Why do we have an Army?

[GoNavy]

Oh for the love of God, let's justify horror by changing the name. War is war, whether it meets someone's definition of 'total' war is a mere academic exercise.

Tough to argue there It just means "all in." That's all. 100% Navy, Marines, Air Force, Satellites, Coast Guard, and Army. AND citizens willing to work in military factories.

 

[GoNavy]

Apparently, some still haven't gotten the memo how important it is to be the good guy who plays fair. Yeah, it would seem a no-brainer that all's fair in love and war, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper to go around assassinating the bad guys and the not-so-rational actors, the world public opinion be damned, right? Because in today's world, we have to assume that the word would get out that we did it.

And the answer is, so what, right? Just like with the torture at Abu Ghirab, who the hell cares, we're trying to save our fellow servicemembers' lives and win a war so shut the hell up and get out of the way, right?

Not so much. Even if torture were every bit as effective as some want to claim (and it's not), actions like assassinations and torture have larger and deeper effects - all of which are bad for the nation which committed those crimes. A great example lay in Germany's invasion of Belgium in WWI.

Even until the day that Germany invaded Belgium on the way to France, England - the world's greatest superpower at the time - was officially neutral, and the majority of the population believed they would not go to war over Belgium despite England's treat obligation to do so if someone invaded Belgium. The Germans did invade on the assumption that the Belgians - with full knowledge that they couldn't hope to stop the Germans - would wisely step aside and let them through. The Belgians instead had a 'Gandalf moment' - "You shall not pass!" So the fit hit the shan...and the English declared war as a direct result.

At the time, the Germans - as in WWII - had a policy of collective punishment: if a partisan or sniper attacked the occupying German army or attempted to hinder its progress, they would kill a certain number of Belgian citizens from the closest town - sometimes just a few, sometimes a hundred or more - in order to teach the locals that war is not fair, leave us alone and we will let you live, try to hinder us, and we will make you regret it.

Many reports of the German Army's cruelty got out and were used to incredible effect by the French, American, and especially the British Empire's press. It was these reports of the German Army's atrocities that began to turn the attitude of the Americans against Germany, and the American government began conducting crucial trade deals much more favorably to England than to Germany. What's more, the stories of the Germans' atrocities were used to rally and inflame the passions of the Dominions, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa, allowing England to much more easily draw upon those populations for manpower and supplies.

In other words, it's not much of a stretch to say that their cruelty towards the Belgians was certainly one of the largest factors - if not the largest single factor - in Germany's loss of WWI. Their abhorrent actions turned the world against them, and gave their enemies wonderful recruiting tools, making it much easier to attract recruits (England's army was all-volunteer until about 1916) than it would have been otherwise.

THAT, sir, is the value of "playing fair" even in wartime - even if doing so costs you lives in the short run, maintaining the goodwill and sympathies of the rest of the world pays huge dividends in the long run.

Your arbitrary definition of "torture" is a bit different than what WWII America would have agreed with. "Mr. President - President Roosevelt - Sir - any thoughts on pouring water on beheading, murdering, pedophile extremists' faces?"

"Well, they set our soldiers on fire, cut off their heads and hang them for all to see ... "

You need to campaign for Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Aka - Congress dead weight bleeding hearts club.

 

[Fishking]

Looks like another person confusing occupying a country and doing police actions with war again. The Army did quite well winning the war in Iraq. It was done in a short period of time and with almost no casualties. We even did the same back in the 90s when Iraq had it's vaunted million man army, the 5th largest in the world.

You can't change a culture and ideology with an occupation. Well, you could probably do it if you went Genghis Khan on some people but that's not a route that should be taken. It hasn't helped that our policies and efforts have been counter-productive due to a completely lack of understanding of the region and conflicting interests. One of those conflicts of interests is slowly coming to a head with the weakening of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

You'll never defeat a conventional enemy solely with a Navy.

 

[braindrain]

You mean like Japan...

And no, the JSDF does not count.

Just out of curiosity why do you feel that the JSDF not count. They spend around 40 billion dollars a year on it and have close to 300000 personnel both active and reserve.

 

[braindrain]

So keep 50%. The most highly trained and competent. Tech and weaponry don't come FROM the Army. They come from R&D, DNR, and DARPA.

So which MOSs do you think we should be doing away.

 

[braindrain]

You made a GROSS segue from my suggestion of "massively" scaling down our Army (and ... ONLY our Army) to - scaling down our entire military presence.

Which I never suggested. Ever.

To be honest, If we were going to either massively scale back or get rid of all together it would have to be the Marines. Now dont get me wrong I think it would be a horribe idea but if you had to that would be the one to go.

 

[Blue_State]

Oh for the love of God, let's justify horror by changing the name. War is war, whether it meets someone's definition of 'total' war is a mere academic exercise.

That was my point.

 

[Blue_State]

That is the 20th century definition. So, I am very close to agreeing with you. According to my American Military History college course. It was an allusion to our management of Vietnam and Korea ... but still applies to the GWoT.

Our position in the global community means that we will never meet your definition of total war. What you are prescribing is considered a war crime by many of the world. Our government with 6 others (one of them was not Russia) voted against considering the use of nuclear weapons an act against humanitarian law. This is a protective stance since we are the only ones to ever use a nuclear weapon.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice concluded that the nations of the world should agree to a nuclear disarmament and the use of these weapons would be a violation of the international humanitarian law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_the_Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons

 

[JANFU]

Which is why Mac stepped down. He was subordinate and never acted without approval.

THE POINT - which you clearly missed - was for the Oval Office to RESPECT the tactical and strategic opinion of those with experience. Which Truman CLEARLY did not.

Check your history, he had blindsided the JCoS, the WH, and ignored orders.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Your arbitrary definition of "torture" is a bit different than what WWII America would have agreed with. "Mr. President - President Roosevelt - Sir - any thoughts on pouring water on beheading, murdering, pedophile extremists' faces?"

"Well, they set our soldiers on fire, cut off their heads and hang them for all to see ... "

You need to campaign for Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Aka - Congress dead weight bleeding hearts club.

FYI, shipmate, After WWII, WE executed Japanese military officials for waterboarding our soldiers they had captured:

David J. Cohen, the founder of the War Crimes Studies Center at the University of California at Berkeley, said the U.S. military convicted Japanese POW camp officials for a wide range of offenses from severe beatings, to exposing prisoners to extreme temperatures.

"There were death sentences for torture, and that torture typically consisted of multiple forms of mistreatment, of which water torture was considered one of the most severe," Cohen said in an email.

Wallach, in his essay, wrote that six Japanese generals who ordered and permitted water torture were sentenced to death. He added, however, that those generals were also convicted of many other war crimes -- including conspiracy, aggression and crimes against the peace.

Yuma Totani, a history professor at the University of Hawaii, said she knows of two additional Japanese officers who were executed after U.S. military trials conducted from 1944 to 1946.

"Both accused were found guilty on grounds that they disregarded their duty to take control of subordinate army units, which included kenpeitai (Japanese secret police) that was known to have used various torture methods against detainees at Fort Santiago, the kenpeitai interrogation center at Manila," Totani said in an email. "Waterboarding being one of the commonplace torture methods of kenpeitai, one could argue that these accused were convicted of a charge that included waterboarding as one of the torture methods, commonly applied by the members of their subordinate army units."

I guess in your view, then, our WWII military was one big "bleeding hearts club".

 

[Visbek]

Why do we have an army?

We have an army to defend our nation, and defend our interest abroad.

Let's face it, much of the time that requires ground troops; one reason why our foreign interventions fail so badly is because, after Vietnam, we are too chicken to risk the lives of soldiers in wars.

The fact that some of our political policies are misguided and inept doesn't mean that intervention always fails. E.g. intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovena certainly helped; Sarajevo has gone from the longest modern siege, to a recovering city. And while we in the US don't pay much attention to it, many UN military interventions have worked fairly well. You can't do this with air power alone.

They also can and do help in national emergencies, such as major hurricanes.

We are situated between the two largest oceans in the world. We have satellites, radar, sonar, Google Maps, the strongest Navy by FAR !!

Y'know, I don't style myself an expert on military tactics, but I don't think a navy does much good without an army to back it up.

We have a wall in our southern border

Not really

we have Border Patrol

Last I checked, they don't have tanks or infantry training

National Guard

A good resource, but not a replacement for a professional army. Oh, and they are part of the US Army.

CIA

Inept bumblers who can barely do more than throw weapons at insurgencies that turn around and revile us for interfering in their sovereign affairs

Special Forces

Like... the US Army Green Berets and Rangers...?

Homeland Security

That's just an umbrella bureaucracy for various federal agencies

National Intelligence, NRO, NSA ...

Surveillance doesn't mean anything if you can't act on the intelligence

AND ... here's the kicker ... our country has over 270 MILLION firearms (estimate). We have an army RIGHT HERE. U.S. populace.

You've GOT to be kidding.

First, roughly 1/3 of Americans own firearms -- and that rate is apparently dropping slowly. As I'm sure you realize, gun owners typically own multiple firearms these days. Most

Second, owning a gun doesn't make you a soldier. A serious military threat would roll right over an Army-less US.

What do you guys say? Can we massively !! scale-down our Army?

Scale down? Perhaps.

The better answer is root out the wasted corporate welfare in the various military spending bills. Of course, that never works, because no one wants to hold the military accountable; hawks (especially chickenhawks) screech at the very idea of cutting military spending, however justified; and the military contractors (like Halliburton) have more than enough money to throw at Congress to keep the cash flowing in their direction.

As an example, how would you feel if we decided to cut Navy spending by 50%, and said the Navy had to provide the same level of service?

So, yeah. Good luck with that one.

 

[GoNavy]

So which MOSs do you think we should be doing away.

50% of E1 - E4 Armed Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery. Particularly those who have marks on their record or haven't promoted in a long time. (Dead weight)

 

[GoNavy]

To be honest, If we were going to either massively scale back or get rid of all together it would have to be the Marines. Now dont get me wrong I think it would be a horribe idea but if you had to that would be the one to go.

I wouldn't argue with you (much) on that

 

[GoNavy]

We have an army to defend our nation, and defend our interest abroad.

Let's face it, much of the time that requires ground troops; one reason why our foreign interventions fail so badly is because, after Vietnam, we are too chicken to risk the lives of soldiers in wars.

The fact that some of our political policies are misguided and inept doesn't mean that intervention always fails. E.g. intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovena certainly helped; Sarajevo has gone from the longest modern siege, to a recovering city. And while we in the US don't pay much attention to it, many UN military interventions have worked fairly well. You can't do this with air power alone.

They also can and do help in national emergencies, such as major hurricanes.



Y'know, I don't style myself an expert on military tactics, but I don't think a navy does much good without an army to back it up.



Not really



Last I checked, they don't have tanks or infantry training



A good resource, but not a replacement for a professional army. Oh, and they are part of the US Army.



Inept bumblers who can barely do more than throw weapons at insurgencies that turn around and revile us for interfering in their sovereign affairs



Like... the US Army Green Berets and Rangers...?



That's just an umbrella bureaucracy for various federal agencies



Surveillance doesn't mean anything if you can't act on the intelligence



You've GOT to be kidding.

First, roughly 1/3 of Americans own firearms -- and that rate is apparently dropping slowly. As I'm sure you realize, gun owners typically own multiple firearms these days. Most

Second, owning a gun doesn't make you a soldier. A serious military threat would roll right over an Army-less US.



Scale down? Perhaps.

The better answer is root out the wasted corporate welfare in the various military spending bills. Of course, that never works, because no one wants to hold the military accountable; hawks (especially chickenhawks) screech at the very idea of cutting military spending, however justified; and the military contractors (like Halliburton) have more than enough money to throw at Congress to keep the cash flowing in their direction.

As an example, how would you feel if we decided to cut Navy spending by 50%, and said the Navy had to provide the same level of service?

So, yeah. Good luck with that one.

I don't have a problem with making cuts to the Navy. And I served in the Navy.

 

[Wiggen]

Just out of curiosity why do you feel that the JSDF not count. They spend around 40 billion dollars a year on it and have close to 300000 personnel both active and reserve.

Because it doesn't fit into his pre-conceived notions.

 

[Wiggen]

FYI, shipmate, After WWII, WE executed Japanese military officials for waterboarding our soldiers they had captured:

David J. Cohen, the founder of the War Crimes Studies Center at the University of California at Berkeley, said the U.S. military convicted Japanese POW camp officials for a wide range of offenses from severe beatings, to exposing prisoners to extreme temperatures.

"There were death sentences for torture, and that torture typically consisted of multiple forms of mistreatment, of which water torture was considered one of the most severe," Cohen said in an email.

Wallach, in his essay, wrote that six Japanese generals who ordered and permitted water torture were sentenced to death. He added, however, that those generals were also convicted of many other war crimes -- including conspiracy, aggression and crimes against the peace.

Yuma Totani, a history professor at the University of Hawaii, said she knows of two additional Japanese officers who were executed after U.S. military trials conducted from 1944 to 1946.

"Both accused were found guilty on grounds that they disregarded their duty to take control of subordinate army units, which included kenpeitai (Japanese secret police) that was known to have used various torture methods against detainees at Fort Santiago, the kenpeitai interrogation center at Manila," Totani said in an email. "Waterboarding being one of the commonplace torture methods of kenpeitai, one could argue that these accused were convicted of a charge that included waterboarding as one of the torture methods, commonly applied by the members of their subordinate army units."

I guess in your view, then, our WWII military was one big "bleeding hearts club".

Apparently it's only evil if it is done to our soldiers. If we do it to the enemy, it's somehow noble.

 

[Cryptic]

What do you guys say? Can we massively !! scale-down our Army?

For better or for worse, we already have.

Right now, we are a nation of 300 million with global interests. Our army consists of 10 divisions, and about 2-3 Brigades worth of combat units that are not attatched to a particular division. At least two of the divisions only have two brigades each, instead of the normal three.

 

[braindrain]

50% of E1 - E4 Armed Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery. Particularly those who have marks on their record or haven't promoted in a long time. (Dead weight)

You do understand that it is those exact folks, E1-E4s, that do the majority of the actual on the ground work right in this MOSs. So in essence you want to reduce the ability of the Army to do its job but keep the leadership and administrative structure in place. Yeah that seems like a great idea.

This is not even going into the fact that those cuts wouldn't even come close to your goal or cutting the Army by 50% you know that right.

 

[jkennedy]

What's your point? Do you honestly believe in this day and age a country can survive without an army?

My point is that people don't think about what they say.

 

[Caine]

Why do we have an army? Cuz not everyone can be in the navy.

In they naaaaavyyyyyyyy

*flops hand*

 

[Caine]

In Total War - you would be correct. Which ... we have not waged in over 70 years. And probably never will again so long as Nukes exist.

Of course....... You have it all figured out...

 

[Redress]

In they naaaaavyyyyyyyy

*flops hand*

That Village People song, man, no one ever links to that! How original!

Now hush up and bend over to pick up that bar of soap.

 

[JANFU]

 

[Tigerace117]

My point is that people don't think about what they say.

But that still brings you to point number two--- do you honestly believe in day and age a country can survive without an army?

 

[Caine]

That Village People song, man, no one ever links to that! How original!

Now hush up and bend over to pick up that bar of soap.

Sorry... I don't do that. Im not in the Naaaaaavvvvyyyyyyyy