Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:
It wasn't a loyalty issue, it was a anti-Baathist issue. It was misguided part of an attempt to remove Baathists from any position of power/responsibility/influence and destroy Baathist organizations and institutions.

That's it.

I stand corrected.

I noticed the snide remarks of rejoicing the "fascists coming out of the woodwork" not only illustrates the head-in-the-fundament level of intelligence it also shows how black and white politics have become in some of these forums.

Alexzandvar wrote:The "Well they don't really want us there" tends to come from the people in the area just being miffed about troopers going and doing stupid stuff, getting in trouble, ect. The usual reasons.

I'll tell you right know those countries governments want, Its added protection, a boosts to their economy, and deters any potential invader/aggressors.


And if you think we have bases in germany NOW to keep "Russia" in check your being silly, we have bases in germany because the germans want us there and they serve as a good middle point to deploy from.


The cold war is over, stop hyping Russia and China up as the big enemy. China will destory itself with its reckless industry.

Now that is a big pile of it. There has been growing anti-American sentiment across the world for the past decade. Maybe this is true the added protection is a boost to domestic stability overseas however things have changed and those who used to share our interests are looking towards other nations for leadership since we seem to be lacking in it now days. Not their fault though, we keep re-electing incompetence a-holes as our representatives. I often wonder if the world in general think the average American is really as stupid as the stereotypes.

The cold war is over, yes you are correct. However, the Soviet Union may have collapsed but the old grudges against the west is still prevalent and denying that goes beyond naivety and ignorance. As long as old guard KGB power mongers like Putin are tugging the strings your liberal mindset “Cold war is over, Russia and China are not geopolitical foes” is the same stupid mentality that got us into a lot of binds in the past, use your head!

Ask about all that military hardware the Russians are sending to regimes in complete violation of nonproliferation agreements. Old habits die hard.

Da Boss wrote:Heavy Metal, I think when someone wants to kill you it's worth looking at their motivations and trying to figure out why. I'm not sure you've done that to a great extent, based on your posts.

I also think dividing the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a really simplistic and wrong headed approach.

I’m not sure what you’re playing at with that first bit of your post… The motivations may lead you to just cause but no conclusions unless you’re privy to draw ones like you’ve just done. Sometimes it pays to be a bit judgmental. This whole thing of not judging because you’re afraid to hurt one’s feelings is foolish and costly. People and their delicate sensibilities…

I’m not dividing the world into good guy and bad guys you’re putting words into my post. There are nations that wish to hurt us economically, politically and militarily if they knew they could get away with it and I know an old geopolitical adversary when I see one. Then there are nations who still favor us but I have no delusions the world by and large are not pulled into the east versus west idea. If you think I look at the world as black and white then you’re wrong.

Ouze wrote:John McCain was a war veteran, and never saw a foreign conflict he didn't want to entangle us in, from Libya to Syria to Iran. Some of our most mediocre presidents were military men, and one of our greatest - the man who won the largest military conflict our country ever fought - never served. JFK's wartime experiences led him to escalate the war in Vietnam and to bring us to the brink of nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union (when he found the time for this between affairs, one wonders).
There is little evidence to support the idea that military service is a good indicator of a skilled president.

We are at an agreement here. I already know the impracticalities of this approach but you would still think a military man would bear more rationale than some disconnected career politician elitist from Harvard. Although you do have those career military bureaucrats from West Point that don’t make shining examples of the uniform. Yeah, I know I'm stepping on toes here but I'm good at that.

Heavy Metal wrote:
Ah, now we're getting into an interesting subject,

I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.

You do realize that in Starship Troopers, the term "veteran" meant anyone that had completed Federal Service with Heinlein himself saying that "95% of veterans were not military personnel."

I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.

There is just so much wrong with this statement.

As for a standing army in this day and age we cannot afford to do what we did in the past is to muster a large army in time of need and disband it during peace time. Not when we have powerful adversaries like China and Russia doing their saber rattling and having rogue nations like North Korea and Iran going nuclear. There is historical proof this habit of disbanding and mustering armies costs more lives than necessary all because there were those few fearing a standing army. As a devout Jeffersonian I still believe centralized banks and big governments are more dangerous than standing armies. That is a fact, Jack!

No, that isn't a fact. It is your opinion. It also has nothing to do with the topic, so whatever. Since your brought it up though, Jefferson was inherently distrustful of standing armies and lobbied to have language forbidding it written in the Constitution. He favored a militia-based national defense (how well did that work out?) and as President, he slashed the number of soldiers in the army and closed numerous forts, doing all he could to effectively dismantle America's standing army by the end of his presidency.

However my politics in some areas are a bit polarized. I like a standing army here at home to protect our borders but I do not believe it is our right and our place for that matter to be the world's policemen. Why do we need over 100 military bases across the world? I strongly disaprove the arrogance of our government's intrusive foreign policies. Yes I'm talking to you NSA.

Exactly who are we protecting our borders from?

I'm sure people other than just Americans talk about nuking other countries, who doesn't? You know the Russians are itching to hurl a nuke or two, hell they got more nukes than anyone. I hate to say it but even in our modern world that is supposedly more civilized you still have the "barbarians" wanting to cause trouble. I will use that term because I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, so I apologize if I damage your delicate sensibilities of the matter.

Well since there are only nine countries that have nuclear weapons, I would imagine that there aren't that many people out there that actively discuss using nuclear weapons as a viable option in engaging foreign policy.

Not saying it is any of our places, especially my country, to be “nation building” or “civilize” other countries but when a nation harbors people who want to kill us, mainly any of us from the west or whoever they label infidel (which is almost everyone) because we don’t bow our heads to Mecca five times a day then I think more than nation building is in need. I’ll leave it at that before I incur the wrath of moderators.

They don't want to kill us because we aren't Muslim. I would recommend getting your information about how the Middle East feels about the West from somewhere other than the right-wing blosphere.

An international forum or not I'll consider the reality conflict exists everywhere and in many forms. If it isn't Russia bullying its regional neighbors like Georgia it is Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map or the North Koreans shelling their Southern neighbors because Kim Jun Un is having a bad day. Then again my country has the NSA snooping into other people's business so I have no delusions that only my country is always right. I think throughout history whether it was yesterday or over 100 years ago our countries has done something to step on someone else’s toes just as you said about the British were privy to impose their will upon the Irish and the Scots, my ancestors. The main thing is where do we draw the line? I think when you kill thousands of innocent people because someone promised you 72 virgins and that you hate a nation’s lifestyle then you crossed the line beyond restraint and I think you should pay the price with fire and fury. That’s just me and if that makes me out to be a heartless and cruel person then so be it.

Again, they don't dislike the West because of our lifestyle.

“Civilized” in its use is a bit archaic to me since it’s the same as nation building. Personally I don’t see the point of going to Iraq and Afghanistan to get bogged down in nation building just to wipe out the vermin that started this war. What was to be a simple job was to go in kill the bad guys and get the heck out has turned into a political mess reminiscent of the Vietnam War. Revisionist history is for the birds, politicians are idiots and you veterans don’t get the gratitude for what you do.

I'm pretty sure we started both of those wars. Details, details, details...

In WW II the doctrine of total war was used where both sides bombed civilian populations (except us, we were largely unscathed) and military complexes indiscriminately. It was necessary and at the same time unnecessary but war is horrible that way and brings the worse out of human nature. General Robert E. Lee said it right “it is well war is so terrible otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” You have personal accounts of what all transpired there yet it is difficult for most of us here at home to distinguish the fanatics from the regular folk since there is a lack of rejection of the radicals by these so-called moderates.

So are you arguing in favor of using a doctrine of total war in the Middle East?

Call me skeptical but I have reason not to give Iraqis or anyone else in that part of the world the benefit of the doubt. Not saying everyone in Iraq are monsters but they don’t make an effort to help themselves to convince otherwise.

...so everyone in Iraq is a monster?

I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay.

We don't have bases in Germany as a first line of defense for when columns of Soviet armor come crashing through the Iron Curtain to sweep over all of Europe. That not going to happen. Ever.

South Korea I’m a bit iffy because the latest SK administration isn’t exactly friendly even with NK having its tantrums. Japan amended their constitution so we’re no longer needed there and they’ve been wanted to kick us out for a long time plus let them deal with future Chinese aggression at their own expense. Taiwan is the only place I think we need a presence as a deterrence against Chinese expansionism. Speaking of old treaties I’m sure the UK will come to their old colony’s aid if they’re in trouble so I don’t see a need of a base there plus I take it the Aussies don’t really want us there anyway like so many others...

Both countries have and will continue to cooperate with each other so quit hyping them up like they are the new "big bad" of the 21st century.

There has been growing anti-American sentiment across the world for the past decade.

News flash: we share a lot of the blame for that.

Maybe this is true the added protection is a boost to domestic stability overseas however things have changed and those who used to share our interests are looking towards other nations for leadership since we seem to be lacking in it now days. Not their fault though, we keep re-electing incompetence a-holes as our representatives. I often wonder if the world in general think the average American is really as stupid as the stereotypes.

No, just no. Also, please cite examples.

The cold war is over, yes you are correct. However, the Soviet Union may have collapsed but the old grudges against the west is still prevalent and denying that goes beyond naivety and ignorance. As long as old guard KGB power mongers like Putin are tugging the strings your liberal mindset “Cold war is over, Russia and China are not geopolitical foes” is the same stupid mentality that got us into a lot of binds in the past, use your head!

Again, no.

Ask about all that military hardware the Russians are sending to regimes in complete violation of nonproliferation agreements. Old habits die hard.

We sell/give away weapons too.

I’m not dividing the world into good guy and bad guys you’re putting words into my post. There are nations that wish to hurt us economically, politically and militarily if they knew they could get away with it and I know an old geopolitical adversary when I see one. Then there are nations who still favor us but I have no delusions the world by and large are not pulled into the east versus west idea. If you think I look at the world as black and white then you’re wrong.

Everything you have said is proof that you see the world in black and white.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay.

We don't have bases in Germany as a first line of defense for when columns of Soviet armor come crashing through the Iron Curtain to sweep over all of Europe. That not going to happen. Ever.

At one point in time, the bases in Germany WERE the first line of defense and intelligence against the Soviets. However, as that threat never came to pass, and the Union has dismantled, those bases have either shifted their focus/purpose, or they have been closed.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I do not doubt these bases have their importance and maybe they can be exceptions but don’t you think some of these treaties are bit dated? I understand the need to have bases in Germany because with Putin and his old guard bringing back the ol’ Soviet days it is a deterrence to keep the angry bear at bay.

We don't have bases in Germany as a first line of defense for when columns of Soviet armor come crashing through the Iron Curtain to sweep over all of Europe. That not going to happen. Ever.

At one point in time, the bases in Germany WERE the first line of defense and intelligence against the Soviets. However, as that threat never came to pass, and the Union has dismantled, those bases have either shifted their focus/purpose, or they have been closed.

I know that what they were for, I'm pointing out that Heavy Metal's claim that we still have bases there as a deterant against Russian expansion is, indeed, wrong.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I know that what they were for, I'm pointing out that Heavy Metal's claim that we still have bases there as a deterant against Russian expansion is, indeed, wrong.

Well, the bases there are a deterrent against Russian expansion.

The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.

Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests

Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.

Yes, our "culture" is everywhere, however if you believe that everyone there likes us, you're just as deluded as the people who are waiting for Russia to invade Poland.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.

Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests

Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.

Yes, and all three countries best interests sometimes work counter to each other. Having our military bases there are often times in our best interests to counter their bests interests that run counter to ours.

 djones520 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.

Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests

Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.

Yes, and all three countries best interests sometimes work counter to each other. Having our military bases there are often times in our best interests to counter their bests interests that run counter to ours.

I never said we shouldn't have those bases, but the main point of them RIGHT NOW isn't to stop a Russian or Chinese invasion.

And I'm also not saying everyone loves us, but generally Europeans have a okay view of America.

Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The continuation of idea we are still in a cold war despite the fact not only the soviet union has collapsed, china has also opened up.

Yes Putin is ex-kgb, but he works in Russia's best interests, just like China's leader work in there best interests, and our leaders work in America's best interests

Stop trying to dig up some old grudge in order to justify paranoia. And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.

Yes, and all three countries best interests sometimes work counter to each other. Having our military bases there are often times in our best interests to counter their bests interests that run counter to ours.

I never said we shouldn't have those bases, but the main point of them RIGHT NOW isn't to stop a Russian or Chinese invasion.

And I'm also not saying everyone loves us, but generally Europeans have a okay view of America.

Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa

But they love them on Honshu, or are at least ambivalent to them.

For more information about this, check our Michael Yon's dispatches:
The Ghosts of Anbar

 Alexzandvar wrote:

Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa

I rarely meet mainland Japanese who care about our bases. It's the *Okinawan* locals who hate us and want us to leave. Not surprising since our bases eat up 20% of their land mass. But Okinawans are the longest-lived population on the planet, so most of the folks complaining are of the grumpy old "YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!" variety. I rarely meet 20-somethings with an axe to grind.

Personally I think the Marine Corps and Navy should be based almost entirely out of Sasebo. It's a long-serving naval base in Kyushu. The island itself is significantly larger than Okinawa and would give us plenty of training space while being sparsely-populated enough to have less of an impact than we have on the heavily-urbanized southern half of Oki. But Sasebo is not as effective of a "tripwire" as Oki. This island is closer to Taipei and Shanghai than it is Tokyo, and it plays a major role in containing China (not saying we *SHOULD* be containing China in their own backyard, but hey that's the policy). I would keep Kadena (great way to provide a CAP over Taiwan) but drastically reduce it's size. The place is practically an American kingdom unto itself, with huge sprawling housing developments for all the damn wives and kids. Support facilities for dependents are such a huge drain on the military's budget IMO....

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
And if you think Europe hates us you need to wake up. American culture is everywere in Europe, people there like us and treat us well.

Yes, our "culture" is everywhere, however if you believe that everyone there likes us, you're just as deluded as the people who are waiting for Russia to invade Poland.

It needs to be recognised that influences of US culture are everywhere, but everyone retains their own culture. Also, influences of foreign cultures are in the USA.

Yes, Europeans don't hate the USA. Neither in general do Iranians or Egyptians. However it is also true that even in Europe, the "PR image"of the USA is a lot lower now that it was before 9/11. There are all kinds of reasons for that.

 Noble713 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

Ill throw you that the Jap's don't like our base on Okinawa

I rarely meet mainland Japanese who care about our bases. It's the *Okinawan* locals who hate us and want us to leave. Not surprising since our bases eat up 20% of their land mass. But Okinawans are the longest-lived population on the planet, so most of the folks complaining are of the grumpy old "YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!" variety. I rarely meet 20-somethings with an axe to grind.

Personally I think the Marine Corps and Navy should be based almost entirely out of Sasebo. It's a long-serving naval base in Kyushu. The island itself is significantly larger than Okinawa and would give us plenty of training space while being sparsely-populated enough to have less of an impact than we have on the heavily-urbanized southern half of Oki. But Sasebo is not as effective of a "tripwire" as Oki. This island is closer to Taipei and Shanghai than it is Tokyo, and it plays a major role in containing China (not saying we *SHOULD* be containing China in their own backyard, but hey that's the policy). I would keep Kadena (great way to provide a CAP over Taiwan) but drastically reduce it's size. The place is practically an American kingdom unto itself, with huge sprawling housing developments for all the damn wives and kids. Support facilities for dependents are such a huge drain on the military's budget IMO....

The Japanese Navy still uses Sasebo, but our presence there was deemed non-essential. We try our best to keep bases off the mainland, because that's essentially how a bad opinion of us spreads in the first place. JB Fuji, Iwakuni and the other miscellaneous locations we have on mainland total about 2000 or so servicemembers, with Fuji being totally rotational. None of the 3rd Mardiv is necessary, if you want to get into any specifics, and everything here could be moved to 29 Palms or some other place with no real detriment to force projection. Kadena, however, is very necessary, and I don't see that base ever being moved.

The Okinawans don't hate us. That is a fabrication. I don't know how you would get that impression if you've ever visited here. The ones up north are affected very little on a day to day basis by us. If anything, the labor jobs we offer them actually give them a reason to like us being here. Camp Schwab gets its grass cut every week by a small army of native women that would probably be otherwise working out on the farms for small change. Down south, they care a little more, but the only ones who are vocal enough to protest and shout are the ones with too much time on their hands. People's livelihoods here depend on our continued presence. That bit about the MV-22s being too loud and waking people up at night is bullocks as well. The Osprey is dead quiet until you're twenty five feet away from it.

Mainlanders don't care at all. It doesn't affect them. It's like the UK having troops on puerto rico. Would anyone really care in texas about that? When you put boots on the ground in sasebo, or Iwakuni, then it affects them. Then they start having an opinion.

Very simply put...

The Constitution requires a NATIONAL defense when the country is threatened.

Most recent times (After WWII) the military is committed somewhere it is because someone rich and powerful just has to gush out "Someone must do something" and the reason is anything from making them money to looking good to their friends.

That needs to stop.

If the nation is not willing to put a nuke there and turn a city to glass then the US military should not be sent but because we have a volunteer army and none of the rich or powerful have any blood in it we have things like a 13 year war with obscenities called rules of engagement. The never was and never will be winnable if the people of the place we are fighting are bystanders who do not really care. This is Iraq and Afghanistan.

One is at war, total war, or one is not. We have been playing politics in these two countries and the capital spent has been soldiers lives and the politicians on both sides do not care.

Anyone that thinks there are rules in combat has never been in real combat. The purpose is to murder the other guy on an organized grand scale and make him hurt so bad he quits.

That will never happen in a "war" with rules of engagement.

22 years at the sharp end and I retired when people started talking about rules in combat.

I feel real sorry for our troops and nothing but contempt for our Generals and politicians.

If it's not worth a nuke , it's not worth an Americans life.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:


The Okinawans don't hate us. That is a fabrication. I don't know how you would get that impression if you've ever visited here.

I've been here on Oki for 2 1/2 years, most of it stationed at Futenma. Some of my friends have been here (8, 11, and two guys @ 20+) years. Try getting into all but a handful of nightclubs in Okinawa City or Naha with a US ID card. Not happening. As soon as you approach "Sorry, Japanese only." Now that I'm a civilian and able to bust out a "gaijin card" they do an about-face and let you in almost like you're a valued customer. When I tell girls from Sapporo, Tokyo, or Osaka about this they are usually shocked and horrified. Hell just driving around in a Y-plate car garners extra harassment from the police, and if you get in an accident with a local vehicle the joke is "Y-plate stands for 'Your Fault' ". How about when that 17yo American kid was murdered two years ago by a local and hardly anyone heard a peep about it. Not to mention other discrimination like a guy (I think ex military) who got kicked out of his apartment when the agency found out his Japanese wife wasn't living there anymore. Granted stuff like housing and insurance discrimination happens to gaijin all across the mainland too, but it's definitely worse down here. The economy of the north part of the island probably benefits more from the US military presence (comparatively) than down here, where the land value and tourist industry is hampered by Camp Kinser and Camp Foster eating up prime real estate along Route (or whatever it is in Japanese) 58. Supposedly the US military only accounts for 5% of Oki's economy but I find that hard to believe given things like BAH (the difference between the rent they charge someone with BAH and normal Japanese rent is damn-near extortionate). At the end of the day it's a love-hate relationship. Business owners near the bases love our disposable income, some people see working on-base as good jobs, but they hate all the other stuff that comes with being overrun with 30-50,000 Americans in a population of only ~1.3 million.

More to the subject (national strategy and basing), we wouldn't be able to pull 3MarDiv back to 29 Palms and still have any sort of reasonable response time for intervention in the Pacific. Guam is too small and even Hawaii is a stretch. Hence my suggestion of Sasebo as a compromise. But America has painted itself into a corner with fiscal irresponsibility and the Petrodollar. If we pull back globally we lose our leverage over everyone. No leverage = nations stop supporting the Petrodollar (because really it's not in their long term interests anyway). The Petrodollar goes and our entire house of cards and over-inflated quality of life collapses with it. The Federal government seems intent on centralizing domestic power, ramping up law enforcement authority, and keeping up appearances as it tries to maintain the status quo and keep people from realizing the airship we're on is going down in flames. But I digress...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Most recent times (After WWII) the military is committed somewhere it is because someone rich and powerful just has to gush out "Someone must do something" and the reason is anything from making them money to looking good to their friends.

Hell, it was a problem *before* WWII. Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" in 1935. Two Medals of Honor and a Major General at a time when that was the highest rank possible. Every Marine knows his name ("Who were the two Marines to win 2 Medals of Honor?" "Dan Daly and Smedley Butler!!") but you'll never see him on the Commandant's Reading List. Same goes for the 22nd Commandant, General David Shoup, who was harshly critical of the military-industrial complex after he retired. I don't think I'd ever heard his name until I stumbled upon his wiki article about a month ago. These guys "don't fit the narrative".

EDIT: So I Googled "Commandant's List Smedley Butler" and found this article, about the same two generals I just mentioned. It was written in...................1989!!!

http://articles.dailypress.com/1989-10-08/news/8910060375_1_marines-gen-al-gray-camp-pendleton
Reading List For Marines Lacks Diversity

The booklist also represents what might be called the denial of self-knowledge. Although the writings of some Marines are on the list, notably the excruciatingly banal memoir of former commandant John Lejeune and James Webb's vivid novel of Vietnam infantry combat, "Fields of Fire," these are the safe, conventional works, extolling the virtues of duty and the grit and glory of the corps.

They named a base for Lejeune. The Marines also named a camp on Okinawa for the so-called Quaker general, Smedley Butler, but his bluntly titled book, "War Is a Racket," didn't make the final cut. Smedley, it seems, had the temerity to suggest that in the midst of the Depression our jobless, hungry World War I veterans deserved their bonus payments before the well-fattened defense contractors got paid their production bonuses.

Smedley, with two Medals of Honor on his chest, died a bitter man, recanting his participation in various colonial wars in Central America in the 1920s on behalf of United Fruit Co.

No, we can't have our Marines in Panama today reading Smedley Butler.

Another Medal of Honor winner, former commandant Gen. David Shoup, wasn't a finalist on Gray's list, either. For writing an essay titled "The New American Militarism" in the April 1969 issue of the Atlantic magazine, which was later expanded to book length, Shoup became a virtual pariah. That was at the height of the Vietnam war, remember, and here was Shoup, a man of unimpeachable combat credentials, saying, "it has somehow become unpatriotic to question our military strategy . . . or the motives of military leaders. . . . Militarism in America is in full bloom and promises a future of vigorous self-pollination."

No, we can't have our colonels getting any whiffs of Shoup's accusations, despite their undimmed relevance today.

Anyone that thinks there are rules in combat has never been in real combat. The purpose is to murder the other guy on an organized grand scale and make him hurt so bad he quits.

I'll probably get gak for this given the amount of vets on this forum but the soldier world view is just as messed up if not more so than the civilian view and i'm very familiar with the subculture you see around military bases. The soldier worldview holds everything that risks the lives of the soldiers and immediate military victory as evil. It completely ignores issues such as diplomacy, the homefront, and the fact that the military is sent their to accomplishes specific goals. If total war was waged Iraq would have been a wasteland and the survivors would be refugees in neighboring countries steering up rebellion and siding with our enemies. If you look at any conflict where total war is waged usually immediate victory is won, but a century later the descendants of the vanquished return with a vengeance.

Oh and in my opinion their are plenty of civilians who suffer from the soldier worldview that they often inherit from family and environment and plenty of soldiers that have enough individual personality to see the nuance of the greater political situation. Starship trooper is a dystopian novel on the scale of 1984, I find it amazing and perhaps a sign of the times that its turned into a pop culture icon and being hailed as something we could aspire to, it would be like if we aspired to be any of the factions in 40k. Regrettably I think this is indeed the future, that why I have the George Orwell quote about the future of humanity being the boot stomping endlessly on the human face, enjoy your dystopia I only hope neither myself nor any one I care about will live to enjoy to enjoy it. Have a happy Holocaust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

does he care the south fell in the end after they pulled out? No, because he fought his hardest while he was there and that's what matters.

A great example of soldier logic, no such thing as moral victories, their are military victories and political ones, the US won the Vietnam war on a military basis and lost politically.

 Frazzled wrote:

You could go old school Roman and “Depopulate” Iraq, then bring in new settlers, but we kind of don’t do that sort of thing in a democracy.

Um, Frazz.... how to put this...

I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.

I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.

And with this we depart from logic, through the doors of delusion, and into the VIP room of hallucination.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

I think Robert A. Heinlein, the author who wrote some of my favorite scifi novels, 'Starship Troopers' had the idea if you want to serve in office you have to do a tour of duty in the military. That way these type of representatives would be veterans and will know first hand the horrors of war and wouldn't throw away the lives of active duty soldiers needlessly like a politician who never served let alone handle a firearm in their life. I know that will have some of you freaking out "ermagerd dictatorship!" but in my defense the first democracies were made up of citizen soldiers and 9 times out of 10 those soldiers who aged out of the military served public office. The Greek City states and the Roman Republic are good historical references I would think. And I'll admit my history is a bit rusty in that area.

I realize though in reality that idea from Heinlein will not happen, not in our bleeding heart society we've turned into. This ain't our father's America anymore where we didn't flinch at great adversity or have an idiotic president making boasts only to retract from it. We've become too soft for our own good. We've become like Europe: gutless, lazy and incompetent and having to depend on other nations to keep our habits afloat.

And with this we depart from logic, through the doors of delusion, and into the VIP room of hallucination.

But your way doesn't make the fatherland great again.

 daedalus wrote:
But your way doesn't make the fatherland great again.

Don't make me Godwin this thread...

Don't make me Godwin this thread...

This threads getting deleted, so far we have politics, genocide, and references to Nazism. All we need is some awkward sexual remarks and death threats.

Well.... I will point out that the single act that might have a screaming hope of bringing peace to the middle east would also be a crime against humanity. Threaten to turn Mecca and Jerusalem into a sea of radioactive glass if they don't put their guns down and get along.

None would complete the haj or pray at the dome of the rock without dying of radiation poisoning for the next ten thousand years if they did not find way to make peace with their neighbors.

It's violent, and inhuman, but it would being many of them to the peace table as long as they thought you were serious and could do it.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Don't make me Godwin this thread...

This threads getting deleted, so far we have politics, genocide, and references to Nazism. All we need is some awkward sexual remarks and death threats.

I love you, and by that, I mean I want to kill you.

 daedalus wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

Don't make me Godwin this thread...

This threads getting deleted, so far we have politics, genocide, and references to Nazism. All we need is some awkward sexual remarks and death threats.

I love you, and by that, I mean I want to kill you.

With rough love and inappropriately placed foreign objects?

[MOD EDIT - Seriously? - Alpharius]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaplaingrabthar wrote:
[MOD EDIT - Seriously? - Alpharius]

Sorry,I was riffing off of Ironclad & Daedalus' "I love you and want to kill you" sub-thread and forgot that DakkaDakka is more PG-13.

I take it you forgot to phrase it in euphemisms?

With rough love and inappropriately placed foreign objects?

And with that the mods will surely delete this thread. Nicely done everyone .

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

I'll probably get gak for this given the amount of vets on this forum but the soldier world view is just as messed up if not more so than the civilian view and i'm very familiar with the subculture you see around military bases. The soldier worldview holds everything that risks the lives of the soldiers and immediate military victory as evil. It completely ignores issues such as diplomacy, the homefront, and the fact that the military is sent their to accomplishes specific goals. If total war was waged Iraq would have been a wasteland and the survivors would be refugees in neighboring countries steering up rebellion and siding with our enemies. If you look at any conflict where total war is waged usually immediate victory is won, but a century later the descendants of the vanquished return with a vengeance.

Honestly, the reason the average grunt doesnt give a bucket of rat gak about "diplomacy" is because he's not there to be diplomatic.... If the military is sent into a location, then there is a specific job to do, and he's there to do it. And you're right... if the political aims, and missions in Iraq were to wage Total War, then Iraq would be a giant dust bowl right now, however that wasn't the mission that we were sent to do. Initially we were sent to remove a tyrant and his minions... Which, depending on your views, should have been 1 and done, head home, etc. BUT we ended up sticking around, attempting to do things we'd never really done, never really been set up to do, which is reestablish a new government, rebuild infrastructure, build schools and improve the education system, etc.


And I really don't know/get where the hell you're getting this gak from.... If you've really been around the "subculture" that exists around military bases, then you'll know how soldiers drive on a daily basis, which should alone destroy this notion that "everything that risks the lives of solders is evil". Combine that with many soldiers' love of "Adult Beverages" and other activities, and you should be getting a very different view of the people who serve the country. and their view on risks.