We currently have what’s called an all-volunteer military. For a soldier to say “you people sent me to do blah blah…” I have to call BS. You sent yourself.
I have to wonder about anyone capable of sitting down and reading a day’s worth of news about Afghanistan, and then thinking “this war is a good idea. I should go join the infantry and be part of that.” Or, alternately: “this war is a bad idea. I should go join the infantry and be part of that.”
What it really looks like to me, in most cases, is:
“My economic prospects aren’t so good. Getting exposed to enemy fire for education assistance and job training seems like an okay risk.” (time passes)
“Hey! I selflessly gave up a leg and a kidney…” (my sympathy is gained here)…
" to help you people! A little respect, please?" (…and there goes the sympathy.)
And as mixed and complex my feelings are concerning ground troops… do not get me started on Navy and Air Force guys who help themselves to commercially lucrative job training on the taxpayer’s dime, spend most of their service in safe, air-conditioned work areas, and crow about their wartime service and sacrifice.
I served in the Air Force. Here is what the author meant:
War is occasionally necessary. It should always however be the last resort; killing the enemy is not a “good” thing. The people on the other side of the conflict feel just like you do about your side, and killing them shows that we have come to the last and worst solution to our problems. You may have to take a life to secure your peace, but you do not glorify it or revel in it. War is not a comic book with clearly defined heroes and villains.
Oh yeah. Afghanistan has never been dominated by outsiders like the Persians, the Mauryans, the Scythians, the Kushans, the Arabs, the Mongols, the Mughals, the Sikhs. It’s never had its religion and language changed by it’s overlords, no the same beliefs have existed since time immemorial, it’s never gone from animist, to Zorestrian, to Buddhist, to Greek pantheon, to Buddhist, to Muslim. It’s never lost most of its territory and it certainly is not a rump state. And, hell its always been called Afghanistan, the name certainly was not changed from Khorsan 259 years ago by a great Pashtun King.
No it doesn’t. Costa Rica has a military. What it technically doesn’t have is an army; the army was disbanded after the 1948 Costa Rican Civil War. What it does have is a Civil Guard that is armed as and performs the duties of an army.
It’s even seen action; it beat off an attempted invasion from Nicaragua in 1955.
Here’s the thing that pisses me off the most about the military. Right this minute, anyway. Let’s take General John Abizaid as a good example. general Abizaid is a former head of CENTCOM and was the top US General in Iraq for several years of the occupation. While he was there he toed the Bush administration about us being there for WMD and then switched to it being all about bringing the Iraqis democracy. He left the military and now has several very lucrative directorships/lobbying contracts with defence contractors.
Here he is at a university event talking about why we really went into Iraq :
“Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that. From the standpoint of a solider who’s now fought in the middle east for six years – my son-in-law’s fought there for four years, my daughter’s been over there, my son has served the nation – my family has been fighting for a long time.”
You can watch him say this here ;
Just watch for a few minutes. There’s absolutely zero recognition of the fact we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so that we could have more control over Middle Eastern oil. He just accepts it as something we do. He’d prefer it on the whole if we didn’t do it but the fact that we do do it only bothers him in terms of the human cost to America and particularly to his own family.
So why should I have any support for mass murdering criminal sociopaths like this?
From your own link, my emphases:
“Civil Guard (Spanish: Guardia Civil) of Costa Rica **was **a gendarmerie type force responsible for both limited national defense and internal security missions.”
“In 1996, the Ministry of Public Security was established controlling the Fuerza Pública or Public Force which was subsequently reorganized and eliminated the Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards as separate entities;”
And if you like using wiki as a cite, check here under the table labelled
“Countries with absolutely no military forces”:
“The constitution has forbidden a standing military since 1949. It does have a public security force, whose role includes law enforcement and internal security.”
What Costa Rica has is a civil security force that performs the duties of police, coast guard and border guards, but I wouldn’t call their fleet of unarmed Cessnas and Pipers an Air Force nor do they have a Navy I can find online. So - no Army, no Air Force and no Navy … and no Civil Guard. I’d say that means “no military” is reasonably accurate.
I think you’re missing the meaning of the full sentence by placing emphasis on the wrong place. I’ve bolded the bit that it seems you’ve overlooked; they were eliminated as separate entities, not eliminated, i.e. they were merged together.
And a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The Civil Guard is organized as an army, armed as an army and performs the tasks of an army. It has fought as an army, the 1955 invasion from Nicaragua. That the constitution forbids it so it goes by another name does not change what it is. Guarding the border is a military function, not a police function. The Japanese constitution closely parallels this situation; since the constitution there reads
Japan’s military is by law an extension of the police and termed as self defense forces. Again, giving it another name doesn’t change what it actually is, a military.
All the info I can find indicates that all the old military equipment they possess is obsolete. To my mind, a force armed with M1s and Tommy guns, without artillery, armour, AA- or anti-tank capabilities etc is not an army. A gendarmerie at best, and if you have gendarmes without a primary military, all you have is a slightly more armed police force (but nothing compared to a major US police force, even.)
Which was way, way before the reorganization.
I completelydisagree. It’s variously treated as one *or *the other, worldwide. Ditto for Coast Guard - in America, it’s subsumed in the DoD but even there CG officers have law enforcement authority.
Japan’s Defence Force is actually armed like a military (tanks, artillery, APCs, AA- and AT-weaponry, modern assault rifles) - Costa Rica’s , not so much.
And more importantly, the Costa Ricans seem to think they don’t have a military - a fact they celebrate every 1 Dec.
Actually, the United States Coast Guard is not part of our Department of Defense. It’s now part of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to that, it was part of the Department of Transportation. It’s only under the DOD when it’s operating as part of the Navy as follows:
Fun facts:
[ol][li]The Services composing the US Department of Defense are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.[/li][li]The Services composing the Armed Forces of the US are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.[/li][*]The Services composing the Uniformed Services in the US are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps.[/ol]
Actually, the United States Coast Guard is not part of our Department of Defense. It’s now part of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to that, it was part of the Department of Transportation. It’s only under the DOD when it’s operating as part of the Navy as follows:
Fun facts:
[ol][li]The Services composing the US Department of Defense are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.[/li][li]The Services composing the Armed Forces of the US are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.[/li][li]The Services composing the Uniformed Services in the US are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
That no military man is capable of speaking correct English longer than two sentences. This is mainly because they think soldiers are paid to fight, not talk. Obviously they’ve never had a fuming mad officer stare them down and shout to their faces “Speak up!”
The Costa Rican Guardia Civil was inspired by the Spanish police force of the same name. The name means Civilian Guard, literally - specifically to differentiate them from the Army whose responsibilities in borders and roads they took over.
The Spanish Guardia Civil* was created after the Napoleonic wars, when banditry had reached previously unheard-of levels. It had, and still keeps, a strong focus on rural areas and borders (the Nacionales were created at about the same time and are more urban-oriented). In Spanish, most police bodies have command structures with names copied from the military - but then, don’t English-language bodies have names such as “lieutenant” and “captain” as well? The Guardia Civil doesn’t have only those limited military-inherited elements, but a full military-like structure and corps-provided housing (casas-cuartel; HQs including both offices and housing), but from the PoV of the military they’re still as civilian as any other cop (so less than a full civilian, but still, in a military operation they’d be asked to direct traffic out of the area). Being a sergeant in the GC wouldn’t have made my great-grandfather an instant sergeant in the Army, even though the GC’s command structure is copied from the Army’s. The regulations of both bodies are different (including requirements for each grade).
Do they have guns? Yes. Do they have generals? Yes. Do they have tanks, planes, APCs? Bit short there… Do they have operations abroad? Yes: rescue missions, Interpol work, cross-training with police bodies from other countries.
The page has an English version, but evidently there is no budget to translate the “history” part.
Nava: what you’re talking about is usually called a gendarmerie, after the French version. Other gendarmeries include the Italian Carabinieri, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Israel Border Police.
By M.P. you mean Military Police? That’s another country-specific thing - in many places, the sole job of MPs is to police the military itself, and they have no authority over civilians.
