Article

2014-06-06 Government

BLUF (Bottom line up front):
Like government, it [the military] must be kept small. Conservatives can't coherently preach against the evils of big government, while exempting the military mammoth."

Better still, if the military is government -- and it is -- fanatical militarism is a facet of statism. And if the military is government -- and it is -- then the missions on which the government sends the military must be questioned. An equally distinctive characteristic of the current military statism is to extend the worship of The Man in Uniform to His Mission. We worship the men and women in uniform and their mission without question.
The 'men and mission worship' is in my view, an inaccurate lumping by Mercer.
Conservatives question government programs. War is a government program. If they hope to retain a modicum of philosophical integrity, conservatives will have to include a critique of the state's warfare machine in their case against its welfare apparatus.
Powerful Liberals have already conducted the 'critique.' Welfare has clearly triumphed.
There's plenty for conservatives to criticize about the military, and we do so frequently. We also recognize, unlike liberals, that we need a military and that said military needs to be strong. We could have avoided a couple wars in our history had our military been seen to be prepared.
The blanket chant -- "thank you for your service; thank you for fighting for our freedoms" -- is the hallmark of a propagandized people in the grip of fanatical militarism. Even the most irrational person has to recognize how tentative are the ties between "helping" toothless Pashtuns to be more like Americans and protecting Americans like granny.
The'granny' Mercer speaks of is the hapless Obamacare recipient. Her perspective is no doubt clouded by Lord Kitchener's grand invasion army and it's disastrous results. A case could certainly be made for comparing British colonial expansionism to modern day 'nation building.' Not certain Mercer has achieved that connection in this writing.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-06-06 03:08|| || Front Page|| [11139 views ] Top

#1 If one reads the Federalist Papers, one of the main arguments for having a central government of some authority was the existence of national defense. Mercer, obviously never read the intellectual arguments for the existence of the country. If you chuck national defense, then there is no reason to have central government beyond what was the old Common Market arrangement of Europe.

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-06-06 08:26|| 2014-06-06 08:26|| Front Page Top

#2 I understand and am sympathetic to Mercer's bias, but it is still a bias.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-06-06 08:42|| 2014-06-06 08:42|| Front Page Top

#3 We could have avoided a couple wars in our history had our military been seen to be prepared.
Maybe. War of 1812 and Korea? Strong enough in Vietnam but maybe not prepared?

Posted by Shipman 2014-06-06 10:14|| 2014-06-06 10:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Korea, yes, but we deliberately provoked the War of 1812 for internal reasons, and a substantial standing army would only have encouraged the British to pre-position regiments in anticipation of the attack. Note that the war was driven by and popular among westerners and southerners with no economic or territorial interest in the border disputes and impressment controversies which were the nominal causa belli. They were just in an expansive and pugnacious mood and wanted to seize Canada, drive out the British traders on the southern frontier, and resolve the Indian wars on both frontiers.

Perhaps the initial disasters on the Canadian fronts would have been less comprehensive if the armies had been composed of regulars instead of an undisciplined rabble of volunteers, but they would have been facing a more-professional enemy as well.

Posted by Mitch H. 2014-06-06 10:57|| 2014-06-06 10:57|| Front Page Top

#5 we deliberately provoked the War of 1812 for internal reasons...

If those internal reasons were settlement of the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan). The Brits were exploiting the native Americans to act as a buffer to stop it. Actually, not much different that us supply the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. Proxies, pawns in the game.

Read up on the Battle of Fallen Timbers, particular the part of chasing the natives to the gates of a British fort on American territory. They thought the people who provided them gun and shot would shelter them after doing their business along the frontier for so long.

As late as Harrison campaign in 1811, the frontier press tagged the Brits with their interference in American 'internal' affairs with terms like the Anglo-Savage War. "The war on the Wabash is purely British" said the Lexington Reporter, "the scalping knife and tomahawk of British savages, is now, again devastating our frontiers". - Lexington Reporter, Nov. 23, 1811 and March 12, 1812. The grievances had been long in coming, partly because way in distant Washington (by contemporary time of travel) both money and priorities were low, something to be put off till you had no choice but to act, something left to fester.

Is it much different than the view that the problem with Afghanistan today really is the issue of Pakistan being the base of operation, support and sympathy for the other belligerent.

--

BTW, the 'regulars' in 1812 were just as much rabble as the militia. It wouldn't be till Winfield Scott started to implement some sort of training program on the Niagara frontier that some semblance of a force more in line with standing European armies would appear in the American ranks. Most of those would be expended at Lundy's Lane.

It would always be an issue/problem for the army, used extensively as a frontier constabulary, never prepared to fight a conventional war.

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-06-06 11:38|| 2014-06-06 11:38|| Front Page Top

#6 The Sole purpose of that Executive Branch is the security of This Nation. A strong Military is a no brainer is this pursuit.

Go home mercer, you're drunk

Posted by newc 2014-06-06 13:53|| 2014-06-06 13:53|| Front Page Top

#7 Haven't seen this much 1812 Love in a long damn time.

Gotta dig it.
/Hails Winfield Scott

Posted by Shipman 2014-06-06 14:58|| 2014-06-06 14:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Are all liberal "intellectuals" such light weights? Geez, why can't we have libs that can quote Kant or Nietzsche or Proust or Plato? Must they all blather about how terrible and immoral our military is?

By my measure, had we been better prepared in 1941, we, perhaps could have given the Imperial War Staff in Tokyo and the Reichskanzlerei come pause before pulling the trigger on WWII.

I also believe a little more heavy handed diplomacy by Truman might have stalled Korea and a little more heavy handed behavior by Clinton might have prevented 9/11.

Our problems with China and throughout the Middle East are because no one FEARS us anymore.

Obama is not complex and nuisance in his thinking, he is indecisive and a typical peace at any cost liberal who does not think any liberty or freedom is worth fighting for.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2014-06-06 18:13|| 2014-06-06 18:13|| Front Page Top

#9 ...well, we know by their actions, they certainly have no use for the Constitution. What's there to defend other than absolute power at home?

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-06-06 18:23|| 2014-06-06 18:23|| Front Page Top

07:43 Procopius2k
07:42 BrerRabbit
07:42 Procopius2k
07:39 Procopius2k
07:36 Procopius2k
07:35 Procopius2k
07:34 trailing wife
07:31 Procopius2k
07:30 NN2N1
07:22 NN2N1
07:18 trailing wife
07:14 Richard Aubrey
07:10 NN2N1
07:09 Besoeker
07:03 NN2N1
06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker
05:28 Whiskey Mike
05:23 Whiskey Mike
05:21 Whiskey Mike
05:18 Whiskey Mike
05:15 Whiskey Mike
05:13 Whiskey Mike
05:08 Whiskey Mike