American's view on war

[valentino]

why is the such a huge debate among American’s as to whether we should go to war or stay home?America has involved herself in foreign war from WW1 and its never ceased.We all know and realize that we are part of this world and neighbors are everyone on this planet.We’ve realized that you have to get all nations to want to be free and independent.that this whole world must want equality for each individual in each nation.Should we have entered Lybia?There were thousand’s being slain with no help.If we stay out thousand’s more will die but maybe eventually after all the killing they are allowed freedom.But it could be that Gaddafi wins and is support by Syria or other nations and the situation gets worse in the future.Also at this critical time for America when we are so much in debt should we distance ourselves from foreign nations and let them battle it out?that was our policy In WW1 and 2 but we we’re forced to go anyway.Aren’t we going again to be forced anywaay if we stay at home?Will Iran get the bomb if we leave her alone?Will Isreal stay free if we leave her alone and cut off aid?If we get out of Afghan and Pakistan will Alquida die out or leave us alone?

 

[TedDC]

why is the such a huge debate among American’s as to whether we should go to war or stay home?America has involved herself in foreign war from WW1 and its never ceased.We all know and realize that we are part of this world and neighbors are everyone on this planet.We’ve realized that you have to get all nations to want to be free and independent.that this whole world must want equality for each individual in each nation.Should we have entered Lybia?There were thousand’s being slain with no help.If we stay out thousand’s more will die but maybe eventually after all the killing they are allowed freedom.But it could be that Gaddafi wins and is support by Syria or other nations and the situation gets worse in the future.Also at this critical time for America when we are so much in debt should we distance ourselves from foreign nations and let them battle it out?that was our policy In WW1 and 2 but we we’re forced to go anyway.Aren’t we going again to be forced anywaay if we stay at home?Will Iran get the bomb if we leave her alone?Will Isreal stay free if we leave her alone and cut off aid?If we get out of Afghan and Pakistan will Alquida die out or leave us alone?

First of all, the US has no vital interests at stake in the current wars. We are in a desperate economic situation, and our government’s priority should be restoring America’s prosperity, not policing the rest of the world.

Why aren’t China, Brazil, India contributing to these wars? Because they’ve got their eyes on the prize. They know that economic strength is the foundation to national security. They’ll gladly let us squander our blood and treasure fighting endless wars in far-off lands if we’re willing - they’re too busy building up their economies.

 

[valentino]

First of all, the US has no vital interests at stake in the current wars. We are in a desperate economic situation, and our government’s priority should be restoring America’s prosperity, not policing the rest of the world.

Why aren’t China, Brazil, India contributing to these wars? Because they’ve got their eyes on the prize. They know that economic strength is the foundation to national security. They’ll gladly let us squander our blood and treasure fighting endless wars in far-off lands if we’re willing - they’re too busy building up their economies.

Thanks for responding.part no.2 im in full agreement.As to part no.1 I ask you don’t we have some stake perhaps in disagreements which occur?Im not saying we should take an active role but we know how countries become larger nations and nations band together for dominance.Take China for instance.Many say there is nothing to worry about there that there only trying to enhance their style of living for its citizens aand would never seek to expand.Have all countries actually taken this stance.Does each country just want to help its own people and never wishes to become greater by expanding its territory?do the Arab nations all want to stay separate entities with no unions between neighboring Arab countries?Will no Arab country come to the defense ofo annother Arab nation if it were invaded?Do Arabs still feel like Arabs or part of this human population where there are no differences between peoples based of race or culture?Why is China and Russia still aiding Iran against our sanctions?Our sanctions are not working because they are involved with Iran.If their for human rights and America stands for human rights for all countries why aren’t they abiding by our rules when we say that no nation should be helping them in easing the sanctions?

 

[GratefulFred]

As a retired CMSgt with more than 9 years overseas duty, I am no policy expert, just one of millions who answered the call since World War II and was willing for 24 years to accept what came my way. I had to have a good reason, far beyond the benefits, in case I could not return to my family or returned too damaged to support them.

There must be a clear connection to our vital national interests. We must have tried every other method short of combat to resolve threats. We have to trust the President and Congress to answer these two concerns. It is a judgment. Americans can vote if they do not like the judgments made to send or not send our troops into harm’s way. We put up with Al Qaeda attacks all during the 90’s until 9-11. They roamed free in Afghanistan and struck us when THEY were ready. Today they have safe haven in west Pakistan.

Nations do not have true friends. Nations have self interests. When such interests reasonably coincide, alliances are made. When interests diverge, alliances often fade away.

Many nations do not have the military strength to go against another country unless they share a boarder and that country is really hurting them one way or the other. And most nations do not have enough military to quickly conquer their neighbor. So it is live and let live. A brutal dictator next door that is not threatening you can be and usually is ignored.

We Americans often forget - are not told - just how dependent our economy is on keeping reasonable peace in areas that supply us natural resourses and function as trading partners. Americans produce more than we can consume. Without peace in areas vital to our national interests, we would soon suffer greater unemployment and bankruptcies for lack of resources and customers.

It is also in our national interests to support certain nations as a buffer to less desirable countries such as Iran.

But, as a retired GI, I hate it when some President sends troops into combat halfheartly. It is one thing to risk lives, it is a horrible thing to waste them. It must be Clear. Hold. Rebuild. With too few troops we cannot hold. With short timetables we cannot rebuild.

Especially when terrorists are allowed to roam free.

 

[vz71]

With short timetables we cannot rebuild.

Especially when terrorists are allowed to roam free.

Correct my ignorence here, but do we not maintain a military presence nearly everywhere that we have fought?

True the actual role our forces had has changed a great deal, but I have often gotten a chuckle from people that seem to think we will go in, fight a war, and then leave.

Other then Vietnam, I can think of no extended campaign where we have actually left completely.

 

[GratefulFred]

We stayed in Europe and the Far East to first rebuild, second to prevent Japan and Germany from rebuilding their military, and third to contain Communism.

The periodic wars between major powers basically stopped when America set up bases overseas. Containing Communism - the Cold War (better than a hot war) -turned out to be the reason we are still there. At least through the early 90s. Japan has a good self defense force but it is too little to threaten its neighbors. And they exhibit no desire to threaten anyone.

Today’s German military is small and their government exhibits no desire to do much beyond their boarders either. Their support of the efforts in the Middle East have been token at best.

NATO does not see the ME as being in their area of concern. Except for the developing ability in IRAN, no ME country is threatening to invade or attack Europe. But Lybia does supply Europe with a significant portion of its oil and so NATO wants to do something about Qadaffi to protect its economy.

As a member of NATO we are obliged to help with our superior and unique capabilities. Most the bomb dropping in Lybia is by European fighters. NATO’s support in Afghanistan has been token at best. No disrespect to NATO, but it does lack combat experience and has limited combat capability. They tolerate the odd terrorist attack in Europe becasue they lack the ability to carry the attack to the terrorists home locations. We tolerated the attacks in the 90s as well until 9-11.

Terrorism is whole new enemy. 200 determined terrorists can have the effect of 2,000 uniformed troops responsible to a government. Terrorist do not answer to a government which diplomats. Terrorist blend in with civilians and are brutal to any who inform on them. Terrorist do not seek any compromise. Thye simply want to destroy as much as they can where and whenever they choose.

Terrorist deserve no safe haven where they can rest and prepare to strike again on THEIR timetable. We have to have bases near them and that means we have to have governments that are friendly to us. That takes considerable time.

The more we threaten to leave early, the less locals are willing to work with us because they know they will be punished severely after we leave and the terrorist set up their own government. We witnessed the Killing Fields and the Boat People after we left Vietnam and the Communists took over.

 

[exnihilo]

why is the such a huge debate among American’s as to whether we should go to war or stay home?America has involved herself in foreign war from WW1 and its never ceased.

Indeed after WWII the US changed the War Department to the Department of Defense. And yet all the campaigns and battles have been conducted abroad and not in the direct defense of the US.

I’m not sure that there is a huge debate. Personally I think if we followed the Just War doctrine the debate would be over quickly, if the cause was even presented. I think any questions we have now are more financial. That is, given the US is in a serious depression folks aren’t as eager for very expensive foreign military campaigns. If the cause was just then money would not be a question, or at least should not be.

 

[mary_bobo]

Grateful Fred, thank you for your insightful posts.

 

[valentino]

First of all, the US has no vital interests at stake in the current wars. We are in a desperate economic situation, and our government’s priority should be restoring America’s prosperity, not policing the rest of the world.

Why aren’t China, Brazil, India contributing to these wars? Because they’ve got their eyes on the prize. They know that economic strength is the foundation to national security. They’ll gladly let us squander our blood and treasure fighting endless wars in far-off lands if we’re willing - they’re too busy building up their economies.

I agree.thanks for commenting.

 

[valentino]

We stayed in Europe and the Far East to first rebuild, second to prevent Japan and Germany from rebuilding their military, and third to contain Communism.

The periodic wars between major powers basically stopped when America set up bases overseas. Containing Communism - the Cold War (better than a hot war) -turned out to be the reason we are still there. At least through the early 90s. Japan has a good self defense force but it is too little to threaten its neighbors. And they exhibit no desire to threaten anyone.

Today’s German military is small and their government exhibits no desire to do much beyond their boarders either. Their support of the efforts in the Middle East have been token at best.

NATO does not see the ME as being in their area of concern. Except for the developing ability in IRAN, no ME country is threatening to invade or attack Europe. But Lybia does supply Europe with a significant portion of its oil and so NATO wants to do something about Qadaffi to protect its economy.

As a member of NATO we are obliged to help with our superior and unique capabilities. Most the bomb dropping in Lybia is by European fighters. NATO’s support in Afghanistan has been token at best. No disrespect to NATO, but it does lack combat experience and has limited combat capability. They tolerate the odd terrorist attack in Europe becasue they lack the ability to carry the attack to the terrorists home locations. We tolerated the attacks in the 90s as well until 9-11.

Terrorism is whole new enemy. 200 determined terrorists can have the effect of 2,000 uniformed troops responsible to a government. Terrorist do not answer to a government which diplomats. Terrorist blend in with civilians and are brutal to any who inform on them. Terrorist do not seek any compromise. Thye simply want to destroy as much as they can where and whenever they choose.

Terrorist deserve no safe haven where they can rest and prepare to strike again on THEIR timetable. We have to have bases near them and that means we have to have governments that are friendly to us. That takes considerable time.

The more we threaten to leave early, the less locals are willing to work with us because they know they will be punished severely after we leave and the terrorist set up their own government. We witnessed the Killing Fields and the Boat People after we left Vietnam and the Communists took over.

I agree.As terrible as it is we still have to keep American’s overseas.These terrorists wage the worse kind of war.they are spread outt and if we do destroy one cell they just pop up somewhere else.its very costly to contain this kind of war.

 

[valentino]

Indeed after WWII the US changed the War Department to the Department of Defense. And yet all the campaigns and battles have been conducted abroad and not in the direct defense of the US.

I’m not sure that there is a huge debate. Personally I think if we followed the Just War doctrine the debate would be over quickly, if the cause was even presented. I think any questions we have now are more financial. That is, given the US is in a serious depression folks aren’t as eager for very expensive foreign military campaigns. If the cause was just then money would not be a question, or at least should not be.

I understand your pt.But wouldn’t we just be putting things off for a bigger war in the future?Since we are in such bad shape at home it may be the only solution and we must just pray that things will take care of themselves over there.I hope this works out.

 

[Ridgerunner]

First of all, the US has no vital interests at stake in the current wars. We are in a desperate economic situation, and our government’s priority should be restoring America’s prosperity, not policing the rest of the world.

Why aren’t China, Brazil, India contributing to these wars? Because they’ve got their eyes on the prize. They know that economic strength is the foundation to national security. They’ll gladly let us squander our blood and treasure fighting endless wars in far-off lands if we’re willing - they’re too busy building up their economies.

I don’t know that this is entirely the case. I remember long ago when Lyndon Johnson was criticized for trying to have both “guns and butter”. In other words, having a war and also trying to have a robust consumer economy and a lot of social programs all at the same time. The two weren’t terribly compatible.

Well, you might say with the current administration, we’re trying to have “guns and windmills”. The administration is simultaneously trying to expand/contract war like an accordion while trying to wean Americans off energy use (among other prosperity-reducing measures). It just isn’t working. We paid a heavy price for “guns and butter”, and we’ll pay one for 'guns and windmills" too. We already are.

 

[TedDC]

I agree.As terrible as it is we still have to keep American’s overseas.These terrorists wage the worse kind of war.they are spread outt and if we do destroy one cell they just pop up somewhere else.its very costly to contain this kind of war.

It hasn’t been proven that our very costly engagements in foreign lands have really made us safer. The much-touted absence of any major terror events in the US since 9/11 does not prove causation. In fact it could be argued that lowering our military profile overseas might do more to increase our safety and our prosperity. Other nations seem to have learned how to bob and weave, “to go along to get along”, to do whatever they must to bring home the bacon.

As I mentioned, extensive webs of lucrative international trade relationships are developing, with the US on the outside looking in. Part of that certainly stems from our imbalance of consumption versus production, a decades-old deindustrialization trend which has left us with little to offer the world besides sports and entertainment, and our laziness in seeking easy money versus the hard work of making and selling stuff. But still, the burden of deploying vast military resources far from home places us at an unnecessary disadvantage in the international trade arena.

 

[edwest2]

Our current involements overseas are to protect our own interests, whether they are over natural resources, like oil, or attempts to protect our Allies, like Israel.

We are the only superpower in the world. Yes, China is a physically large country, but, at present, it is not a threat. Where are the most billionaires today? Moscow.

The President is pulling troops out of Afghanistan in phases. I’m sure the bean counters in Washington know how much it costs to keep one soldier in the field. So pulling out 10,000 soldiers and support personnel is a big deal.

Americans want tangible reasons to go to war. After the 9/11 attack, the Defense Department experienced its greatest reorganization since World War II. In the future, we are less likely to face large masses of uniformed troops, but insurgents and terrorists in native dress that are mostly indistinguishable from the rest of the population.

Peace,
Ed

 

[valentino]

TedDC:I agree.there has to be ways that we can cut spending overseas.Our economy is very bad and unless it improves we aren’t doing ourselves any favors by helping everyone else out.I feel we are in over our head right now.

 

[exnihilo]

It hasn’t been proven that our very costly engagements in foreign lands have really made us safer. The much-touted absence of any major terror events in the US since 9/11 does not prove causation. In fact it could be argued that lowering our military profile overseas might do more to increase our safety and our prosperity. Other nations seem to have learned how to bob and weave, “to go along to get along”, to do whatever they must to bring home the bacon.

I agree with you. Christian teaching is that there is a cycle of violence and that we are obliged to stop that cycle. Stopping the cycle necessarily means not playing tit for tat. I see very little in the American consciousness and nothing in the government that indicates we are living by this mandate.

As I mentioned, extensive webs of lucrative international trade relationships are developing, with the US on the outside looking in. Part of that certainly stems from our imbalance of consumption versus production, a decades-old deindustrialization trend which has left us with little to offer the world besides sports and entertainment, and our laziness in seeking easy money versus the hard work of making and selling stuff. But still, the burden of deploying vast military resources far from home places us at an unnecessary disadvantage in the international trade arena.

All Empires overestimate their power. America seems intent to prove that the New World wasn’t so new after all.

 

[Hastrman]

I agree with you. Christian teaching is that there is a cycle of violence and that we are obliged to stop that cycle. Stopping the cycle necessarily means not playing tit for tat. I see very little in the American consciousness and nothing in the government that indicates we are living by this mandate.

There is no cycle of violence; there is only human nature. There is no obligation to stop that cycle, since it does not exist. There is, however, an obligation on the part of the strong to protect the weak. And one of the obligations that arise out of that obligation, is an obligation to avenge even small attacks. If a powerful entity makes it seem that minor threats won’t be punished, it’s not the powerful entity that suffers, but its weaker dependents. If America looks weak, it may be true that the domestic continental US may still not be in any danger, but America’s allies, like Israel and Poland, become more vulnerable, because attacking them (which is not a threat to America itself) looks like a safer proposition.

 

[exnihilo]

There is no cycle of violence; there is only human nature. There is no obligation to stop that cycle, since it does not exist.

Your statement would seem to be at odds with not only the Church but also human experience. The cycle of violence is an aspect of human nature. It is the desire for revenge and reprisal. When we were given the rule of an eye for an eye it was a limitation on what we can do not an invitation to greater violence then our nature desires.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/communications/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20050124_world-communications-day_en.html

There is, however, an obligation on the part of the strong to protect the weak. And one of the obligations that arise out of that obligation, is an obligation to avenge even small attacks. If a powerful entity makes it seem that minor threats won’t be punished, it’s not the powerful entity that suffers, but its weaker dependents. If America looks weak, it may be true that the domestic continental US may still not be in any danger, but America’s allies, like Israel and Poland, become more vulnerable, because attacking them (which is not a threat to America itself) looks like a safer proposition.

Yes there is an obligation to protect the weak. Avenge might not be the right word since it describes vengeance and ‘vengeance is mine saith the Lord’.

Do mere threats demand a high level of violence? Mostly not. Domestically if you threaten your neighbor even if it is a very real threat it would be unjust for the state to then just blow up your home. What should be done is you should be arrested and tried in a court. If this is justice domestically there is no justification in abandoning where the US is not sovereign. And, just as much as principles can be abandoned outside of the US sovereignty it can be abandoned within the sovereignty.

Your viewpoint seems to ignore the fact that we are told that governments are ordained by God for his purpose. If the obligation is to avenge your neighbors injustice internationally then should citizens not also employ similar means of violence domestically when injustices occur? If the obligation internationally exists then wouldn’t foreign nations also be justified in using extreme violence on the US whenever an injustice occurs?

Most importantly you must keep in mind that human nature is to justify violence as being principles for worldly gain. This nature is not exempt in any country. Human nature is also to ignore the log in your own eye. Just because a state proclaims it is doing something for high moral reasons does not make it so and any such claim should be seriously scrutinized.

 

[Hastrman]

Frankly your view looks like a very convenient excuse for doing nothing; impugn the motives of whatever military act you like, but from where I sit it’s your position that would have had Saddam Hussein and his rape-rooms and poison gas still in place. Not to mention Hitler and Tojo Hideki.

Now there’s an interesting question: is pacifism more cowardice than sloth, or more sloth than cowardice?

 

[TedDC]

Frankly your view looks like a very convenient excuse for doing nothing; impugn the motives of whatever military act you like, but from where I sit it’s your position that would have had Saddam Hussein and his rape-rooms and poison gas still in place. Not to mention Hitler and Tojo Hideki.

Now there’s an interesting question: is pacifism more cowardice than sloth, or more sloth than cowardice?

It’s not a question of pacifism - the issue is the duty of a government to look after the interests of its own citizens. That is its highest duty, and I do not think the Iraq and Libya actions meet that requirement. We should not risk the lives of our soldiers or spend money we don’t have in order to solve someone else’s problems. We have plenty of problems of our own - and no one helping us solve them.