"It’s also the question at the heart of every democracy: how to restrain the people with guns."
Good question. Partly in addition to what you have already said above, I would also like to add that in America, there are also *other men* with guns. That is why the 2nd amendment is import. If the civilian population has firearms too, the military might second guess bullying them because they would cause a fight.
The 2nd amendment isn't just about the individual right to keep and bear arms. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." We used to have militias in the US that were run by the States. I wonder to what degree the decrease of freedom in American society has a lot to due with the decline of the Militia?
FWIW, some Americans have historically been under military occupation and lost civilian control over their government. That would be the defeated South. We were occupied and under military dictatorship for up to 12 years after the War Between the States. May grandparents used to tell me stories about it that they heard from people who lived that.
It's not like Trump is making new generals all on his own and appointing them to senior roles. Anyone O-6 or above (Col on land, Capt on water) must be confirmed by the US Senate.
"anyone other than an outright authoritarian should insist that the civilians have ultimate control of the military at all times"
Very true, which implies something about the Western liberal ruling class. When people tell you they hate you, and especially when they suggest using military force to hurt you, believe them and vote accordingly.
Nietzsche's "God is dead" is a lament: God is dead and we have killed him and how will we ever find meaning again? Nietzsche's answer is to raise power above universal morality. I'd like to think I'm standing on some universal good (Western Civilization, Enlightenment values, Judeo-Christianity...) but I'm likely deluding myself. Once you throw out natural law, it's jungle law all the way down.
I wonder how the absence of a permanent military would have altered how we fought the War on Terror? Were the political decisions driven by the available tools, or the other way around?
Question Max: Do you think we actually could demobilize and return to a citizen-soldier force (ala Israel or Switzerland)? Would it be a good idea? Use those 2 oceans we've got again?
Without a large standing armed force, we would've needed to mobilize. No other way. Ironically, the Reserve Component was used and abused during GWOT, so that tells me, in order to match the level of manpower utilized in real life, conscription would've had to be implemented in some form. It's a reminder of why they went to the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. As for whether the chicken came before the egg, I think some sort of military response was inevitable. I don't know if we would've attempted to go the distance without access to a large standing armed force. I do think they have a point when they say conscription does act as a deterrent against long-term military action. But this is more due to the fact the professional military is smaller, so you have a lot more to lose by sending them to war.
The citizen-soldier model sounds nice, but even in America history, militias have a poor track record. George Washington was being magnanimous when he praised them during the Revolutionary War. In reality, he was exasperated by them. They just aren't as reliable as a professional force. I think militias are more useful in terms of fighting on home soil, we don't have the demographics for reliable militias, and they should be under state control, anyway.
I think we should have a professional military geared towards a more appropriate mission, one which doesn't involve regime change or delivering democracy. It should be capable of projecting and concentrating power in the Western Hemisphere, as well as defending the U.S.-Mexico border. That means it's smaller, but more focused.
LOL - when I saw your headline about "civilian control is praetorianism" I was legit confused. I was like, "No, that's not right. What am I missing? Isn't it the opposite of what happened in Rome? Huh? Who says that? The praetorian guard picked the emperor, not the other way around. Now I'm confused."
Then I read a little further to see that was the point.
Tom Nichols is indeed a sputtering idiot who has no idea what he's talk about except being convinced that Orange Man Bad.
"It’s also the question at the heart of every democracy: how to restrain the people with guns."
Good question. Partly in addition to what you have already said above, I would also like to add that in America, there are also *other men* with guns. That is why the 2nd amendment is import. If the civilian population has firearms too, the military might second guess bullying them because they would cause a fight.
The 2nd amendment isn't just about the individual right to keep and bear arms. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." We used to have militias in the US that were run by the States. I wonder to what degree the decrease of freedom in American society has a lot to due with the decline of the Militia?
FWIW, some Americans have historically been under military occupation and lost civilian control over their government. That would be the defeated South. We were occupied and under military dictatorship for up to 12 years after the War Between the States. May grandparents used to tell me stories about it that they heard from people who lived that.
It's not like Trump is making new generals all on his own and appointing them to senior roles. Anyone O-6 or above (Col on land, Capt on water) must be confirmed by the US Senate.
"anyone other than an outright authoritarian should insist that the civilians have ultimate control of the military at all times"
Very true, which implies something about the Western liberal ruling class. When people tell you they hate you, and especially when they suggest using military force to hurt you, believe them and vote accordingly.
Nietzsche's "God is dead" is a lament: God is dead and we have killed him and how will we ever find meaning again? Nietzsche's answer is to raise power above universal morality. I'd like to think I'm standing on some universal good (Western Civilization, Enlightenment values, Judeo-Christianity...) but I'm likely deluding myself. Once you throw out natural law, it's jungle law all the way down.
I wonder how the absence of a permanent military would have altered how we fought the War on Terror? Were the political decisions driven by the available tools, or the other way around?
Question Max: Do you think we actually could demobilize and return to a citizen-soldier force (ala Israel or Switzerland)? Would it be a good idea? Use those 2 oceans we've got again?
Without a large standing armed force, we would've needed to mobilize. No other way. Ironically, the Reserve Component was used and abused during GWOT, so that tells me, in order to match the level of manpower utilized in real life, conscription would've had to be implemented in some form. It's a reminder of why they went to the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. As for whether the chicken came before the egg, I think some sort of military response was inevitable. I don't know if we would've attempted to go the distance without access to a large standing armed force. I do think they have a point when they say conscription does act as a deterrent against long-term military action. But this is more due to the fact the professional military is smaller, so you have a lot more to lose by sending them to war.
The citizen-soldier model sounds nice, but even in America history, militias have a poor track record. George Washington was being magnanimous when he praised them during the Revolutionary War. In reality, he was exasperated by them. They just aren't as reliable as a professional force. I think militias are more useful in terms of fighting on home soil, we don't have the demographics for reliable militias, and they should be under state control, anyway.
I think we should have a professional military geared towards a more appropriate mission, one which doesn't involve regime change or delivering democracy. It should be capable of projecting and concentrating power in the Western Hemisphere, as well as defending the U.S.-Mexico border. That means it's smaller, but more focused.
LOL - when I saw your headline about "civilian control is praetorianism" I was legit confused. I was like, "No, that's not right. What am I missing? Isn't it the opposite of what happened in Rome? Huh? Who says that? The praetorian guard picked the emperor, not the other way around. Now I'm confused."
Then I read a little further to see that was the point.
Tom Nichols is indeed a sputtering idiot who has no idea what he's talk about except being convinced that Orange Man Bad.