Well if you want to know what happens to large, wealthy countries that can’t defend themselves from foreign powers, see China in the 19th century.
So your position is that the existence of a standing army is what has kept the US from colonial takeover?
.
There seems to be a bias that people who “have never served” are somehow less qualified to comment. In some ways that may be true - but in other ways they are more qualified to comment than the people who have. Membership in a group causes a person’s views about that group to be more accurate BUT only in some ways - in other ways, their views are biased and skewed.
Yes, we most definitely owe our freedoms to our armed forces. And so do the citizens of most of the rest of the free world. There’s a reason why those other countries you mention enjoy freedoms such as ours without the military power we have, and the reason for that is that our military might protects them. Most of the world would long ago have been goose-stepping and Seig Heiling each other or calling each other Comrade if not for U.S. military might.
Germany seems to be doing just fine.
The flaw in this argument is that it’s equally true much of the rest of the world would have been goose-stepping and Sieg Heiling if not for Soviet military might. Yet we’d hardly think of the Soviet military a force that did much to preserve anyone’s freedoms.
The US armed forces are pretty good at projecting US power and enhancing US influence. But what ultimately preserves the freedoms of Americans are the US’s own democratic traditions and values. While the army may have a role to play in protecting those from some external threats, history suggests that it’s mostly internal threats that you need to worry about. In that regard, a culture of exaggerated veneration fro the troops and what they can achieve is probably more of a danger signal than a sign of robust democratic health.
Do you really think a Red Dawn scenario would work against an organized, military invasion? (Read Russian, because they would have been by far the most likely to invade a major nation without the ability to resist.) Do you think distance would have stopped them, with the only other dominant fleet, the strongest army barring the US, the only other major stockpile of nuclear weapons, and a mindset of exporting revolution? (Cf. every troubled South and Central American country.)
Not non sequitur at all. How the hell does someone who’s never served in the military think they know anything about it? Thirdhand observations of those with near-total lack of knowledge. And always made by people who didn’t actually serve and get that firsthand knowledge. Yet they comment nonetheless.
Backed by whom? Who has military bases in the country?
A military, sure, I guess, very few countries get by without, mostly islands. Your current bloated military? Naah, “need” is the wrong word to use there.
Are you saying Germany doesn’t have a military?
In WWII , there were enemy submarines hunting and shooting freely along our coasts and along our shipping routes to the rest of the world.
Today, not so much.
It’s true that the US is pretty much immune from land invasions by enemy infantry.
But the countries which the US values as allies— not so much.
American freedoms are stronger* when other nations enjoy the same freedoms we do.
We could withdraw our army from South Korea and let Kim take it all.
We could have withdrawn our army from West Germany, and let Stalin have it all.
But we prefer to have a Samsung Galaxy 8 in our pockets and a Volkswagen in our garage
And , just as importantly–we prefer to know that a huge chunk of the human race is as free as we are.
So, yeah…it’s an over-simplification to say that our soldiers preserve our freedoms.
But that’s better than what might happen to the rest of the world (and therefor to us, too)— if they didn’t.
*and the US economy is much stronger
Exactly. That’s why in addition to goose-stepping and Seig Heiling I also mentioned a scenario where everyone is being addressed as Comrade. Post WWII the greatest threat by far to most of the countries who are free today has been from Soviet military might and expansionist policies, and it’s been the military might of the U.S. that has held these threats at bay and kept the rest of the free world free. We don’t get much in the way of appreciation or respect from many of these countries but I can guarantee you they’d crap their pants in no time were the U.S. to suddenly decide to withdraw all military support and leave them to their fate without us.
That is to laugh.
The biggest agressor, post WW2, has clearly been the US.
I’m all for a standing army and an air force and navy large enough and capable enough to address immediate situations, but does the military have to be so goddamn huge?
If you’re not fighting a defensive war or aiding in a war that is arguably “necessary” (i.e. WWII) then what is the use of such a large force unless you hope to make war just to serve the USA’s economic interests?
I’d like to see our country keep a standing force just large enough to defend ourselves along with the capability to drastically ramp up military personnel and materiel if it becomes necessary.
It might as well not have, it’s one of the many countries leeching off the handful that actually meet their obligations to NATO (the US, UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia as of last year).
Depends on if you count the immediate post-WW2 Communist coups in eastern Europe, but that had already really starting during WW2.
As they should.
The USA is not a military junta. Most folks consider that a plus. Our military is currently commanded by someone who never served, and it’s always commanded by a civilian. Decisions for using military force is of the political realm, not the military. One doesn’t need to have served to have an opinion about the proper use of the military.
Sure, when it comes to military tactics and knowledge of the military ethos a veteran or current grunt probably has a better understanding of that than a civilian. But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about when and why to direct the jarheads, squids, and grunts to use violent force to “protect our interests”. The military is not, and should not be involved in the ‘why’ of those decisions, only in the ‘how’ it is executed. The US military simply does what it’s told to do by civilians way above their military paygrade.
There’s a happy medium between no military and spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. We need a military, just not just this much.
Yes, especially in the age of nuclear weapons without a standing army we probably would not stand a chance against a determined invader. But, if you’re going to recreate pretty much what we have right now and just call it something else, then it boils down to a semantic argument.
Agreed. That’s a point that is easily lost in this type of debate.
I like this point of view. I have run for office, am a stockbroker and a fair economist. People without similar backgrounds should just shut up and let me run things.
Congrats, I’ve illustrated a fallacy.
On a more serious note:
Yes, to a certain extent, having a military serves to protect the interests of the United States and - hopefully - its citizens.
But it would be a FAR more certain statement to say that the military is ONE of the things that does that. A greater contributor to that protection is two very wide oceans. Having the Atlantic and the Pacific as enormous barriers protects us far better - from an existential point of view - than any military. The Nazis couldn’t manage an amphibious landing of the UK less than 50 miles away. Neither they, nor the Japanese nor the Soviets would be able to do so here.
A better, more constructive question would instead be, are the varied interests of the United States and its citizens well-served by the high pedestal the military is placed upon. The near worship of military service is something that leads to enhanced military budgets instead of infrastructure and education spending. Wiki places the planned 2018 military budget (DoD and VA) at 652 billion dollars.
That’s a powerful lot of schools, bridges and hospitals that aren’t being built because it’s being spent on the military. And, from an economic point of view, schools, bridges and hospitals protect freedoms much better than the military as they grow the economy through increasing worker productivity (education), increase economic output (infrastructure improvements increase the multiplier) and reduce cost (better healthcare systems cut down on lost productivity).
It’s simply true that focusing so much on the military is a SIMPLE solution. It distracts from other issues with false patriotism and consumption instead of hard work and less visible contributions. Good for politicians…but not so good for the country as a whole.