Marines in Afghanistan

This is an unvarnished look at how some Marines feel about being in Afghanistan. As Thomas Ricks quipped, this video is probably giving some public affairs officer a heart attack. It's that raw.

I must warn you, Marines say "fuck" a lot, more than I do.

Wow, I hope no one gets in trouble. Some of the stuff they say could get them in some hot water if the right people see it. Not that is should, but it could. I can't say I blame the guys at all for their views. Reading the war histories I have they voice a lot of the same feelings as their fathers, grandfathers, and so on. It's just that those soldiers didn't have video cameras on them and they probably have the good sense not to repeat whatever was really said to outsiders.

I think it was a bad idea to post it on the net, simply because it will reflect poorly on the men. I'm sure their good soldiers, good men, and just blowing off steam from the stress of it all. I'd like to think that Id conduct myself with a little more self-respect and show a little more kindness to the kids, but then again...I have no idea how I would react after being there that long.

War is like an acid which eats away at one's humanity. Guerrilla war more so than conventional war. In a conventional war, you know who your opponents are. They usually wear uniforms. In a guerrilla war, your opponents are a subset of the masses. They blend into the mass as they are a part of the mass. The man who operates an insurgent cell may in fact have a day job selling bicycles. When your enemy is indistinguishable from the mass, it will not be long until you begin to think of the mass as your enemy.

I think, more than anything, this video illustrates that there is a wide, expansive gap between what a public affairs officer says and what a Marine (or a Soldier, Airman, or Sailor) actually thinks and believes. This incongruence of sentiments probably has consequences of which we are unable to grasp.

Their lives would be much better (and safer) if they were back home.

I assume soldiers in all places and times have complained about officers, missions, conditions, political bureaucrats, etc. In terms of this particular case, it may be worth keeping in mind that the US's military is comprised of volunteers not conscripts.

Maybe guerrilla warfare is an object lesson in why one country should stay out of the internal affairs of another country.

I grew up on a diet of Hollywood movies about World War II, believing that all American soldiers in that war were clean-cut idealists ready to sacrifice their lives to defend democracy and stop fascism, and full of kindness and pity for the peoples over whose land they fought.

Of course, I still believe that. These Marines must be totally different from their grandfathers.

That's your problem, Doug--you watched too much tv as a kid.

I think the Lone Ranger shows us all we need to know with respect to foreign policy.

I think you see in this what you want to see. That this is some sort of indictment of war strikes me as pretty silly. They hate walking up and down mountains, find Afghanistan a shit hole and make fun of the kids... so?

I believe James Jones had a few things to say about being a soldier. The thin red Line is described in this way in a Wikipedia entry: Instead of a conventional military adventure story, the author presents a more realistic depiction of battle where ordinary people experience a mix of murder, fear, homosexuality, dread, helplessness, frustration, meanness, terror, and emptiness. The novel depicts, but is careful not to judge, acts most readers would consider repellent, such as disinterring a Japanese corpse for fun, summarily executing Japanese prisoners or extracting gold teeth from corpses. These acts are shown as natural reactions to the soldiers' environment.

The trouble in Guadacanal was that you did not get to see who shot at you, in Afghanistan perhaps that you do not know whether the ones you see are enemies or not?

Jahn: It's interesting that you mention this book. Something that shook my teenage patriotic/idealistic image of America in WWII was reading a thick paperback novel, either this one or Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead, which gave what I now know was a much more realistic image of men at war.

It is the The thin red Line that has the ugly revelations, not Mailers The naked and the Dead, or Jones's From here to Eternity. I remember the company moving on, and men getting shot without any enemy having been observed, and the need building up among them to find something to put their bayonets into.
And I think I can understand on the background of having read it that the soldiers in Afghanistan has a thick mental wall between them and the Afghans.

(Now why does this posting show up in italics?)

</i> I just finished Band of Brothers and found it interesting that out of all the European countries the troops liked the german people the best. They were kind, hardworking, cleaned up quickly after a battle damaged their town. The soldiers depised the french who they saw as lazy, beggars, who wouldn't do anything for themselves, and they thought the dutch were OK. The common link between all of them though was that our soldiers looted and stole from them all equally. They took over homes, food, goods, whatever. They were rarely violent, but their were instances of it. As were their instance of rape, murder, and unprovoked assault.

Still they are our heroes of cinema, of history, or video games. I think that in general history looks more kindly upon soldiers than the present day. It more understanding especially when the whole story can be given and not just a 6 minutes home video.

Regarding the discipline of soldiers, there are several aspects to that. It is true that the German occupying forces in Norway, for example, were very heavily punished for crimes against the civilians, which perhaps explains why the ordinary Wehrmacht soldier here is remembered as behaving well. It is well known though that they did not do so in Russia.

According to several German reports of the behaviour of the allied occupation forces the Russian were a barbaric horde with no empathy for the civilians: that might have been tit for tat, as the Russian soldiers who liberated the North of Norway is said to have behaved exemplary.

As for the Americans, I read a funny story (Was it in Slaughterhouse 5?), where the British in a German prison camp demanded to be separated from the Americans – they showed no discipline. Which might be explained by the Americans having a democratic culture, which means not being that much in fear of their superiors. My impression is that the American liberation forces in Europe were primarily known for handing out chewing gum, which might have been against regulation?

Some Roman shall have said that no Roman soldier should have to fear the enemy as much as their own officers, and if that is true, they probably were very well disciplined.

A somewhat related story. Perhaps not the worst idea in the world especially for a warzone. Although it was funny to see the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has 4,000 followers.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/04/marines.social.media.ban/index.html

#4: "I assume soldiers in all places and times have complained about officers, missions, conditions, political bureaucrats, etc. In terms of this particular case, it may be worth keeping in mind that the US's military is comprised of volunteers not conscripts."

I feel like this talk of "but we have a volunteer army!" is on some level dishonest. I never "volunteered" to pay for military recruiters who like to sugar-coat the army experience to highschool students. I never "volunteered" to pay for benefits intended to bribe people into signing 8-year contracts because they want a way to pay for college. I never "volunteered" to pay to send them over there. I never "volunteered" to pay for anyone to get stop-lossed.

So I think they are justified in their complaint, as uncouth as they may be about it. Who "volunteers" to have jaded soldiers to be stationed in the middle of nowhere (other than those of the ilk who voted for Bush and Obama)?

I feel like this talk of "but we have a volunteer army!" is on some level dishonest. I never "volunteered" to pay for military recruiters who like to sugar-coat the army experience to highschool students. I never "volunteered" to pay for benefits intended to bribe people into signing 8-year contracts because they want a way to pay for college. I never "volunteered" to pay to send them over there. I never "volunteered" to pay for anyone to get stop-lossed.

I feel your criticism, while it might be appealing to a garden-variety leftist, it unworthy of a libertarian. The US Army may "sugarcoat" things, but it surely does so less than many commercial companies. I would expect you support the right of Colgate to imply its product will make you a success with the ladies. Why not here? And surely if people are smart and responsible enough to decide complex issues rationally and live lives free of patronizing government meddling, we can expect them to have some idea what the military is and can voluntarily choose to join it. And what of the evidence? Combat duty makes soldiers less likely to leave the service. Surely that's evidence they don't all see it like you.

Once a soldier who has experience combat leaves the military, he often has a difficult time adjusting to civilian life. A combat veteran is a changed man. He has been placed in life-or-death situations, may have taken the lives of others, and possibly witnessed the deaths of his comrades. Aside from, maybe, cops, there are not very many areas within civilian life in which a person can claim to have experienced the above.

Since the combat veteran has a difficult time adjusting to civilian life, and considering he has a hard time relating to civilians, and them to him, it is not at all surprising that he opts to remain in an institution which is populated by other individuals which can claim to share his experience, to know what he is going through.

Some might make the mistake in thinking the vet's re-upping implies he is comfortable in combat, or that he is willing to be deployed on a constant basis. He is, after all, a volunteer.

I tried to join the military in 2001, before 9/11. I talked with the recruiters and made an appointment to be examined at the local MEPS (Military Entrance and Processing Station) center. I had a crotchety old man make me turn my head and cough; I took a test on a computer; and I finally, after a few hours, was able to see the man responsible for assigning jobs. You see, my goal since I was a youngin' was to be a combat medic (68W) and eventually join the Special Forces. That Green Barrets (they prefer Special Forces; they're not a hat, they say) were the best fighting force in the world, and I wanted to be a part of that. Well, the guy at the computer thought I would be best served as a 14E (PATRIOT missile system operator). Even then I knew what that would entail--shooting British pilots out of the sky. I solicited some advice from active duty soldiers, and they told me to hold my ground. If I qualified for the job, then I should get it, even if that means walking out of the station. The job guy and I went at it for about 10 minutes. He finally gave up and refused my request, and I was sent back to the recruiter station. The head recruiter was not happy with me. He expressed his unhappiness by giving me a expletive riddled lecture about how I shit on him and on the military.

I was steaming at that point. So I put off on joining until I could collect myself. My grandfather, a Korean War combat vet, advised me not to join, saying I would make a better citizen here at home. He told me I "didn't need any of that hero bullshit." Okie was always colorful with his language. In a strange coincidence, my neighbor at that time, a Korean War naval vet, told me pretty much the same thing. I wonder if that's what Korean War vets tell each other?

I bet there are a lot of kids being fed the same line of bullshit I was fed. Legions have probably been told they would get to "blow shit up" (I hear that's a favorite line recruiters use). I tried to sign up before we went to war, so I can only imagine the kind of heroic images these charlatans are feeding these kids.

So the cycle continues.

#17: I don't think the comparison to a private business bullshitting about their product is very comparable. You have a choice whether or not to patronize a certain product or service in the market. But the "customers" of the US Armed Forces is supposed to be the American citizenry purchasing their services. Individual Americans don't have a choice free of duress about whether they're a customer or not. A private business depends on their employees being productive, which means being satisfied with the work they do vis-a-vis the pay they receive. But the army's "employees" can be as dissatisfied and unproductive as the video above shows and still be "in business." What business survives in the private sector promising its prospective hirees the moon in exchange for an 8-year contract upheld by the force of the American government? In the private sphere, most people would smell a scam. The army doesn't have the same kind of incentive to keep customers and employees happy. They are funded with stolen money and manned with stolen lives.

As to why the soldiers choose to go back when they do have the choice, among other reasons, many of them do it for their comrades in arms. They feel guilty about being back in civilian life while their comrades are still stuck in hell.

Sigh......the military is not a private business where you just get a job and go to work.

And yes, it is a volunteer military. No one is drafted or forced to join. You do have a choice in the matter, just as Cody illustrated above.

Offer you the moon? No. But you do get benefits at the entry and junior levels that no civilian job offers.

No, I'm not a recruiter. I'd make a bad one. But I have served for twenty-five years in a love/hate relationship with the Army.

And your confusing volunteering to join the army and volunteering to pay for it. The volunteer in volunteer army refers to the former and I think most people are not confused by that.

16>
I'm sorry my comment in #4 elicited a response from you that has now been labeled "unworthy of a libertarian." That was not my intent. I do hope you can redeem yourself and become worthy again.

Still, the situation I addressed has nothing to do with what "you" volunteered for, but I suppose you do have a choice too. As conservatives often say to liberals who criticize this or that about the USA: "love it or leave it!" :)

Nb. I believe Richard Rorty (warning: an alleged postmodern) suggested that permanent natal citizenship should be abolished and that citizenship should be chosen at age 18 or so. (Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country). I'm not sure whether this is a practical idea, but it would at least give the "Birthers" something else to worry about.

I'll add one thing. If the troops aren't bitching, griping or complaining about something, then something is very wrong.

Also the Marines tend to not censor their people as much as the other services do.

They are funded with stolen money and manned with stolen lives.

From an anarchist perspective, it may be stolen money, but from a libertarian one, it's less obvious. One of the few functions of the minimal state is its own defense. And if overall popular consent lends any sort of legitimacy it must be admitted that only eleven American citizens, two of them children, are actually against the military. Your problem is surely not the military, but it's projection into Afghanistan. Insofar as that too is defensible--the US responded to a direct attack on American citizens on American soil launched from Afghanistan--we're not arguing about theory, but about the current facts and prospects of the situation, which have no "libertarian" dimension whatsoever.

As for stolen lives, how do you figure? The military is composed of adults who freely and deliberately chose to join the military. If people can't be trusted to assess the benefits and costs of taking a job, the entire structure of free market thought goes down, and a protective government should run our lives, starting with our careers.

As for the military having rules no business could get away with--ie., getting shot for deserting your post, which doesn't happen at McDonalds--that too has no legitimate libertarian criticism. Why shouldn't you be able to sign away your right to walk away from work? Only meddling governments establish rules for protecting people from contracts freely made.

#24: From an anarchist perspective, it may be stolen money, but from a libertarian one, it's less obvious. One of the few functions of the minimal state is its own defense.

Not to rain on Theoria's premature celebrations about me being "unworthy of a libertarian," but even many of the the watered-down libertarians of today would be hard-pressed to say that we're in Afghanistan for the purpose of "defense." The US is there primarily to prop up the Karzai government.

As for stolen lives, how do you figure? The military is composed of adults who freely and deliberately chose to join the military.

Ok, so I was trying to be a little poetic. At its worst, the military recruits have signed up for more than they bargained for.

As for the military having rules no business could get away with--ie., getting shot for deserting your post, which doesn't happen at McDonalds--that too has no legitimate libertarian criticism. Why shouldn't you be able to sign away your right to walk away from work?

Oh, I never said that a business couldn't try to do the same thing. I was just saying that a private business wouldn't be in business for very long if they tried.

#20: Sigh......the military is not a private business where you just get a job and go to work.

Yes, that's exactly my point. They are able to engage in practices no private endeavor could sustain because they are propped up by the government. It's the kind of institution that some pinko communist might dream up.

Well I just hosted a large family get-to-gether and discovered that my cousin's son has applied for the USMC officer candidate school. I didn't tell him any stories about my bro in law who died 3 years ago but really was killed in VN in 1967 a LT in the USMC, or my cousin who is looking for a liver transplant. He was in the same year, only in the US Army. I could have told him about a client's 2 sons who have probably done 8 tours in the Mid East by now. They are window cleaner's sons who, from what Mike tells me can't stand the boredom of a Black and Decker plant job after the life and death tension of serving in the 82nd Airborne Division. I put 8 years in the US Army Reserves after being commissioned in 1972. They really didn't need anyone at that point. But I met so many men who had seen combat. It was really a tipping point. they were substantially different from those who had not. They were more serious, but far more results oriented. no questions asked, just from their demeanor.

I asked about another cousin's son, who has just finished a tour of duty in Afghanistan and a tour of duty in Iraq as a medic. From what I understand, he is OK, but we'll see in a few years what effects he actually has.

On an individual basis, every war is very personal. They have far more more casualties than are reported. God bless them all for what they are doing. I don't think Iraq was ever worth getting into, but Afghanistan was such a mess. Nobody liked the Taliban to begin with but they were less corrupt than what they had before.

Ah, they devil you know., or the Devil you don't? the poor Afghanis, and.....us

The US is there primarily to prop up the Karzai government.

In what sense? Do you think the US government—from Bush to Obama—is filled with rabbid pro-Karzai fans? Do they like his fun hats? Can you perhaps see that there is some other goal here? You don't need to agree with that goal, but labelling US action in Afghanistan as "primarily to prop up the Karzai government" is to malign without even deigning to understand.

I was just saying that a private business wouldn't be in business for very long if they tried.

Well, like it or not, some people think the military gives their lives something not found clocking time cards at the Dairy Queen. Some people are willing to live with strict rules--like the no deserting your post during battle rule--within the larger context of a mini society built on a structure much more cohesive and supportive than civilian society. The flip side to "no deserting" is "I have you back" and "leave no man behind." It's also one reason why people become firefighters. The pay sucks, but the nature of the task and the spirit of mutual support that goes with it cannot be found in most jobs.

They are able to engage in practices no private endeavor could sustain because they are propped up by the government.

Did the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington show up because they were "propped up by the government"? Maybe there are attractions to the thing you just aren't grasping.

Manasquan, from what I have read, most of those who suffer from PTSD are usually okay for a while, then the symptoms appear--agitation, anger, nightmares, etc.

My grandfather had recurring nightmares of his time in Korea well into old age.

The military hasn't given the death sentence to anyone for desertion since WWII.

PVT Eddie Slovik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

There are reasons that the military has standards and practices that are unacceptable in civilian life. But it looks like you do not understand what it is we do and why we live by those rules.

Because we believe in something greater than ourselves. Because we would never betray the trust of our brothers and sisters who share the risks with us. Because we swore an oath and to many of us, it is a sacred thing. We gave our word and that is our bond. To not live up to that, at pain of death or dismemberment, is to fail ourselves and our beliefs.

We have our rules and rituals for damn good reasons. Just signing a contract doesn't make you one of us. You have to go through the process of earning the right to wear the uniform. To willingly put yourself into the forge and burn away the dross. To ensure that you are good enough to become a member of the US military.

It sure as hell ain't McDonalds or Home Depot or a Fortune 500 company. And for good reason.

#27: Do you think the US government—from Bush to Obama—is filled with rabbid pro-Karzai fans? Do they like his fun hats? Can you perhaps see that there is some other goal here? You don't need to agree with that goal, but labelling US action in Afghanistan as "primarily to prop up the Karzai government" is to malign without even deigning to understand.

You're the one who said that a legitimate libertarian role for the state is defense. Whatever characterizations of this war that may be debatable, it ain't no libertarian war of "defense."

Well, like it or not, some people think the military gives their lives something not found clocking time cards at the Dairy Queen. Some people are willing to live with strict rules--like the no deserting your post during battle rule--within the larger context of a mini society built on a structure much more cohesive and supportive than civilian society.

If that's what some people want, there doesn't need to be a government military in order to provide it. They can just go into the woods with some survivalist group and hunt deer. You don't need to blow up brown people to live a life of strict rules or whatever.

Did the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington show up because they were "propped up by the government"? Maybe there are attractions to the thing you just aren't grasping.

You're comparing a genuine defensive effort with a military adventure half a world away. If I'm unable to appreciate the value of spending tax money on military adventures, the military "buffs" can go cry me a river.

#29: Because we believe in something greater than ourselves. Because we would never betray the trust of our brothers and sisters who share the risks with us. Because we swore an oath and to many of us, it is a sacred thing. We gave our word and that is our bond. To not live up to that, at pain of death or dismemberment, is to fail ourselves and our beliefs.

That's all fine and noble sounding. So why don't you start up a private church or something to enshrine those beliefs instead of funding your lifestyle through the public dime. Otherwise it almost sounds like a bleeding-heart lefty pitch for some kind of government jobs program.

Whatever characterizations of this war that may be debatable, it ain't no libertarian war of "defense."

I think that can be argued. Defense isn't mere prevention. It's also attacking someone after you were attacked, in order to prevent further attacks and to punish the attacker. After a brutal attack, we responded against two linked entities—Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Al Qaeda is still around, its leader probably in Afghanistan or just east of it. We haven't caught him. The Taliban lost power in the cities, but still control much of the countryside. If we leave we have every reason to believe Afghanistan will descend into the sort of chaos that allowed Al Quaeda to flourish, and might well result in the Taliban once again running the apparatus of state, posting a direct threat to us, and the indirect threat of showing everyone in the world that, if they attack us, we won't stop until they are dest... oh, never mind. War is boring. Let's stop.

No, it may be that the strategy here is all wrong. Maybe we should get out for some prudential reason. But Afghanistan is a pretty clear cut case of defense and of attacking those who attack us.

You don't need to blow up brown people to live a life of strict rules or whatever.

A new line of argument.

Otherwise it almost sounds like a bleeding-heart lefty pitch for some kind of government jobs program.

You should call him out for killing brown people too. It's a winner.

American supported Afghan police officers beat, murder, and rape the very people they are ordered to protect, therefore pushing the people into the arms of the Taliban. Our drones zip through the Afghan skies, raining hell down upon, not just the bad guys, but women and children and elderly, giving their relatives more reason to support those who resist the killers.

Yes, well, apparently we have all the moral authority in the world to be in Afghanistan that any invader could ask for. The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda, an organization which is responsible for the destruction of approximately 3,000 lives on American soil, and refused to hand over those responsible. So we mobilized. Bombing, killing, destroying all who got in our way. We made sure our enemies did not feel safe wherever they were. Our drones could dispatch them at any moment. The Taliban, too, should no longer exist since it represents a looming danger if it should one day retake the reigns of power in Afghanistan.

So we must fight. Over and over and over again. For eight long years, we are no closer in destroying al-Qaeda or the Taliban than we were in 2001. If anything, they have demonstrated their ability to adapt and resist us at every turn. But they are a danger, so we must continue to fight, killing scores of innocents in the process.

Our Afghan Problem will be solved any day now, by smart people in Washington DC, with big brains and big egos. They will provide us with the means, the ideas, and the will to transform a restive, primitive society into a lush, peaceful, non-confrontational liberal-democracy. They will accomplish what Alexander the Great and the British and the Soviets could not--taming of the wild Afghan.

Into the meat grinder, go!

Brown people killer? Nah.....it just doesn't flow as easily off the tongue as baby killer. But the Vietnam vets already have that one.

Now Jihadi Killer, hmmmmm. That might work. Although we do take a perverse pleasure in calling ourselves Infidels.

Start a church? Nope quite happy with the Methodist Church thank you.

Tim, you already called it. It is a brotherhood similar to firefighters.

Not going to waste any more words about this. I don't have to justify what we do to anyone. If you can't understand the nature of the threat we face, you never will. The civilised world faces barbarians who glorify a culture of death and ignorance, and who will never leave us in peace no matter what we do. Even this site would be forbidden and shut down.

Retreating inside our own borders will not make them stop. Not until we are Dhimmis living under Sharia, and even that won't be enough.

#33 OldSarge,

"The civilised world faces barbarians who glorify a culture of death and ignorance,"

...

We face THAT threat from within. Just consider the neocons and the teabagger/townhall protests. Know-nothings working for the military-industrial complex and more know-nothings working for the health industry. Not to mention just plain stupid people. We have much more to fear from within than from without.

The difference is I don't have to hunt down neo-cons. They quite easily shoot themselves in the foot when they open their mouths.

As for tea party/town hall protestors, it is a ritual as old as our country and an exercising of their first amendment rights. I may not agree with their stance on an issue, but I will defend that right to the end.

The book I'm currently reading illustrates that point perfectly. How Abolitionists were the minority opinion during the 19th century and all of the attempts to silence them.

BOUND FOR CANAAN: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America.

Our country has survived many divisive issues during it's existence and will continue to do so.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that we withdraw from Afghanistan ... and from everywhere else.

We "bring the troops home".

Then: should we stand the military down? Go back to a pre-WWII level of defense?

And should we withdraw from our military alliances?

I can see the rationale of the non-interventionist people. I disagree with it, but they have a case.

But how can anyone think that, in the world as it is, we don't need a strong military?

After the Soviet Union collapsed, I briefly entertained, and without chemical assistance, a vision of an increasingly-liberal-democratic world. The Russians and Americans would lead the way in nuclear, and then conventional, disarmament. The Third World would become increasingly democratic and prosperous. The various festering national questions which pitted one tribe against another would be solved by compromise. The broad sunlit uplands seemed near.

Wrong!

The world looks increasingly like late 19th Century Europe. No time to beat those swords into ploughshares.

I think those uplands are there, by the way, and "in the long run" our descendants will get there (but remember what Mr Keynes said about the long run).

A strong and robust military with gee-whiz offensive weapons necessitates foreign policy adventurism. To paraphrase Madeleine Albright--why have such a large military if you're not going to use it?

She's some kind of war criminal, or so I hear.

But at least she loves America, right?

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever not spending more than say, Great Britain on our military. It is a defensive instrument and thus needs to protect us. At present it is an instrument of policy, both public and private, and an arm of whichever special interests can catch the attention of the "Defense Establishment". Do we need two or three carrier task forces to protect access to Arabian oil? It's my understanding a large percent of the oil we consume in this country comes from the US and Canada. Why should we spend billions on ensuring the availability of oil to Europe or India or China? If they want to keep the Straights of Hormuz open, let them do it. I for one am tired of feeling that our place in the world is as military and economic sucker for everyone else.

If our defense budget was shrunk to a size that is comparative to the UK, it would be disastrous. The Dutch navy is now larger than the Royal Navy and the Royal Army cannot even field the equivalent of a single US Army division without using reserve elements.

All of their service support is provided by the US in the CENTCOM theater of operations because they don't have the capabilty to do it on their own.

Forget what you see in the news, the world is a far uglier place out there than you know. Unfortunately we need the military we have, and even that is relying heavily on reserve components to maintain operations.

Anyone remember the "Peace Dividend" after the end of the Cold War and Desert Shield/Storm? The US Army was cut in half because it was the "End of History" and all that crap. Now we're seeing multiple deployments of our Reserves and Army/Air National Guard on top of much more domestic use of those same National Guard forces.

Cutting back budgets, shrinking the size and withdrawing forces are wishful thinking in the world we live in.

There is even evidence of former IRA working with suspected Jihadis in South America. It's a rather interconnected world out there on the bad guy side too.

Okay, then our defense budget should be comensurate with Holland's.

I would have no problem with the rest of the world paying us, say, $1,000,000,000,000 per year tribute for our protection.

I think this is the question that "non-interventionists" -- assuming they are not pacifists -- have to answer. Assuming we do "bring the troops home," should we then stand them down?

Europe, and Japan, have been able to have a greatly reduced military since WWII, because they were protected by the Americans.

If we shrank our armed forces to the level of a ceremonial guard, we might see the Europeans start re-arming..Or maybe they're too far gone to do that. In any case, I don't see how any sane person can deny the necessity for there to be, somewhere, at least one liberal democracy with a world-class military.

Okay, then our defense budget should be comensurate with Holland's.

Fun with numbers.

The Netherlands spends 9.9 billion dollars on their military.
The Netherlands is 16,033 square miles.

The US is 3,794,066 square miles.

Ergo, the US should spend 2.3 trillion dollars on its military, but we only spend 711 billion. Holland is outspending us 3/1.

The message is: Holland—a menace to world peace.

I don't understand your logic there, Tim. Were America to be attacked from without there would be no shortage of people to serve. That argument is the same that said George W. Bush won the election because he won more counties than Gore. If the two have anything at all in common it must be tangential.

Once again, I am not opposed to those nations who enjoy our protection, paying US tribute. Europe, Russia, India, China, get by with local armies serving the perceived interests of their countries while enjoying the results of our military presence around the world. Let them pay for that protection.

Of course the military-industrial complex is a fraud-free enterprise, right?

>44 timspalding:

Oh, good grief—it was a joke!

Now you know how Joan of Arc felt.