« Neo-NeoCon talks about Betrayal... | Main | Two New Blogs... »
May 12, 2005
Chester interview Dr. Bacevich on the new Militarism in the US
Interesting interview with former Colonel Bacevich on the growing militarism in the US. Read it here.
On the other hand, here is the best response in a comment by Subsunk
- His points may make me think, but they make me think he has no common sense. What is a military for if not to act through force? Since we insist on civilian control of our military, what other possible focus could our civilian leaders have than to think of the appropriate uses of our military and use them accordingly? Obviously, we should insist that the bar for commitment to force be very high. But what possible events can any of you point to which indicate we speed willy-nilly into conflict without thinking through the consequences and preparations needed?
My God, we spent 9 months preparing the country politically for war in Iraq, and over 4 weeks to retaliate in Afghanistan with the press and Congress baying for blood after 9/11. Hitler spent less than 2 weeks mobilizing for the Polish invasion.
In my opinion, our civilian leadership is less militarisitic than Britain (Falklands war), Argentina (Falklands), Israel, Any Middle Eastern country, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, or a host of other minor players who fight amongst themselves without any Western press attention whatsoever. Even France sent troops to Africa without discussing things with the US very loudly.
War is an evil thing. Mobilizing the full might of the US through draft/full mobilization or whatever means you use is like loading your 16 inch cannons to kill a mosquito. Way overkill. And it is a position the country cannot stand if we aren't going to target the mobilized against an enemy. So after 9/11, with say 6 million military personnel drafted and mobilized, where do you want them sent, and how do you want to pay for it? I'm sure sending 4 million men to Afghanistan would have been much less useful, and certainly more costly money and timewise than using 200 special forces operators and 100 or so aircraft to eliminate the equivalent of the Light Brigade in Afghanistan.
MSgtMac is correct when he says the Bottom Up Review gutted us and left us where we are today with the reserve call ups we have. I observed my Joint Staff colleagues tie themselves in knots trying to find a way to justify spending only what we were going to get and making the mission fit that budget.
So far we have used an appropriate amount of force (at least the correct order of magnitude) at the appropriate times (after 12 years of lying and cheating by Saddam, someone finally made the cur obey, and Iran and N Korea have been given their warnings over the last 2 years and are still getting slack). If we were truly too militaristic in our outlook, then our military would be used everyday to handle the little problems. Mr Bacevich clearly thinks diplomacy, including talking and offering economic incentives, should be all that is needed to change our enemies behavior. As if that has ever worked in human history where the adversary is motivated by pure power, ego or religious zeal.
Our people are too militaristic? Then --- Bully for them!!!! And shame on you who think they don't deserve our adoration and respect.
Subsunk is right. We have a military, we are the only country in the world able to interven in any country. That we choose to do so now, while we didn't (often) in the past is more a reflection of our power than some sense of "rah-rah-lets-go-kill-some-foreigners". Remember: if we don't send our forces to do something in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan... no one else will. 100 years ago that wasn't true. We didn't have to lift a finger, the British would take care of stuff. 200 years ago we couldn't do anything beyond our borders, we lacked the power.
Posted by rakhier at May 12, 2005 11:04 AM