“Boycotting” the military makes no sense.
The military only gets the money that we taxpayers vote to give them. If we want a smaller military we just elect candidates who will cut the military budget to a fraction of it’s present size. We don’t have to boycott it. What exactly is the OP proposing? Cutting the military budget? Or something else?
But not out.
Perhaps if Daddy Bush had not whimped out and gone after Saddam the first time around, we would not be in the quagmire we find ourselves in today.
I’m not sure I agree with that at all. ISTM if the status quo is good (i.e. above the median in whatever metric you choose), stability is a good thing. If the status quo is bad, stability is bad.
I’m very curious about your comments regarding Korea. As you were stationed there, I freely admit you must know more than I, but I wonder about how you’re using the term ‘destabilizing’. I am thinking of it on a larger scale, I think.
Granted that, of course, the North Koreans want us off the pennisula, but I’m going to ignore them for now, because who really knows what an average man on the street North Korean wants. Certain portions of the South want us out, but I wonder if that really means we’re ‘destabilizing’. I can’t help but think North Korean tanks and missiles moving southward would be a lot more destabilizing, at least how I’m thinking of the term. I’m pretty confident the odds of an actual conflict North vs South are significantly reduced by having US troops stationed there, thereby making US tropps a stabilizing force.
Same for Japan. I know the people who live around US bases in Japan are not fond of them, but are obnoxious and sometimes criminal US soldiers worse than crazy NUCLEAR armed North Koreans. (please note: I’m not saying all US soldiers are obnoxious or criminal. Neither am I saying all North Koreans are crazy and NUCLEAR armed. Unfortunately, some are :eek: ).
Sorry, long post just to say, could you please expand a little. 
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but I never asked, and I don’t believe the OP asked, if the status quo (i.e. stability in a region) was good or bad, and I have tried hard to not get into that particular minefield of debate. Good or bad is far too much of an emotional hot button.
The only question I am addressing is whether or not the US military is a force for or against stability.
I am also not saying stability is or should be the end goal of the US, for that would be both foolish and short-sighted, as well as dangerously naive. I am just replying to the OP as directly as I can.
FWIW, I think you are right in your analysis. But that’s not the topic IMO.
Many of the South Koreans wanted us out; we had almost daily protests with “yankee go home” signs outside our base, violence against service members, the whole nine yards.
Some rumours said it was communist agitators who had infiltrated local colleges and started the protests, but it seemed like the youth didn’t want us there, the middle-aged didn’t care, and the ones who remembered the war kept quiet.
not that I knew a whole lot then; I was too busy keeping my head down and doing my job to notice very much of what was going on in the bigger picture
Actually, it’s pretty obvious that the second Gulf War was as resounding of a victory as the first one.
Before some of you start foaming at the mouth, what I mean, is that the actual “war” phase, i.e. the part where we were fighting the organized Iraqi army, roughly March 19-May 1, was just as stunning as the first Gulf War. From what I can gather, when they chose to stand and fight, US forces went through them like they weren’t even there, and advanced at a record pace on Baghdad.
Hell, in almost any war since 1945, US troops have fought magnificently by any standard.
It’s the political goals driving them and the political restrictions that hamstring them that are often suspect.
This would be the reasoning for ‘boycotting’ anything, when you don’t agree with the policies or beliefs that it stands for. Now another poster had mentioned that we can vote in Governments that will just cut the military budget and curb it’s effect in that manner.
But who here realistically believes that the general populace has that kind of control anymore. There is a sitting president who has stated that he will go ahead with his policies regardless of how “popular” they are. Well, that’s getting pretty close to saying, “I’m the president, I’ll do whatever I want”, but not quite there yet.
So, the alternative is to take the power AWAY from the top and return it to the people, first and foremost by reducing the size of the military. This can most effectively be done by stopping recruiting drives and keeping our kids OUT of the military altogether, even though they offer such attractive training and educational practices (whether that’s ethical or not is another Great Debate altogether).
How will we stop recruiting drives if we don’t have any control over the military?
Regards,
Shodan
I certainly do boycott the military. I won’t buy a thing from them.
When the Marine Scout Snipers come to the door selling their Marine Scout Sniper cookies, I politely decline. It’s so hard though, their little uniforms are adorable!
I am not implying that at all. I purposely avoided a direct response to the OP because I disagree with the statement "America’s power as a Nation basically resides in their ability to out-muscle any opponent. "
I think that if the citizens of the US suddenly decided to boycott their military, the effect would go far beyond reducing the number of active soldiers. The existence of such a boycott would undermine confidence in the country’s government, both internally and externally. Economic prosperity would suffer, as would the country’s place as a world power. This would not be in response to the size in number of the country’s military, but rather to the change in size as a result of a boycott.
For the record, I did not mean to suggest that the US military was ineffective in its role of protecting the country and its interests. It is true that we have had a great deal of success in strictly military matters, as evidenced by both Gulf Wars. But the United States is not a “Military Power” in the sense that we do not use our military might to enforce our rule and expand our influence.
If we did, there would never have been a second Gulf War, because we would have finished off Saddam Hussein’s regime the first time around. That this did not happen is evidence of the fact that the US does not rely on its military to *enforce * its position in the world, but rather to *protect * it.
Back to the original quetion, I think that the US military is exectly the right size right now. And so do the majority of the citizens of this country. How do I know this? Because we have an all volunteer armed forces. If we, as a country, wanted a larger military, more people would enlist. If we wanted a smaller one, fewer would enlist. The fact that our military is the size that it is means that we, as a country, think that this is how many troops we need to ensure the continued prosperity that we currently enjoy.
Hi.
And I’d hate to have a president who said he’ d make popularity the driving criteria in his decisions.
You oversimplify. We could have a smaller military wished just by being pickier or offering less benefits, or a larger one by being less selective or offering more. And while I understand “voting with their feet” idea, there are undoubtedly large numbers of people who are not in the military who wish it was larger, as well as at least some who are in who think it is too large.
That’s irrelevant. You could disband the army and get instead a kick ass disaster relief “force”, more efficient in this task than militaries (since it would be their primary job) and for a tiny fraction of the cost of a standing army.
The militaries could also regulate traffic, rescue kittens or help old ladies to cross the streets, it still would be irrelevant to the issue at hand, since these are not the reasons why there’s an army.
I agree with you that the act of changing the size in military would have an effect, in the short term, but the actual reduced size would have a longer term effect.
Whereas you state that there would be a loss in “confidence” for the US, I have to disagree. The US popularity/globally is at an all time low globally. Another poster stated that ‘popularity’ shouldn’t be the goal of the government… true! … but you don’t hit such drastcally low levels with such consistency when you haev good, repected policies. To suggest otherwise would be to say that the majority of the world’s population lacks the ability to understand the issues, which would be presumptious and insulting indeed. I think it’s pretty obvious to most outside of the US that their actions are NOT in the best intention of the globe, but for the US and it’s economic allies. Which brings me to…
This is probably where the argument becomes most heated. I don’t believe for a second that this second gulf war was done out of the ‘compassion of the world’ or the ‘desire to promote democracy and freedom’.
Even before September 11th, it is well documented
that the US had it in for Iraq well before the 9/11 attacks. Afterwards the administration became focused on proving a connection and did whatever it could to drum up support for the Iraq invasion. Just before the war a poll showed that 69% of American’s believed that there was an Iraq-Al Queda connection. Afterwards that ‘fact’ was recanted by the US. Did this stop the US from going with the Iraq war? Why should it… they had already put so much effort into planning the war, it’d be a shame not to see it thorugh. Next it was Weapons of Mass Destruction (and also here) THEN it was the promotion of Freedom and Democracy, which the administration still trumps proudly to this day as if it were the sole reason from day one for the cause of the invasion. How can this process be viewed by ANYONE as a means to enfore ‘rule’ and ‘justice’. How would you feel if you were brought into court and tried on a crime and pronounced ‘not guilty’ only to have another charge tossed at you and then have the trial continue? Now, I have NO love for Saddam Hussein and it was a great day indeed when he was stripped of it’s power. But at what COST? Should the police be commended for capturing drug dealers while killing their innocent neightbours? How can you promote the ‘justice’ of the world while undermining it at the same time? What example are you setting for other countries? That it’s ok to do whatever you want as long as in the end you have some bone to throw everyone as ‘proof of success’. That’s what.
Sooooo… what am saying? Moral intentions of the military? You’ll have to convince me of that one. The problem here is that the soldiers themselves are brave, courageous, good-willing people who are being used and manipulated for alterior motives.
This is why a boycott of the military and joining the military is necessary IMO.
I think a new bumper sticker should be ‘Support our troops, by bringing them home!’ while next to it should be another that reads ‘stop killing with our name’.
Why do you need a military to enjoy prosperity? Doesn’t that, in principle, seem like a backwards connection? Now before you responsd… YES… in todays circumstances it’s necessary. But surely that’s the situation and not the actual truth. You don’t make friend’s by hitting them in the face, you don’t make people happy by hurting another and you don’t promote world peace by killing people. So why does that situation exist today? Because over the decades we have created that scenario ourselves. We have accepted that it is how it needs to be. This acceptance is standing in the way of progress towards REAL peace. We need to say ‘That’s no good enough!’. ‘We don’t want the military to be necessary for peace!’. ‘We want to promote peace by putting our weapons away, not by making more and spreading them around the world!’.
A poster above stated that the current global situation was like a standoff with everyone pointing guns at everyone else. This is a pretty good analogy. Being the first person to put down your gun in this scenario is a terrible idea. You would basically be saying, “you win, kill me”. But to be able to get everyone to put down their guns together would be the feat that would score the greatest victory. It would take a great person to orchestrate that. But that should be the goal. The current governments idea of a ‘goal’ in this scenario is to get the biggest gun so everyone else will be too scared to use theirs. Can you feel how relaxed that would be? Everyone is going to love to live in a world where they are under ‘constant’ threat. No one should have to live like that.
I’d like to apologize for the poor spelling and grammar in my above post, I actually read it over once and STILL missed some of those. I’m never going to be an editor…
Since you are contending that the size of the military correlates to the power the government has over the people, I would like some cites… or at least a half-assed explanation to how you come to that conclusion.
Fair enough, and I’m using this in a very specific context.
Right now the American Government is basically running aroudn the world playing ‘Maroality Police’, but whether or not there is any morality in their intentions is definitely up for question. As an individual, each person is virtually powerless to stop these actions. I mean, you may agree with your Governments ideals and proposals for certain policies, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you condone the killing of innocent lives in the name of your safety. So, to strip away the power to attempt to Govern the policies of OTHER nations… not necessarily it’s own… the people can refuse to participate in that military in any way, shape or form.
Now, as for a country using it’s military to control it’s own people… which example should I cite? Iraq? Post WWII Russia? 30’s Germany? South Africa? It’s all in the willingness of the government to use that force… (and of course I’m NOT suggesting this would happen in America… but it’s not stopping them from doing it to OTHER countriies.)
The same is true for everythign the government does. I can pretty much guarantee you that no matter how benign or supported a government action is there is always a big group of it’s citizens that don’t like it and are virtually powerless to stop it. And that powerlessness does not come from the size of the military. It is usuall law enforcement that stops an individual to become importunately self-appointed dictator.
I’m sorry, if you are not talking about the American military why would you say this?
Not that it’s got anything to do with the DeepMauve’s goal of ‘control’ of the Government via boycotting the military, active duty Army recruiting is down to very low levels.
Subscription required, but it is free
Also:
I don’t think for a minute that this supports the OP’s premise that the public is reigning in the Government by not participating in the military, but it is telling that the public support for the war in Iraq ends at yellow ribbon magnets on their SUV’s and does not go so far as parents telling their kids to join up.
I agree with you GomiBoy… I would be highly surprised if the reason that numbers were down was that people were doing it as a direct shot at the Government’s foreign policies. Much more likely that they aren’t joining up for the same reasons that they would have joined up in the first place, namely ‘how it affects them directly and whether or not they’ll gain from it’. In the past the military has been a cushy job in times of (and I use the term loosely) peace where recruits would get a good education and lots of training on Uncle Sam’s dollar. Now they’re looking at it as more of a way to get themselves killed… so why sign up? This ain’t WWII… not many seem to feel the overwhelming urge to sign up and ‘protect their country’.