuing hostages abroad is one that comes to mind.

[provis99]

10. lets let the 2nd Amendment gun nuts protect us

rather than the military; assuming they don't shoot us first...

[jmg257]

41. You'd be in the Militia too - duty was mandatory - you could be one of us nuts too!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. To keep the politicians, generals, and "defense" industry in business.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[leftofthedial]

12. couldn't we just get the indians or the Singaporians to do it?

We've hired them to do everything else for us.

[Edweird]

14. Uhh, you know how most people lock their homes when they leave?

Most people lock their cars when unattended, and many people have alarms in their homes and vehicles...
It's for similar reasons, but on a much grander scale.

[dysfunctional press]

15. how so?

who do we fear is going to break in if we don't have an army?

[Demagitator]

17. I sort of agree

America does need an army, but one that is non-violent; it is way to large as well.

And, as a pacifist, I study the nature of War, and modern day politics relationship to it. It is, also -- simply impractical to have such a large military force, even from a traditional military tactic point of view.

It is true, that it is not ever likely to ever be another World War, so the need for a large military, should be eliminated.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. We don't, and we rarely had much of one...

before WWII. We had that nastiness in the 1860s, but other than that the military was largely used for stealing land and goods from Native and Central Americans. And scaring Canadians with threats of invasion. Didn't need much military for any of that. We used the Navy and Marines for things like scaring pirates and making a big splash in Tokyo harbor so we could sell stuff to the Japanese, but didn't need much for that stuff either.

After WWI, we went back to our isolationist ways and pretty much decimated the military, with only a very small cadre. AFter WWII what with the Cold War and the complete dissolution of the British Empire, leaving an Allied vacuum, we picked up the pieces and replaced the British as masters of the known universe-- making the war profiteers extremely happy and a part of the permanent government.

And the Brits seem to be very happy at not having to pay for it all by themselves any more.

Where is the one real candidate for anything who will fight to reduce the Pentagon to where it will fit in a bathtub and be drowned?

[Pavulon]

19. So I could use the GI Bill

and someone had to fix the mess in the fmr yugoslavia. Isolationist policy does not work.

[dysfunctional press]

29. "Isolationist policy does not work"

could you please provide some proof of that statement?

[Flatulo]

35. The US was largely isolationist before WWII. After Germany fell,

it was discovered that Hitler had the Luftwaffe designing long-range bombers specifically to destroy the US mainland.

Lots of links to this info, you can google them if you like.

[dysfunctional press]

46. in other words- you can't prove your original statement.

as requested.

[Flatulo]

52. Oh fer chrissake, you can't spend .2 seconds looking it up yourself?

Here's a whole book about it...

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-over-America-Secret-United/dp/185367608X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/10/24/edcooley_ed3_.php

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200405/wulf

Can I get you anything else while I'm up?

[dysfunctional press]

57. those don't do anything to prove what you said...

you said that isolationist policy doesn't work.

prove it.
(btw- the fact that germany was building long-range bombers isn't proof of that assertion- we had a non-isolationist policy after ww2, and the soviets still built long-range bombers too- and icbm's.)

[Flatulo]

66. I think you meant to reply to a different post. I didn't state that

isolationism doesn't work.

[davekriss]

20. Simple, really

Really
the police try to protect
the banks - and everything else
is secondary
-- D.A. Levy

The military, of course, an extension of the "police", and it's not just simply "protection", but naked imperialist worldwide aggression.

[Skittles]

22. see "Cloverfield"

:o

[krispos42]

24. Because if you want peace, prepare for war.

That, and the fact that modern combat is to complex to leave to a militia. Washington didn't have to have a maintenence crew for his horse, for example.

Besides, we're the top of the heap.... for now. At some point that will change.

[dysfunctional press]

28. if washington didn't need a maintenance crew for his horse-

who fed it, shoed it, saddled it, cleaned it, etc...:shrug:

btw- the 'militia' in iraq certainly did/does a decent job of giving us fits- we're "the top of the heap", and we have major problems trying to keep control over 2 of the countries closest to the bottom of the heap.

when you prepare for war- that's generally what you get.

[krispos42]

37. Not necessarily

The Swiss and the Swedes have been preparig for quite a while, as have the Taiwanese. So, in fact have the Germans and French and Italians and Norwegians.

Our problem is that our Dear Leader sees how big our stick is and can't keep from using it.

[dysfunctional press]

42. preparing to defend your country is different than preparing to project war on others.

the countries you list do the former, we do the latter.

[krispos42]

47. Exactly

Personally, I think we need a powerful Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, but the Army should be small and the Reserves and National Guard large.

Then we would be able to perform surgical strikes on a global level, have presence anywhere we needed to project it, and have enough troops around to perform limited "brushfire" operations and such... without being able to do things like Iraq without a massive call-up of civilians, and possibly a draft.

By having a small, but very well trained and equipped Army, we would be able to quickly expand it if the need arose. And by being very well trained and equipped, our soldiers, when committed to combat, will be worth several "ordinary" soldiers.

[Flatulo]

54. That's the Swiss model. Their citizenry is so well trained and armed

that they have never been invaded.

They can't project power, but no on ever fucks with them.

Their geography and political neutrality haven't hurt either.

[dysfunctional press]

65. geography is probably the best thing they have going for them...

and their knives, of course.

[dysfunctional press]

64. that's pretty much what i'm talking about too.

ideally, and for the most part- any extended large scale operations on foreign soil should be done so only as part of a multi-national force under the auspices/authority of the united nations.

[Flatulo]

27. Armies are needed to protect the interests of empires.

We are an empire, you know. A mostly benevolent one, but an empire nonetheless.

We have troops stationed in something like 130 nations.

We're still 'protecting' all of Western Europe and Japan from... something.

The cost will eventually bankrupt us, as it did to the Romans.

[dysfunctional press]

31. "The cost will eventually bankrupt us, as it did to the Romans."

that's exactly my point. thank-you.

"We are an empire, you know. A mostly benevolent one, but an empire nonetheless..."

there are A LOT of peoples and countries that would disagree with that "a mostly benevolent one" bullshit. we may occasionally talk the talk, but more often than not, we don't walk the walk.

[Flatulo]

34. Self-interest trumps benevolence every time.

We've gone to war in the ME 2X times now. We would have never had Gulf War 1 if there were no oil resources involved.

At the time, I said to myself "So what if Saddam takes the Saudi's oil? What's he going to do, drink it? We can buy it on the open market, just like China and India do."

I also believe that the current Iraq war is a demonstration that the US military can pretty much do whatever it wants, wherever it wants. It was intended to scare the crap out of the Iranians and any other people who start thinking they can defy us.

[dysfunctional press]

45. but the way we conduct ourselves is not in our countries long-term best interest

only in the short-term self-interest of of the military-industrial-complex.

[Flatulo]

53. I'm trying to answer your question, not justify the strategy.

American strategy since WWII has been to

1. contain communist expansion everywhere
2. achieve and maintain full-spectrum military dominance over any and all adversaries
3. be able to fight two major conflicts in two major theatres

As you know, this is a huge financial burden on our society.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. Jeopary Answer:

What is Things said after WWI alex...

[leftofthedial]

39. we need it so that the owners of this country can continue to run the extortion racket

with which they control us

[scarletwoman]

50. Bingo! That's precisely it! (nt)

[genie_weenie]

40. Because you would have to pay taxes to a foreign power

Like the King of Great Britian. Or potentates in Washington DC...

[dysfunctional press]

44. even the british don't pay taxes to the monarchy.

nt

[jmg257]

48. Because Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always...

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."


This process began in 1903 with the Dick Act and the eventual creation of a select federal "militia" to replace the constitutional Militia of the several States. By usurping power to create this force - and to make it a reserve of the Standing Army, and by controlling its arms, and by making it serve overseas, and by using federal funding to force its acceptance on the States, the National Guard made the true Militias - and we, the people's role in it - obsolete. Oh we are still members of the "unorganized militia" of the United States - but effective arms are highly restricted, and there is no provision for calling us out.

On the other hand, this new federally armed and controlled "militia", AND the standing Army can now be called out in the country for ANY reason the president thinks necessary.

The framers never set a time-table for tyranny when they took such great strides to prevent it, when they warned about it, but it seems we are right on schedule.



HR Select Committee, Proposed amendment to the Constitution:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious clause} would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous {read - arbitrarily decide who is unfit} and prevent them from bearing arms.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "

Rep Gerry, Amendment Debates, 1st Congress 1789

[scarletwoman]

51. Another Bingo! Excellent post! (nt)

[jmg257]

56. Cheers! Thanks.. nt

[NNN0LHI]

49. With enough nuclear weapons to turn the entire planet into a cinder a huge standing army is insane

No government entity will ever attack us. And aircraft carriers don't catch terrorists. A huge standing army is also a financial extravagance we realistically cant afford. Too many other items with a much higher priority. Like affordable health care for everyone. That alone will save more lives than all the armies in the world could ever dream of saving.

Don

[ileus]

55. People won't let us use nukes to swat flys....just saying....nukes are "end-alls"

It's the little common fighters that get the job done.

[Uncle Joe]

59. To protect us from Blackwater and other private corporate mercenaries

enabled to power and wealth by Cheney/Bush.

[Canuckistanian]

60. That's true. The Army hasn't REALLY been needed since WWII.

Think about it. When was the last time the US Army served in a legitimate war that actually HELPED the people in that country?

And DON'T say Kuwait. All that conflict did was to hand back the country to it's feudal monarchy.

There is STILL no "democracy and freedom" in Kuwait.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Kosovo

[Arugula Latte]

62. But, how else will we spread our corporate imperialism around the globe?

Gotta slaughter them brown people to make the world safe for Halliburton, Coke and Exxon, dontcha know.

Sheesh.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Because we are the world's hegemon and we have been since World War II

And while the empire is absolutely used to protect corporate interests, it also does do a great deal for global stability.

But I think you are correct that we can't really afford to keep this going forever. It would be in everybody's best interest to see the United States give up the role as hegemon and find some other way to maintain world stability.