Do you think you'll be in favor of the militarism paradigm for the rest of your life?

[Bullseye]

There are plenty of militarized governments. Some are obviously radically more militarized than others.

Maybe you should define "militarized government" more precisely.

 

[Bullseye]

Whatever helps the planet and people to do MUCH better! Militarism ****s up the planet and people.

That's a cop out.

 

[Variant]

Okay.

You're trying to frame my commentary as complaining? Then it's you who's complaining.

I am in fact complaining about your directionless complaining.

Now I didn't expect better when I asked what you wanted, but I am not surprised.

 

[Antiwar]

I am in fact complaining about your directionless complaining.

Now I didn't expect better when I asked what you wanted, but I am not surprised.

Fruitless.

 

[Bullseye]

Use it to "defend" sure. Not to "promote national interests" ie: Naziism.

That's a hell of a stretch from national interests to Nazism.

The US could get by with a military that is far smaller than it is now of course.

Probably not. It's a big world and US interests are widely spread across it.

I'll always support defense, do not now and will never support "militarism". I'm not even really sure that "defense" could ever possibly be "aggressive". It shouldn't ever be.

Explain:

 

[Bullseye]

There's no solution? Humans are always going to be barbaric? I think not!

Study much history?

 

[Antiwar]

I don't like biters.

Military paradigms are the farthest thing from my mind.

Feel free to reply with some of the closest things to your mind. Or not.

 

[Variant]

Fruitless.

It was quite efficient in my book.

 

[Antiwar]

I answered yes although I disagree with labeling it "militarianism". The US has approximate 2.5 million active duty troops out of a population of over 330 million - less than one percent.

The USG has the mightiest most wasteful military on Earth.

 

[Simpletruther]

Do you think you'll be in favor of the militarism paradigm for the rest of your life?

Definition: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability (only to defend our country)and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

I changed the last part only with my parenthesis above. You almost had it right.

 

[Simpletruther]

The USG has the mightiest most wasteful military on Earth.

I agree we waste a lot. But I still want a strong military for defence only, not war mongering.

 

[Antiwar]

I agree we waste a lot. But I still want a strong military for defence only, not war mongering.

That'd be a huge step in the right direction!

 

[Simpletruther]

That'd be a huge step in the right direction!

I am all for removing most of our thousands of troops from around the world. We have bases all over the world.

 

[Antiwar]

I am all for removing most of our thousands of troops from around the world. We have bases all over the world.

That's militarism.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Do you think you'll be in favor of the militarism paradigm for the rest of your life?

Definition: the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

Another ridiculous and dishonest @Antiwar thread.

Militarism is a derogatory term. You deliberately chose to falsely assert your bogus belief of America/Americans as a matter of accepted fact, which it is most definitely not.

Where are we aggressively using our military forces to promote national interests?

Having a capable, ready military force to defend our our country, it’s citizens, and protect our interests abroad is not, by definition “militarism”.

An excerpt from a lengthy, but highly informative article co-written by two experts dissects and dispels false claims of contemporary American militarism.

“THE MYTH of American militarism is analytically vapid. It is also strategically damaging. For if America is simply addicted to war, the obvious prescription is to quit cold turkey. In reality, however, the use of force remains very much in the realm of prudent strategy, so braying for an end to endless wars threatens to drown out sober policy debate about how and where the American military might be employed.

It is fair to argue that Washington overinvested, for years, in combating terrorism and related problems such as rogue states in the Middle East, and that it must use force quite selectively in that region as it devotes greater attention to great-power challenges. As a general rule, violence should be a tool of later, rather than earlier, resort.

Yet it is less helpful to argue that America should simply walk away from ongoing, relatively economical commitments in the Middle East. Carrying out such a withdrawal might well produce an uptick in the threats those commitments are meant to address. The critical debate involves questions of how much risk of renewed terrorist attacks Washington should be willing to accept as it limits its military engagement in the region and how much force it should still be willing to use to keep that risk at an acceptable level. That debate requires intellectual nuance and sophistication, qualities that the most condemnatory statements about forever wars do little to produce.

The same goes for great-power rivalry. Everyone should hope that the U.S.-China competition stays peaceful. But one of the most urgent questions America faces is what interests it should be willing to defend with force—and how—if they are attacked. And one of the most urgent imperatives Washington confronts is strengthening deterrence of China by convincing Beijing that it can and will fight effectively if those interests are challenged. To suggest, as some analysts have, that the fundamental problem in the U.S.-China relationship is America’s desire formilitary primacy—or even that it was “tragic” that America intervened against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II—is simply to abandon the hard intellectual work of strategy by arguing that the proper choice is never to wield the military tool.

The United States has a mixed record with the use of force, as one might well expect of this most demanding aspect of statecraft. Yet its choices over the past thirty years have been wiser, its restraint and selectivity have been greater, and the domestic blowback it has suffered has been smaller than many critics allege. There are cases, alas, where the use or threat of force will be necessary in the future. There will be instances when choosing not to intervene now forces policymakers to contemplate higher-cost military interventions later. In addressing these challenges, policymakers will need something better than the Magic Eight Ball of restraint, which always answers “my sources say no” when asked for guidance on hard choices. Prescription begins with diagnosis. Busting the myth of American militarism is the first step toward positioning America, intellectually and strategically, for success in a dangerous future.

The Myth of American Militarism

The United States needs a serious debate about how, where, and whether to use force in an era when its resources are stretched. It requires a highly disciplined approach to employing its military power in an age of great-power rivalry. Yet the myth of American militarism is bad analysis that...

nationalinterest.org

 

[Simpletruther]

That's militarism.

Yea

 

[Bullseye]

The USG has the mightiest most wasteful military on Earth.

Yeah, I've been hearing that BS for decades. I use it to fertilize my lawn.

 

[Antiwar]

...

National interest dot org!

 

[Antiwar]

Yeah, I've been hearing that BS for decades. I use it to fertilize my lawn.

They say "The Ukraine is weak." You say USA#1 is weak? Wow.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

National interest dot org!

What the defeated post when they have nothing to counter with and no integrity.




Hal Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a Bloomberg Opinion columnist.

Peter Feaver is Visiting Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford University, on leave from Duke University, where he is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and directs the Program in American Grand Strategy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Where does having a strong enough military to defend your country and allies against aggressive countries fit?

Nothing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I answered yes although I disagree with labeling it "militarianism". The US has approximate 2.5 million active duty troops out of a population of over 330 million - less than one percent.

You’re correct to disagree with @Antiwar, because he’s wrong. Again.

 

[Antiwar]

What the defeated post when they have nothing to counter with and no integrity.

Defeated? You're funny. Sorry, but most of your replies to me are just flat out angry trolling.

Opinion

Are opinion pieces judged by their facts? Because, even though I didn't bother even glancing at it, I'm confident that a website called national interests dot org saying that 'the word militarism does not apply to the USG' is an opinion piece. It's like a petroleum website writing an opinion piece about regulations it doesn't like or something.

But, go ahead and 'make your case' (like you tried trolling me with, the other day).

 

[Antiwar]

You’re correct to disagree with @Antiwar, because he’s wrong. Again.

The hollow declaration of Independent.

 

[Bullseye]

You’re correct to disagree with @Antiwar, because he’s wrong. Again.

I find that the folks that spout the "why do we need a military" have an irrational belief that everyone in the world are just nice, peaceful, docile people. I wish it were, but reality has a way of biting you on the butt and if you don't bite back they keep eating.