I have the greatest respect for the men and women in the U.S. armed forces. I am not questioning their actions or sacrifices.
But there is a glurgy theme that keeps coming up that they have sacrificed to preserve our freedoms. As an example, I just saw a meme posted on Facebook that shows a black and white photo of the invasion of a beach superimposed on some recreational beach (could be Jersey, I don’t know) with the caption “Your day at the beach brought to you by their day at the beach.”
But have our freedoms as U.S. citizens ever been seriously at risk, saved only by our armed forces repelling the attacks of those who would take over America? Certainly the fact that we have a strong military has acted as a deterrent to those who might seek to attack the U.S. Certainly our military has taken action to preserve U.S. interests around the globe. But have we ever been a conflict that could have resulted in losing our country and our freedoms?
The U.S. military has made sacrifices that benefit oppressed peoples and defend our economic and political interests (e.g., Vietnam, two wars with Iraq). But mainland U.S. has been invaded only on two occasions: Once in the War of 1812, and conflict in the Border War with Mexico in in the 1910s. Only the British invasion in the War of 1812 could be thought of as a serious attempt to occupy and take control of the U.S.
In addition there have been attacks, which have been primarily for purposes of military strategy rather than to take over the U.S. Germany might have been a direct threat to the U.S. mainland during WWII but it never materialized. However, they did conduct U-boat attacks on U.S. merchant ships. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to prevent U.S. interference with its plans in Southeast Asia, not as an invasion. They also carried out isolated, limited attacks on mainland sites.
The attack of 9/11 was a horror but a single terrorist attack with no underlying strategy, which was not a military attack that we could have defended with military force.
There are plenty of countries where citizens enjoy freedoms like ours, but without the military power we have. Do we really owe our freedoms to our military?
Worse, the idea lets the rest of us off the hook, when in fact the civilian population has a real role to play in resisting corruption, bolstering institutions, and maintaining freedom as a cultural value.
I find the adulation of the military creepy, and that’s not in any way dismissive of the impressive skills and professionalism of many (most?) members of the military, or the occasional true heroism performed as a part of their job. But I don’t see how they are categorically different from other first responders (in terms of risk to life and limb) or teachers and civil servants (in terms of service to the country), and parts of their job (willingness to kill people when ordered by superiors to do so) disturb me greatly.
No. Our freedoms are not under threat from any foreign force. The military protects the interest of the government. They also create enemies in foreign lands that may one day somehow pull off some type of attack on the country’s citizens. In this way, they are more dangerous to us than any foreign military could be.
The military is a group of individuals out for their own benefit. They literally do not care to what extent they must go in order to make a living. Some benefit more than others and turn their experience into a lifelong career doing some soulless task for the government.
A great many of them leave the military and only know how to knock heads together, so they become a copper and do things like throw flash bang grenades into baby cribs.
Militaries have always been a drain on productive societies. No amount of American jingoism could make me believe the US military is the first to not be a burden.
In my opinion, not since the Civil War. Did anyone think that Germany was going to conquer the US in WW I or WW ii? I don’t think they ever had a chance or even the desire to do that. Iraq/Afghanistan didn’t do anything that some well placed missile strikes or bombings couldn’t have done for a fraction of the cost. Vietnam sure wasn’t about preserving our freedom since our client state lost the damn war. Korea? No way. Even had the North and China conquered the South, what would be the practical difference to Americans today?
This isn’t to say that the military as a career choice is dishonorable, if that’s what you want to do with your life nd are willing to take the risks involved, be my guest. Just don’t expect me to thank you for something you didn’t do for me.
Well, your military is driving a large part of your economy. I suppose you could instead spend on things that are useful, like roads and schools and dams and whatnot, if you can risk a major economic disruption, but given your recent experiences just with coal miners, I’m not holding my breath.
I think you could make a case that the Civil War helped with freedom for all Americans. It seems to me that had the South prevailed, the divided nation would be more susceptible to foreign invasion than the post-1865 united US. Perhaps Victoria would see this divided nation as ripe for adding at least part of it back to her empire.
I agree that “our freedoms” are buttressed by a number of factors such as our legal system, financial institutions, culture of open-ness, and yes, the military plays a small part in that overall ecosystem. Along with our geographic isolation from potential enemies, our overwhelming military force has prevented any designs on take-over.
There is also the part the military plays in our economy, which is not so small. If you are part of that economy, then of course you are going to think the armed forces preserve your freedoms, and like any good marketing campaign, there will be slogans that people outside the ecosystem just accept at face value (e.g. “Preserving our Freedoms” jingoism).
I am appreciative of members of the armed forces doing their job to keep the country secure and protecting our interests, but I am not so sure our “freedoms” are under an immanent threat. IMHO my freedoms and that of my family are more under threat right now from domestic sources such as the evangelicals, science deniers, and strongman fanboys than from some foreign foe - the US armed forces cannot do anything about those threats.
I think an argument could be made that WWII could have ended with our freedoms impaired if Germany and Japan were able to conquer Europe and SE Asia if for no other reason then they would have probably continued to expand to North and South America eventually. Since then there is really nothing
He didn’t say “a great many throw grenades into cribs,” he said “a great many have military backgrounds.” Certainly, the militarization of the police is a problem that has led, among other things, to a police officer throwing a flash bang that landed in the crib of a newborn in 2014, although whether the officer responsible was actually a veteran is unclear.
The military preserves our freedom in the sense that if they didn’t exist, any other nation could do whatever they wanted to us. I think it was Mao who said that “power comes from the barrel of a gun”, and he wasn’t wrong. Europe, which is currently idealized as the paragon of civility and order, was a smoking heap of rubbish in living memory. So was that perpetually-praised technological powerhouse known as Japan. It was all engulfed in a gigantic orgy of death and destruction just because of a few persuasive individuals and their shitty ideas, and there are people still walking (or rolling) around today who personally operated all the death machinery.
We are by no means “past” this. It could happen again at any time.
We need our huge military to ensure that this country can survive. I do believe they defend our freedom. With the caveat that the conflicts that the US is currently engaged in, are not useful and do not protect our freedom. But the existence of our military, the simple fact that it’s there, does.
Through the Cold War and the oncoming neo-Cold War, the idea has been more along the lines of “a good offense is the best defense”. Policing the world helps the US to stay free.
I’ll also note that, whether strictly true or not, having this be the advertising for the US military is a “good thing”, in much the same way that “the melting pot” message that is widely promoted is good for society in general, as it creates a general culture that people see themselves inhabiting.
Indirectly, yes. If we had no military at all, no defense, in all likelihood we’d have been invaded and become ruled over by some foreign government. We’re too juicy a target to leave undefended.
Your first statement needs a little extra support. Are you suggesting that we would be unable to repel an invasion without a standing army? You may be right, but I would love to know precisely what you’re trying to say.
I mean, when we talk about the “US armed forces,” we’re talking about a standing army, yes? Or would we include homeland defense–militias, National Guard?
'Cos I feel like anyone attempting an according-to-Hoyle invasion of CONUS would have a hell of a hard time even without a standing army–one which is oriented more toward external force application than border defense anyway.
.