Quote from: jeff37923This is, by far, the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post and shows a complete lack of understanding on what a military branch, American or otherwise, really is. The above makes you look like a monkey fuckin' a football, pseudo.

I'm taking it directly from Brigadier-General Nigel Aylwin Foster's infamous critique of the US military in Military Review in the 2005 November-December issue. Other Western militaries have their overall objective qua army officially stated as to attain the political objectives of the state they serve during a conflict. The US military differs from all other Westernised militaries by stating their task as encountering and destroying the enemy.

This is even obvious on a practical level - the US military does not participate in joint peacekeeping operations with other nations under UN mandates. Peacekeeping operations, which do not involve violently confronting a distinct enemy force and destroying it, are outside American military experience and interest.

You fucking ignoramus.

God help us...the textbook-head thinks he's a military expert.


- Ed C.

Quote from: John MorrowDoes anyone have a good record?  Do you have a good example of anyone achieving the sort of war winning and conflict ending that you'd like to see?

I am satisfied, though not particularly happy, with the minimal standards attained by the rest of the Anglosphere and much of Western Europe since 1945. I am least satisfied with Britain and France's records of them. Most of the militaries of these nations are involved in peacekeeping operations which do not involve them as primary combatants. They attain their political objectives much more readily than do other militaries because of the limited scope of their goals. They also prevent conflicts from escalating whenever possible. While not always successful (Canada's failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide, frex), they do generally manage to avoid debacles like Vietnam and Iraq.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm taking it directly from Brigadier-General Nigel Aylwin Foster's infamous critique of the US military in Military Review in the 2005 November-December issue.

I thought this looked familiar. I've read the article in question, and recall reading it when it came out. I'm dubious at best as to how much the General would agree with your usage of his research, and doubtful (a mild understatement) that he'd agree with your conclusions.

Quote from: Brigadier-General Nigel Aylwin FosterHowever, to conclude, as some do, that the Army is simply incompetent or inflexible, is simplistic and quite erroneous.

That's from his conclusions, where he continues to say that the United States Army realizes it needs to change, and is working towards said change. As with any large organization these things take time.

QuoteThis is even obvious on a practical level - the US military does not participate in joint peacekeeping operations with other nations under UN mandates.

As an aside, I don't blame them. The UN is a fucking mess on a good day.

QuotePeacekeeping operations, which do not involve violently confronting a distinct enemy force and destroying it, are outside American military experience and interest.

This is bullshit of the highest order, and you know that. Why you'd even make this statement with a straight face is beyond me. You're letting your anger get the better of you, and sourcing yourself here.

Despite your high opinion of you, I'm afraid you do not qualify as an expert on...well anything unless I'm mistaken.

Quote from: Serious PaulI thought this looked familiar. I've read the article in question, and recall reading it when it came out. I'm dubious at best as to how much the General would agree with your usage of his research, and doubtful (a mild understatement) that he'd agree with your conclusions.

That's from his conclusions, where he continues to say that the United States Army realizes it needs to change, and is working towards said change. As with any large organization these things take time.

Don't cut that line out of context. He follows it with "If anything, the the Army has been a victim of its own successful development as the ultimate warfighting machine. Always seeing itself as an instrument of national survival, over time the Army has developed a marked and uncompromising focus on conventional warfighting, leaving it ill-prepared for the unconventional operations that characterise OIF Phase 4. Moreover, its strong conventional warfighting organisational culture and centralised way of command have tended to discourage the necessary swift adaptation to the demands of Phase 4. Its cultural singularity and insularity have compounded the problem...."

It's a strong condemnation of the American military's inflexibility in OOTW. While it's true, he does say that the American military is trying to adapt and that there are individual successes, he is strongly critical of its ability to do so as an institution, especially within the timeframe required by the current wars.

QuoteAs an aside, I don't blame them. The UN is a fucking mess on a good day.

The same could be said the American government. The UN is not a cult of personality or a totalitarian state - it is a cluster of organisations of varying merit. The peacekeeping operations are particularly valuable.

QuoteThis is bullshit of the highest order, and you know that. Why you'd even make this statement with a straight face is beyond me. You're letting your anger get the better of you, and sourcing yourself here.

Despite your high opinion of you, I'm afraid you do not qualify as an expert on...well anything unless I'm mistaken.

That's a bullshit argument ad hominem. Provide a contrary argument or stop whining.

The American military does not participate in peacekeeping missions, and hasn't since Somalia - 15 years ago. Even before that, its participation in peacekeeping operations was minimal. Somalia was a special Clinton project. American participation in UN actions was mainly warfighting, not peacekeeping - Korea and the second Persian Gulf War are exemplary here.

It's like saying that invasion is outside the Canadian military's institutional experience, because it does not invade other countries, has not invaded other countries for at least a generation, and does not practice invading other countries. The American military does not participate in peacekeeping missions, has devoted little time to studying peacekeeping operations, and has not participated in a peacekeeping mission in at least 15 years, and outside of that single operation, has not otherwise participated in extensive peacekeeping operations in a generation or so.

Quote from: KoltarGod help us...the textbook-head thinks he's a military expert.


- Ed C.

I am not a military expert, but I am a pacifist, and as a pacifist, one should know about how armies really conduct themselves so that one can criticise and critique them properly.

Quote from: John Morrow(Re: government advertising)   Bear in mind, for example, that the US ran all sorts of marketing campaigns during WW2, from ads to sell war bonds and keep secrets to ads promoting rationing programs and so on (the "Is this trip really necessary?" line from some Bugs Bunny cartoons deals with these rationing ads).  And would you also be opposed to a possibly Hillary Clinton administration running ads promoting a universal healthcare proposal in order to sell the public on the idea and counter the negative adds that will almost certainly be run by the corporate opponents of such a plan?

On taxpayer dollars?  Absolute-fucking-lutely!  

Political parties or political organizations are welcome to run ads in favor of or against universal health care, using funds that people have donated to them for such purposes.  But the elected government has no business doing such.  

As for the WWII propaganda, it's a mixed bag.  Some ads were essentially public service messages and useful.  However, I'm doubtful about a lot of it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe American military does not participate in peacekeeping missions, and hasn't since Somalia - 15 years ago. Even before that, its participation in peacekeeping operations was minimal. Somalia was a special Clinton project. American participation in UN actions was mainly warfighting, not peacekeeping - Korea and the second Persian Gulf War are exemplary here.

As for Korean and the Persian Gulf War, the first took place while Russia was boycotting the UN because Taiwan still represented China and the second took place around the fall of the Soviet Union.  The veto powers of the permanent members of the security council render the UN otherwise unable to act because almost any situation that would warrant UN action has elements that make it in the best interest of at least one of those members to veto any action.

And while you may technically be correct that the American military does not participate in peacekeeping missions for the UN, Kosovo certainly counts as a peacekeeping mission undertaken by NATO after Europe, alone, and the UN refused to act (though in retrospect, the cause for action was, like Iraq, exaggerated) and Americans still have forces there performing that task.

Quote from: jhkimAs for the WWII propaganda, it's a mixed bag.  Some ads were essentially public service messages and useful.  However, I'm doubtful about a lot of it.

OK.  Fair enough. (to your whole reply, actually)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine. The American military does not participate in peacekeeping missions, has devoted little time to studying peacekeeping operations, and has not participated in a peacekeeping mission in at least 15 years, and outside of that single operation, has not otherwise participated in extensive peacekeeping operations in a generation or so.

Incorrect. Many of the troops that were sent into Iraq in the first wave were pulled from downtime from peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.  That was quite a bit more recent than 15 years.  And you know what? They did a decent job of it too.

Quote from: John MorrowAs for Korean and the Persian Gulf War, the first took place while Russia was boycotting the UN because Taiwan still represented China and the second took place around the fall of the Soviet Union.  The veto powers of the permanent members of the security council render the UN otherwise unable to act because almost any situation that would warrant UN action has elements that make it in the best interest of at least one of those members to veto any action.

Sure, authoritarian scum can muck up just about anything, and the UN is no exception.

QuoteAnd while you may technically be correct that the American military does not participate in peacekeeping missions for the UN, Kosovo certainly counts as a peacekeeping mission undertaken by NATO after Europe, alone, and the UN refused to act (though in retrospect, the cause for action was, like Iraq, exaggerated) and Americans still have forces there performing that task.

In Kosovo, the American forces were able to draw on the entire NATO coalition, many members of which have extensive peacekeeping experience. The actual ground forces deployed to Kosovo, for example, were under the operational command of a British general and working with British, French, German and Italian soldiers. American forces in Kosovo after the end of the war were relatively small - 7,000 or so until the Iraq war, now about 3000. Even then, British forces comprised the vast bulk of the force, at 19,000 soldiers.

While no doubt this does provide some small experience in OOTW, even the higher number of 7000 out of 2.6 million members of the American armed forces (total active and reserves according to Wikipedia) is not many. It's unclear what programs the US military has in place to train even these soldiers in OOTW prior to or during deployment. Nor does it seem to have a program in place to leverage any experience they may have in other conflict zones (Iraq, Afghanistan, SE Asia).

Peacekeeping, nation-building, conflict de-escalation and other OOTW just aren't a priority for the American military, and we shouldn't be surprised that it is comparatively weak in these areas. Unfortunately, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a military which conceives of its purpose as encountering and destroying the enemy, every conflict is to be resolved through encountering and destroying the enemy.

To get back to my original point, because the American military is primarily oriented, conceptually and logistically, towards warfighting, and America really hasn't needed to fight a war since 1945 and yet has been involved in many, it would be better for America not to have a standing army.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTo get back to my original point, because the American military is primarily oriented, conceptually and logistically, towards warfighting, and America really hasn't needed to fight a war since 1945 and yet has been involved in many, it would be better for America not to have a standing army.

Do you really think the world would have been a better place after 1945 if the United States didn't have a standing army and didn't get involved in the Korean War and didn't maintain sizable forces in Europe and Japan during the Cold War?

Quote from: SpikeIncorrect. Many of the troops that were sent into Iraq in the first wave were pulled from downtime from peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.  That was quite a bit more recent than 15 years.  And you know what? They did a decent job of it too.

"Many" is an optimistic assessment. There were approximately 7,000 soldiers deployed to Kosovo at its peak. There are currently 3,000 there now. During the invasion, there were a quarter of a million soldiers deployed to Iraq. There are currently ~168,000 soldiers, with an additional ~37,000 casualties requiring medical evacuation (all numbers pulled from wikipedia). Even if we contort numbers on troop rotations to maximise the number of US soldiers who served in Kosovo (which would reduce the quality of an OOTW experience they could provide), they are a drop in the bucket.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you really think the world would have been a better place after 1945 if the United States didn't have a standing army and didn't get involved in the Korean War and didn't maintain sizable forces in Europe and Japan during the Cold War?

Only if many other things went along with that single policy. It's not the case that the US can just stop having an army and otherwise maintain its manner of conducting itself. Similarly, it's not the case that only the US should not have an army, while all the other bad dudes around get to keep theirs.

America should not having a standing army, and neither should China. America should not back violent revolutionaries in other countries, and neither should Saudi Arabia. America should not invade and bomb foreign countries, and neither should Russia.

Finally, worrying about whether the US should have had a military in 1946 or '74 or whatever is pointless. The purpose is to work towards not needing one in the modern day, by dismantling the military-industrial complex, by encouraging the growth of peaceful democratic movements in totalitarian countries liable to destabilise the world, by transferring modern militaries from warfighting operations to peacekeeping ones, by increasing economic cooperation and cultural interchange between countries, and by working to make warfighting operations more difficult to launch through other preventative measures. None of that is particularly pie-in-the-sky stuff.

QuoteNone of that is particularly pie-in-the-sky stuff.

It is without a revolution. The danger signals are there when you say 'should'.