Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is What Happens When You Rip a Hole in the Safety Net
- So Your Groundwater's Poison and Your Tap Water's On Fire. Not to Worry: Fracking Chemicals Are Trade Secrets You Don't Need To Know About
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- The Treason of Intellectuals
Popular content
Today's Top News
Freedom Fighters for a Fading Empire
What It Means When We Say We Have the World’s Finest Fighting Force
Words matter, as candidate Barack Obama said in the 2008 election campaign. What to make, then, of President Obama's pep talk last month to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in which he lauded them as "the finest fighting force that the world has ever known"? Certainly, he knew that those words would resonate with the troops as well as with the folks back home.
In fact, this sort of description of the U.S. military has become something of a must for American presidents. Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, for example, boasted of that military as alternately "the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world" and "the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known." Hyperbolic and self-promoting statements, to be sure, but undoubtedly sincere, reflecting as they do an American sense of exceptionalism that sits poorly with the increasingly interconnected world of the twenty-first century.
I'm a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a historian who teaches military history. The retired officer in me warms to the sentiment of our troops as both unparalleled fighters and selfless liberators, but the historian in me begs to differ.
Let's start with the fighting part of the equation. Are we truly the world's greatest fighting force, not only at this moment, but as measured against all militaries across history? If so, on what basis is this claim made? And what does such triumphalist rhetoric suggest not just about our national narcissism, but Washington's priorities? Consider that no leading U.S. politician thinks to boast that we have the finest educational system or health-care system or environmental policies "that the world has ever known."
Measured in terms of sheer destructive power, and our ability to project that power across the globe, the U.S. military is indeed the world's "finest" fighting force. Our nuclear arsenal remains second to none. Our air forces (including the Navy's carrier task forces, the Army's armada of helicopter gunships, and the CIA's fleet of unmanned aerial drones prosecuting a "secret" war in Pakistan) dominate the heavens. Our Navy ("a global force for good," according to its new motto) rules the waves -- even more so than old Britannia did a century ago. And well should we rule the skies and seas, given the roughly one trillion dollars a year we spend on achieving our vision of "full spectrum dominance."
But this awesome ability to exercise "global reach, global power" hardly makes us the finest military force ever. After all, "finest" shouldn't be measured by sheer strength and reach alone. First and foremost, of course, should come favorable results set against the quality of the opponents bested. To use a sports analogy, we wouldn't call the Pittsburgh Steelers "the finest team in NFL history" simply because they annihilated Penn State in football. Similarly, we can't measure the success of today's U.S. military solely in terms of amazingly quick (if increasingly costly and ultimately dismal) "victories" over the Taliban in 2001 or Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces in 2003.
To carry the football analogy a few yards further, one might ask when our "finest fighting force" had its last Super Bowl win. Certainly, 1918 and 1945 (World Wars I and II) were such wins, even if as part of larger coalitions; 1953 (Korea) was a frustrating stalemate; 1973 (Vietnam) was a demoralizing loss; 1991 (Desert Storm in Iraq) was a distinctly flawed win; and efforts like Grenada or Panama or Serbia were more like scrimmages. Arguably our biggest win, the Cold War, was achieved less through military means than economic power and technological savvy.
To put it bluntly: America's troops are tough-minded professionals, but the finest fighting force ever? Sir, no, sir.
We're Number One!
Americans often seem to live in the eternal now, which makes it easier to boast that our military is the finest ever. Most historians, however, are not so tied to nationalistic rhetoric or the ceaseless present. If asked to identify the finest fighting force in history, my reaction -- and I would hardly be alone in the field -- would be to favor those peoples and empires which existed for war alone.
Examples immediately spring to mind: the Assyrians, the Spartans, the Romans, the Vikings, the Mongols, and the Nazis. These peoples elevated their respective militaries and martial prowess above all else. Unsurprisingly, they were bloodthirsty and ruthless. Unstinting ambition for imperial goals often drove them to remarkable feats of arms at an unconscionable and sometimes difficult to sustain cost. Yes, the Spartans defeated the Athenians, but that internecine quarrel paved the way for the demise of the independent Greek city states at the hands of Philip of Macedon and his son, Alexander (soon enough to be known as "the Great").
Yes, the Romans conquered an empire, but one of their own historians, Tacitus, put in the mouth of a Celtic chieftain this description of being on the receiving end of Roman "liberation":
"The Romans' tyranny cannot be escaped by any act of reasonable submission. These brigands of the world have exhausted the land by their rapacity, so they now ransack the sea. When their enemy is rich, they lust after wealth; when their enemy is poor, they lust after power. Neither East nor West has satisfied their hunger. They are unique among humanity insofar as they equally covet the rich and the poor. Robbery, butchery, and rapine they call 'Empire.' They create a desert and call it 'Peace.'"
Talk about tough love.
The Romans would certainly have to be in the running for "finest military" of all time. They conquered many peoples, expanded far, and garrisoned vast areas of the Mediterranean, North Africa, and what would become Europe, while their legions marched forth, often to victory (not to speak of plunder), for hundreds of years. Still, the gold medal for the largest land empire in history -- and the finest fighting force of all time -- must surely go to the thirteenth century Mongols.
Led by Genghis Khan and his successors, Mongol horsemen conquered China and the Islamic world -- the two most powerful, sophisticated civilizations of their day -- while also exerting control over Russia for two and a half centuries. And thanks to a combination of military excellence, clever stratagem, fleetness of foot (and far more important, hoof), flexibility, and when necessary utter ferocity, they did all this while generally being outnumbered by their enemies.
Even the fighting power of the finest militaries waxed and waned, however, based in part on the quality of those leading them. The Macedonians blossomed under Philip and Alexander. It was not simply Rome that conquered Gaul, but Julius Caesar. The Mongols were at each other's throats until Genghis Khan united them into an unstoppable military machine that swept across a continent. The revolutionary French people in their famed levée en masse had martial fervor, but only Napoleon gave them direction. History's finest fighting forces are associated closely with history's greatest captains.
Measure that against the American military today. General David Petraeus is certainly a successful officer who exhibits an enviable mastery of detail and a powerful political sense of how to handle Washington, but a Genghis Khan? An Alexander? A Caesar? Even "King David," as he's been called both by admirers and more than a few detractors, might blush at such comparisons. After all, at the head of the most powerfully destructive force in the Middle East, and later Central Asia, he has won no outright victories and conquered nothing. His triumph in Iraq in 2006-2007 may yet prove more "confected" than convincing.
As for our armed forces, though most Americans don't know it, within U.S. military circles much criticism exists of an officer corps of "tarnished brass" that is deficient in professionalism; of generals who are more concerned with covering their butts than leading from the front; of instruction at military academies that is divorced from war's realities; of an aversion "to innovation or creativity... [leading to] an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism" that undermines strategy and makes a hash of counterinsurgency efforts. Indeed, our military's biting criticism of itself is one of the few positive signs in a fighting force that is otherwise overstretched, deeply frustrated, and ridiculously overpraised by genuflecting politicians.
So I'm sorry, President Obama. If you wish to address the finest fighting force the world has ever known, you'll need a time machine, not Air Force One. You'll have to doff your leather Air Force-issue flight jacket and don Mongolian armor. And in so doing, you'll have to embrace mental attitudes and a way of life utterly antithetical to democracy and the rights of humanity as we understand them today. For that is the price of building a fighting force second to none -- and one reason why our politicians should stop insisting that we have one.
"The Greatest Force for Human Liberation"
Two centuries ago, Napoleon led his armies out of France and brought "liberty, equality, and fraternity" to much of the rest of ancien régime Europe -- but on his terms and via the barrel of a musket. His invasion of Spain, for example, was viewed as anything but a "liberation" by the Spanish, who launched a fierce guerrilla campaign against their French occupiers that sapped the strength of Napoleon's empire and what was generally considered the finest fighting force of its moment. British aid to the insurgency helped ensure that this campaign would become Napoleon's "Spanish ulcer."
The "Little Corporal" ultimately decided to indirectly strike back at the British by invading Russia, which was refusing to enforce France's so-called continental blockade. As Napoleon's army bled out or froze solid in the snows of a Russian winter, the Prussians and the Austrians found new reasons to reject French "fraternity." Within years, Napoleon's empire was unsaddled and destroyed, a fate shared by its leader, sent into ignominious exile on the island of Saint Helena.
Like Napoleon's fired up revolutionary troops, the American military also sees itself as on a mission to spread democracy and freedom. Afghans and Iraqis have, however, proven no more eager than the Spaniards of two centuries ago to be "liberated" at gun (or "Hellfire" missile) point, even when the liberators come bearing gifts, which in today's terms means the promise of roads, jobs, and "reconstruction," or even cash by the pallet.
Because we Americans believe our own press releases, it's difficult to imagine others (except, of course, those so fanatic as to be blind to reality) seeing us as anything but well-intentioned liberators. As journalist Nir Rosen has put it: "There's... a deep sense among people in the [American] policy world, in the military, that we're the good guys. It's just taken for granted that what we're doing must be right because we're doing it. We're the exceptional country, the essential nation, and our role, our intervention, our presence is a benign and beneficent thing."
In reporting on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rosen and others have offered ample proof for those who care to consider it that our foreign interventions have been anything but benign or beneficent, no less liberating. Our invasion of Iraq opened the way to civil war and mayhem. For many ordinary Iraqis, when American intervention didn't lead to death, destruction, dislocation, and exile, it bred "deep humiliation and disruption" as well as constant fear, a state of affairs that, as Rosen notes, is "painful and humiliating and scary."
In Afghanistan, Rosen points out, most villagers see our troops making common cause with a despised and predatory government. Huge infusions of American dollars, meanwhile, rarely trickle down to the village level, but instead promote the interests of Afghan warlords and foreign businesses. Small wonder that, more than nine years later, a majority of Afghans say they want to be liberated from us.
If the U.S. military is not "the greatest force for human liberation" in all history, what is? Revealingly, it's far easier to identify the finest fighting force of history. If put on the spot, though, I'd highlight the ideas and ideals of human dignity, of equality before the law, of the fundamental value of each and every individual, as the greatest force for human liberation. Such ideals are shared by many peoples. They may sometimes be defended by the sword, but were inscribed by the pens of great moralists and thinkers of humanity's collective past. In this sense, when it comes to advancing freedom, the pen has indeed been mightier than the sword.
Freedom Fighters for a Fading Empire
The historian John Lukacs once noted: "There are many things wrong with the internationalist idea to Make the World Safe for Democracy, one of them being that it is not that different from the nationalist idea that What Is Good for America Is Good for the World."
In our post-9/11 world, whatever our rhetoric about democratizing the planet, our ambitions are guided by the seemingly hardheaded goal of making Americans safe from terrorists. A global war on terrorism has, however, proven anything but consistent with expanding liberty at home or abroad. Indeed, the seductive and self-congratulatory narrative of our troops as selfless liberators and the finest freedom fighters around actually helps blind us to our violent methods in far-off lands, even as it distances us from the human costs of our imperial policies.
Though we officially seek to extinguish terrorists, our actions abroad serve as obvious accelerants to terror. To understand why this is so, ask yourself how comforted you would be if foreign military "liberators" kicked in your door, shouted commands in a language you didn't understand, confiscated your guns, dragged your father and brothers and sons off in cuffs and hoods to locations unknown, all in the name of "counterterror" operations? How comforted would you be if remotely piloted drones hovered constantly overhead, ready to unleash Hellfire missiles at terrorist "targets of opportunity" in your neighborhood?
Better not to contemplate such harsh realities. Better to praise our troops as so many Mahatma Gandhis, so many freedom fighters. Better to praise them as so many Genghis Khans, so many ultimate warriors.
At a time of feared national decline, our leaders undoubtedly prescribe military action in part to comfort us (and themselves) and restore our sense of potency and pride. In doing so, they violate the famous phrase long associated with the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
93 Comments so far
Show AllThe Spartan connection has been worrying me for a while. I live in Eastern Maine and there are two prominent retired military gentlemen who have of late been going around to pre-schools, elementary schools etc to judge the fitness of our next crop of cannon fodder. They express the view that the pre-schools are great because we need well educated soldiers. They voice concern that food insecurity is hindering the healthy growth of our mid-21st century troops. This to me is an expression of a society that increasingly values military service as the only real service to society.
That Spartan connection has also been seen in more recent societies. Nations that glorify their soldiers to the point of worship are ones that get their asses handed to them eventually. Just ask the societies of the Empire of Japan. Or those who lived in the Prussian/German nations.
There are two nations that glorify the soldier today; The USA and Israel. god help us all, as both of them have enough nukes to do us all some serious damage.
When I look at Israel and the US,I cannot get the picture of a tail wagging a dog out of my mind.I am not saying,that the US is being blackmailed by Israel,although I admit,that that possibility has also occurred to me.Yes,they not only have enough destructive power between them to do some serious damage,but enough to kill all living things on this planet,that was once such a beautiful pearl in the universe,but is now being destroyed by a handful of insanely greedy demons hiding among us in human-like bodies.
It's not really blackmail. Part of the influence that Israel has is a lingering guilt in the western world over how we behaved during the past. When pogroms happened against the Jews, no one really cared. We all know what the Nazis did, and yes, that did happen.
Part of it is also that the Jewish propaganda is far more believable and refined than is the Arab propaganda.
But the real source of the US government's support for Israel isn't the Jews, nor is it guilt for past sins. It has to do with the Xtian Zionists, they after all are a rather large voting block. They also believe that the State of Israel has to exist for the Christ to return - and then all the Jews, Muslims and other sinners will be converted or burn. The thing the Israeli government seems to ignore is that one part of Revelations where the state of Israel must be abandoned and reviled by all peoples on the Earth for the Christ to return. Of course, if you've looked through the rest of the bible, you'll find that the end times stories are contradicted by other parts of the book which say humans will live on the world forever without end.
Those who think fiction is reality, or those who think they can make their own reality, are the most dangerous of all humans.
KARL: While your post bears superficial truths, it misses the obvious:
That Israel serves as a base for America in the wild wild Middle East.
So long as Israel's interests dovetail with those of American elites, as well as the MIC (which would hardly turn down the "opportunity" for a war, anywhere)... the alliance, covert and overt, will continue.
Interesting how you whitewashed the entire significance of the present-day alliance, though nothing you said was untrue.
What alliance? Any alliance needs to be a formal one. The usa might like to speak words of 'we love anything you do' and they certainly like using the area in the same manner that the German's used the Civil War in Spain prior to the second WW. But the us congress hasn't passed anything like an actual alliance.
You of course only want to damn one side. Neither are angels. However, if you actually look at what the leaders and people of the region say...
Israel still doesn't want peace, they do want another piece of Gaza, and some more pieces of the West Bank... But they don't want peace.
You've still not realized that you're not arguing with a 'fan' of the MIC have you? So much for your uber awesome psychic powers, eh?
William, quit screwing with the marketing campaign, brah!
If the US military isn't the ""the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world" and "the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known." then how are they going to dovetail sales of Call of Duty: Black Ops into increased military recruitment?
Duh.
Get with the program, officer.
The American military has a tremendous technological and economical advantage as well as an endless supply of brainwashed true believers fully equipped for small or massive slaughters but despite this they were beaten by the peasants of Vietnam and will leave Afghanistan beaten by the Afghans. They are anything but exceptional except in their own minds.
The "greatest fighting force" that has never won a war that wasn't lopsided (Desert Storm) or a collective effort of many nations (WWI and WWII). American history books also omit the integral roll France played in the American Revolution... that's right the French! The revolution would have been crushed without their help.
But the cheerleaders of the MIC keep spewing the rhetoric, patting themselves on the back and rewriting history.
It is also important to remember the MIC wants endless wars not winnable ones.
I think the author's intent is a straightforward critique of Obama's use of the vague phrase "finest fighting force in the world". I concur completely. Obama's comment being an empty exercise in rote praise, it probably didn't even have the ostensible desired effect of boosting troop morale. As the designated killers and cannon fodder, I suspect that many of them are wised up enough to know better.
So who is the intended audience? And why use these kinds of stale, ahistorical, internally illogical phrases?
Astore is also suggesting that for all of Obama's alleged intellectual acuity, his Harvard Law background and his "eloquence", his actions and words are uninspired, deliberately vague and politically and morally witless. Obama seems instead weirdly pacificied and detached, content to parade about like Bush, in a custom flight jacket, with a backdrop of soldiers, blithely mouthing platitudes and waving for the cameras.
Calling Astore a present or former "militarist" doesn't really change the underlying validity of the argument. Is a military perspective always a defense of empire? It never hurts to observe that your opponent is wrong on his own terms, as Astore does here. I don't know that it helps much either in a nation so militantly opposed to critical thought, but it doesn't hurt.
Exactly. First, rectify the language. Google "Politics and the English Language" by Orwell for a succinct explanation of the problem.
jareilly -
The intended audience was the mainstream media back in the Homeland. The purpose of the latest flight jacket speech was to try to inoculate the Commander-in-Chief (once again) from the incessant partisan attack campaign on the domestic front that Obama and the Democrats are not militaristic enough, not tough enough, and don't support the nation's heroic citizen soldiers enough. Staging another presidential photo op in a combat zone, in order to praise the assembled troops as "the finest fighting force in the world" for rebroadcast on prime time television stateside, is what now passes for preemptive damage control - cleverly co-opting the opposition party's issue framing message.
Small wonder Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the Shrub keep smiling all the way to the bank. Heads they win. Tails we all lose. The neocon hawks now have got even the White House's inner circle of partisan strategists believing that waging endless war like Little George is a winning electoral tactic, and perhaps they can even out macho the Republican macho men.
One fools' errand thus begets another.
Bill from Saginaw
Afghan patriots and freedom fighters, wary of the good intentions of a brutal, foreign occupying power, will test just how great these mercenary ("It'll help with paying for college") soldiers are, eh?
I appreciate Astore's deconstruction of jingo puffery along the lines of "The American Fighting Man is second to none!"
It reminds me of Obama's truly depressing levity during the recent DADT-repeal signing ceremony:
“... As one special operations warfighter said during the Pentagon’s review -- this was one of my favorites -- it echoes the experience of Lloyd Corwin decades earlier: 'We have a gay guy in the unit. He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys.' (Laughter.) 'No one cared that he was gay.' (Laughter.) And I think that sums up perfectly the situation. (Applause.)”
____________________
It's depressing even though I realize that in "common sense" realpolitik terms, Obama has to reassure weak-witted and fearful troglodytes in and out of the armed forces that The Amerikan Fighting Gay is second to none.
Gay or straight, male or female, smart or dumb, of color or colorless... the important thing is that our troops are big, mean, and proudly kill lots of bad guys.
Hooray for our side.
The only quibble I had with the article was his identification of the Mongols as the 'greatest fighting force'. That quibble is only based on the longevity of the respective empires.
The Mongols rose in the 1200s (ish) and were gone by the 19th century; 700 years of slaughter and influence. Yet, when they were gone, there weren't even roads to mark their passing.
The Romans lasted from 400 BCE (ish, strongly debatable) and lasted til the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in the 1450s; around 1800 years of influence and slaughter. They, at best, did leave roads and some aqueducts that are still used today.
Now that I think about it. He should also have stressed the passing nature of this military 'greatness'. Does anyone really give a damn about the 'great' leaders who slaughtered their way through antiquity or the more recent eras? What good did the likes of Alexander the 'Great' do in the long run? Moreover, _Every_ one of the Empires he mentioned fell. All of them were reviled by those who came after them. From the earliest Egyptian Empire, to the British Empire to the current USA Empire, those who build and benefit from them are universally hated for having the nerve to try and 'rule' the world.
Hi Sioux Rose,
I've read and pondered the article and see no excuses or rationalization. Writing as an historian, he has to be "neutral" in discussing what is an historical point.
He manages to inject a bit of irony here and there. For instance, our leaders prate about our military prowess, but never our health care, education, economy...because they cannot! The "United" States is approaching the bottom of the list in all of the above.
Many years ago we had a "War Department." In time of need, we went to war. (please, don't everybody start quoting the litany of our incursions into small banana republics, Philippine suppression, etc. I have my copy of "War is a Racket," "The Invisible Government," and dozens more and am well aware our hands are not clean. I am just trying to make a point.)
After WW-II, the War Department was renamed the "Defense Department." Since that time, we have waged one aggressive war after another, usually losing them, or trying to sweep them under the rug.
When the Golden Horde entered a country, or approached a city, the inhabitants were instructed to surrender, in which case they were stripped for "taxes" and became members of the invader's country, protected by the Khanate. If they offered defense, they were overwhelmed with enormous force, every man, woman and child was raped, tortured and killed; the city was utterly destroyed (Similar to what we did to Fallujah) and word of that fate was sent on ahead to help the next victim make the "right" choice.
In the Middle East, as in Vietnam, we are the invaders, we are the foreigners, and we are in their country against their will.
As in Vietnam, when the Sarge told you, "Don't trust any of them, just shoot them," The Sarge tells his men, "Don't trust any of them, just shoot the ragheads." In many cases, they do. Those that don't often are discharged as mentally unfit.
If you study it, the Holy Qur'an forbids war except in self defense. It says war shall not be waged against the aged, women or children. It mandates that people take care of one another, give alms and shelter, etc.
A person living under that law would prefer peace, but what is he to do when the foreigners come in, tell them they are making them free and proceed to destroy villages, killing the elderly, women and children, taking the men away, who knows where to, or for how long.
Would you not fight to the death to protect your home, your family, your people or tribe? Would there not be an endless supply of fighters trying to rid their nation of foreigners?
Our much vaunted armed forces are naught but a paper tiger. True, we can utterly destroy Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Iran, or Pakistan, or any other place we desire to, by the simple push of a button or two, but we cannot win a battle on the ground against a people who don't want us there and are willing to fight forever to get rid of us.
There seems to be something in the American political psyche that refuses to even consider this. Unfortunately, since We the People seem unable to do more than wring our hands, this will go on until the US collapses into its own dry rot.
Then, some other wanna-be will start to rise and the process will continue. Some individuals seem to be able to learn, but "peoples" do not.
"In our post-9/11 world, whatever our rhetoric about democratizing the planet, our ambitions are guided by the seemingly hardheaded goal of making Americans safe from terrorists. A global war on terrorism has, however, proven anything but consistent with expanding liberty at home or abroad. "
I'm sorry people...I'd like to be polite to this guy but these statements made me run screaming from the room.
Earth calling Astore: the US government ARE the terrorists. If you define terror as the use of force against defenseless civilians for political purposes...ta da! We win!
Remember the carpet bombing of Viet Nam? It was often reported that we dropped more bombs on that grass hut country than all the countries combined did in WW2. We even refuse to agree with all civilized nations and bar the use of mines and cluster bombs.
Even ignoring for the moment 9/11/01 our leadership has killed, wounded, maimed more people in the past 70 years than any other people on earth. Is there any person in his right mind...including one who teaches military history...who thinks any of that killing was defensive? Most was thousands of miles from our shopping malls.
I'm sick to death of the glorification of all things military...from Top Gun to John Wayne and all his vile spawn.
We need to get to the point where a belligerent person is looked upon as sick...someone who needs help. Maybe a hug or two. Certainly therapy. If that fails let's re-open all those shuttered mental hospitals we emptied pout in the 70's. Keep all those bozos...including Mr Astore...safely locked away with a host of tin soldiers battling away on the land of counterpane.
"Is there any person in his right mind...including one who teaches military history...who thinks any of that killing was defensive?"
First, I'm not sure there is any person in his (or her? -- recent Secretaries of State have been female war supporters) right mind.
People DO think it's about defense. They somehow are able to believe that if we "win" in Afghanistan that will somehow eliminate "terrorism" (it's "the front line in the war on . . . "), and they get angry and defensive (what else) if you try to challenge this point of view. I have tried asking them just what a "victory" would look like: who would surrender? Would there be a ceremony handing over a sword? Would we put a MacArthur-like general in charge of reorganizing the place like what was done in Japan?
All I get in response is the angry accusation that I'm on "their" side. But they are not faking it. The emotions that they are expressing are real, the conversations they have with each other reinforce this point of view, and they do get choked up when they see television pictures of the flag waving or when members of "our fighting forces" do those Christmas message to the folks at home videos.
The only conclusion I can come to is that they are indeed not in their "right mind." Is there a way to a point where "a belligerent person is looked upon as sick...someone who needs help"? Who would provide that help and what form would it take? Is there a treatment plan for widespread cultural delusional thinking?
GENERAL C: You hit the nerve I was aiming at. Perhaps your post can serve as a response to Minitrue. I feel I've said enough on this subject.
If 7 blind people touch an elephant, 7 different reports will be gotten.
We all (in this forum) need not see eye to eye. Viva La Difference!
SR- Yes, I am with you on this one: Viva la difference especially if we can find ways to work together to end these wars and stop new ones from beginning.
Viva La Pro Peace: As Shadow says; "Life, what an experience, it is always better to forgive"
Bring America Back !!!!
of course this was the entire objective of the
PNAC==having a second pearl harbor==9/11 to
force us funding of its super military as the
superior global force.
worked like a charm for the mic, and we the
sheeple cant even find a job worthwhile to be
had.
eisenhower warned us but no astute warrior
grabbed his meaning for posterity. we have
and are suffering ever since. good ol ike.
peace is illusive in the modern age, esp
putting 4 years in a row together. as clinton
lastly did accomplish.
this article is right on target and thanks cd.
Of course the US is not the greatest military force, or the greatest liberating force, or the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world (possibly the opposite). But, in a way, Barry was trying to demonstrate what the US is really the greatest at -- marketing. The US may be the greatest marketing force in the history of the world. And the better it gets at marketing, the less the quality it needs to maintain for the products being pushed by the marketing. And that leads me to believe that Barry thinks that his level of skill in his marketing of himself and his policies is simply out of this world.
The warring empires always need a few prerequisites for the jobs.
First there needs to be initially a surplus of people and economic output, particularly young males that can be indoctrinated into mass killing. Second is the institutions and hierachy of organizational methods and technologies of mass mobilisation for killing.
The identification of targets is pretty easy, being anything that looks like easy pickings, rich resources, or rivals within the expanding sphere of influence.
Over time it seems that the military institutions take up an increasing part of the social surplus, drain the social and physical capital, and comes to dominate the mentality of the host nation until it inevitably collapses.
The briefly powerful superorganism resembles more an ant colony when at war than a pluralistic collection of free thinking, creative and productive human beings. It depends on the worship of the warrior, that brutal killing and raping part of human conciousness, harnessed to the acquisition of power and privileges for the elite. War is an organized and state approved racket, the creation of the state of hit men.
B3NIGN: Your post articulates what I would have liked to have heard from Astore. Thank you.
Here is what I tell my daughter: "Are you going to do your homework, or will you simply join the military when you grow up?"
Alexander, Julius Caesar, Genghis Kahn, among other great leaders in battle LED his forces into battle. None of them, when they died, had hardly a square inch on their bodies without a scar.
Can you imagine a US four star general carrying a rifle through the rubble that used to be Baghdad? It is not that they are too old. I don't think they ever had any guts to start with.
A point well made Nietsche.I see all that military brass today as a bunch of drunken,bragging,swashbuckling cowards.Barbarians,who think of themselves as civilized.
Generals are politicians in uniform. Not leaders of men but planners of political careers or future lobbyists in the making. Winning is only important if it advances their careers and leads to more $$$$$.
Generals, and other officers, went ashore on D-Day, directing their troops from the front lines, not from the Officer's Lounge in the compound far from the fighting. I wonder how many wars we would have NOT fought if ALL of the officers were REQUIRED to physically lead their men in the middle of the battles? Zero, I bet.
I think there would be some stupid enough generals--but it would be a true litmus test for bluster--no republicans within 5 miles of that front, I would venture--the war would be over--John Boehner or Next Gingrich might say, "No we were just kidding--we don't have any problem with Al Qaida, who said so? No, not at all. Who told you that--that must have been one of those military hero Democrats who actually served?" Sarah Palin would be more likely to rush into battle, not being bright to begin with... Little chickens all with big weapons to cover up their lack of depth and courage
Their patriotism might best exemplified in a petri dish with no experimental challenge, just their own corrupt strain to struggle and create the foul stench of decaying life devoid of nourishing diversity. The 'Echo Chamber' is a sound analogy--as in a vacuum tube with no outside influence...that is the 'norm' for c.s. type pussy boy repubs.
I know a female acupuncturist who did a demonstration of acupuncture in a h.s. class. The two tough guys at the back of the class who were always making trouble both passed out and had to go to the school infirmary to be coddled by the nurse! The finest and the best!? Undoubtedly some are, yes, but what are they fine at-- door kickin? What good at? Ignoring their humanity? --better even if they stayed home to create trouble here (sic) or get their stuff together in a more friendly environs, rather than inflict their naive beligerance on foreign societies who have done nothing to us other than refuse to pump their oil or gas out of the ground to wipe out much of humanity and ooh, baby, where's that jet stream...Look up boys and girls, the sky is clear on a Winter day...what are those persistent vapor trails doing up there all so regularly spaceed?
Rats as a species are more valuable than the national US Republican Party but then Dems act like domestic cats. In retrospect, hopefully there will be many 'mouse traps' set and significant disabling of the pestilential creatures will occur in the next 4 years as more understand the ongoing massive lossses and become emboldened lefties, smart people, dozing Americans, independents who understand there is no independence when we are under constant attack from within, and liberals who get a good bit feistier will all start getting much more active and effective--but we must inform, inspire, and instigate involvement of TODAY'S YOUTH AS THE VANGUARD OF CHANGE!
We need a convincing defeat of these forces of laissez faire evil in 2012 and beyond. It will take much more than intellectual blather and bluster, though to bring down the paper tiger to the drawing board and erase his false boldness...fight hard with true and good-heart!
There was another thread sometime last year about our "allies" fighting in the same theater or battle with Americans and they had to watch out for them shooting as any of the enemy because the americans were indiscriminate in their firing of weapons. Just because the US of A has the most and the "baddest" toys only reenforces the perception here that their shit don't stink. Look at most of the bullshit enemies this country has invaded and stayed to occupy? I'd be embarassed to even bring up the word "greatest". Tony
Very old story.
Comes from several sources, and tales about how the yanks fight. In the War of 1812, the Canadians (led by British officers who later settled in Canada) maneuvered the yanks in such a way that the US forces were firing at each other instead of us. Not once, but several times that tactic was used to great effect.
In WWI and II. British, Canadian and Anzac forces all had tales of soldiers who said, 'when the Germans/Japanese fired we ducked, when we fired they ducked, when the Yanks fired EVERYBODY ducked!'
All those friendly fires!
The last great thing the US Military has done was to help win WW2.
Since then, the US has not had a real enemy to fight. 3rd world countries...petty dictators with delusions of grandeur...etc., yes. A real enemy, no. So, they manufactured one that does not have a standing army, or sophisticated weapons or huge financial resources...and called them "terrorists" so that the war machine could continue to make weapons and more important, huge profits off of the American Sheep, at the cost of world hate.
God help America if we ever try to go up against a large, equipped military, such as China, or a unified Muslim nation such as Iran. Game over.
But, I don't see that happening...as America is bankrupt financially and morally, and is too busy trying to cover up the fact so the Sheep keep paying the bills. The rest of the world already knows.
Wounded animals are the most dangerous of all. Don't underestimate the willingness to believe the propaganda either. As the Author of the article points out, the myth of the 'greatest army' is one that he'd like to believe. It's the historian in him that makes him go 'wait a minute here...'
Iran would be destroyed by the US military, but I doubt that you'd be able to pay for the destruction of that nation. Another war is not going to be acceptable for the rest of the world. We know that your nation is suffering from victory disease, you think you won WWII all by your lonesome. You didn't, but that's what the mythology is. Really tho, enough is enough. There are some who'd really like to see the old USA come back, the isolationist USA, which was not quite as nasty. (well, it was as nasty. But most of the time your armies didn't go far from the border...)
Makati1, whom I suspect by his name might be of Philippine extraction, is dead-on right here. American sentimentalizing of "our boys [now women are included -- soon to be added: openly gay people -- yay! a victory for " our" side] in uniform" can't begin to express how shameful this is. To beat our chests with pride over victories over Grenada and Panama would be if I were capable of embarrassment be downright embarrassing, like a tough guy bragging about beating up third graders.
Of course you can't say any of this to any middle Americans or you will be attacked for blasphemy.
"To put it bluntly: America's troops are tough-minded professionals, but the finest fighting force ever? Sir, no, sir."
The author does not seem to understand that Oilbomber couldn't care less whether the US military is the finest in some absolute sense. All that matters to him and to all his predecessors in the service of Empire is that the troops BELIEVE that they are the finest and the greatest force for good in human history. Keeping the mercenaries of the military-industrial machine happy and working by flattery and other opportunistic pronouncements is all that matters, not whether these assertions are true.
"he {General Petraeus] has won no outright victories and conquered nothing."
I beg to differ. Here is why:
Iraq is occupied territory; its socialist economy has been eliminated; a great deal of its identity constituting historical artifacts have been stolen or destroyed (its museums emptied, its libraries burnt, its archeological sites vandalized and severely damaged, all under the indifferent eyes of US troops); its medical records were destroyed; Falluja was levelled; Iraq's infrastructure has been severely compromised; millions of Iraqis are internally displaced or refugees; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed; etc.
All of those are acts of conquest, and to certain industrial, financial, ideological, and military interests, they constitute a victory for their imperial designs.
The US of A is the world's greatest terrorist organization.
We have trashed or ignored almost EVERY International Law or Treaty that exists. Invasion, torture, illegal seizure, assassination, money manipulation, bullying, threats, wanton death by drones flown by kids in California or Florida that think they are playing some video game killing those "bad terrorists" 10,000+ miles away. Then going home to their families in some air conditioned home full of "stuff" and telling their wife that they had a 'hard day' but wiped out another suspected terrorist and his family in Pakistan.
But, he has a job and a home. The US Government terrorism is not just happening in foreign lands, it is in the US Police State in progress and the Depression that is not admitted. The lies and propaganda fed to the Sheep through the corporate media. We have 6+ "wars" going on in the world. Where are they in the 'News'? 99% of what passes as the 'news' is fluff or gossip. Reality is missing.
This is today's America...
William Astore,
There are many historical accuracies in your article. However, there are also some glaring historical errors.
1) The US military has never been selfless liberators. That was always propaganda and you know it.
2) You completely left out the greatest military force for liberation, the army of General Toussaint L Ouverture. That Haitian former slave had a nightmare scenario with one of Napolean's finest generals attacking him AND the British invading as well. He was surrounded by ocean on three sides, had logistics problems feeding his army of dirt poor soldiers and munitions positioning. Yet he fought both armies off. Yes, the French got some of his men to double cross him and he died in France as a prisoner but he was never defeated in battle. He bled the French and the British when the fledgeling US most needed it. He indirectly contributed to the Louisiana purchase by bleeding the French. Because of him Haiti became independent and was the only country to give sanctuary to Simon Bolivar, the then future liberator of South Amerca from the Spanish empire. Anything the opportunistic Napolean did pales in comparison. The genius of how the munitions were used in Haiti is a model for logistcs and tactics in any military.
I hate war. I understand how dainty euphemisms like 'finest fighting' force are supposed to mean we are the baddest, ugliest, meanest, most bloodthirsty barbarians on the planet.
If anybody still believes we are exceptional, good, doing it for democracy and all that, then they don't get it.
That last line about "First, do no harm." has to do with the Hippocratic oath for medical doctors. What in blue blazes does that have to do with the military? The first job of the military is to conquer the enemy (kill or capture and imprison human beings). The SLIGHT PROBLEM that our military has now is that it is killing or capturing, imprisoning AND TORTURING people that aren't even our enemies! The whole thing is bonkers.
Why didn't you mention the self perpetuating war profit angle when you admitted that our military increases blow back with their behavior? Why can't you bring yourself to see that our military is committing war crimes? Can't you handle it?
I think you need to talk to Bradley Manning or read some wikileaks info on our military.
You sir, appear to be willfully avoiding the connection of several dots that will reveal our military as a corporate criminal enterprise. Shame on you.
[1) The US military has never been selfless liberators. That was always propaganda and you know it.]
Yes, he does know it. Since you and a few others missed it; (shouting as loudly as possible, but not using caps cause they're rude)
That was one of the fucking main points of the article!
As far as using the military for liberation goes, you really need to look at the results of those actions. Haiti didn't stay 'free' for very long did it? The slaves were the first ever slaves to free themselves, but the new government did move towards despotism rather quickly.
That's another point the author made, that he couldn't think of ANY military that has been a 'liberation' force. None.
He did not argue that there was a 'greatest' ever military, he denied rather obviously that there was one at all. He certainly trashed the idea that any such candidate was the USA. Seems to me that the ability of reading, reasoning and thinking has fallen quite far in the states...
Power and wealth are corrupting by their very nature, military power is multiply destructive and corruptive by its ability to go beyond nature and prove things that should never have been thought, much less done. Mr. Artore writes a flat-out historic essay which puts the present ravings of lunatics great and small in their tinbox to sound the call to bang its sides--if only we could put this iron box into the ocean to 'swim'
Absolutely the best article I have read in quite some time re: our military, and the way it is perceived. I am a 100% service-connected disabled combat vet of the VN war, I taught the war in college, and I salute the author.
The thing about getting really good at war is, in simple terms: everybody lives like a soldier, and comes to see no reason why anyone in the world should live any better than that.
And so it was, in the year ..., that the great United States of America failed due to deferred maintenance.
fixie