Mmmm. Sweet irony. MGibson gets a Mel Gibson movie as an answer.
Mmmmmm. So sweet.
I don’t see any reference to armored units, at Wiki or their homepage. The Gendarmerie are closer to State Police than a military unit, regardless of historical nomenclature and are in no way interchangeable with a regular army unit. They do not have the same functions. Neither do the Coast Guard and the Navy.
The devil is in the details. No I don’t think they should exist, but if they must, then let them be the absolute minimum necessary to safeguard a nation’s integrity, not the biggest and baddest that money can buy, and definitely not used as a tool for foreign policy. The only outcome I see in that scenario is another arms race leading to a repeat of World War I.
I never thought I would live to see a peaceful resolution of the Cold War*. I am in no hurry to see another one. Equally, I have no taste for the perpetual state of war pursued by the neocons. If not terrorists, then drug smugglers, then pirates, then Og-knows-who. I am absolutely sick of reading news stories about bullshit armies waging bullshit wars over bullshit reasons. Total disarmament will always be on my agenda.
*I have noted your location. And I know that only a cease-fire pact was signed. It is still considered to be in a state of war. That said, I do not argue for unilateral disarmament. I do not argue for a withdrawal of our troops from Korea. I hope a peaceful resolution is found sooner than later, and at least the US is there because of an invitation, and is not an army of occupation. But I see no reason for the presence in Djibouti or Tajikstan or Georgia or whereever we happen to negotiate a deal. That we can is no reason that we should. And I can only imagine the ruckus the US would raise if China started making similar deals.
On the contrary, the UN only keeps the peace, it doesn’t create the peace. UN troops have less authority while taking on greater risk. If they were under a country’s control they would act much differently. To be fair, I don’t think that would entail greater responsibility, but different ones. Being responsible only to your direct chain of command allows much greater flexibility than being responsible to a political quagmire like the Security Council or the General Assembly. Their hands are much more tied than if they were operating as a national force. They will never actively fight, as national force can and at times should.
When the Danish (?) troops engaged in criminal behavior while on a UN Peacekeeping mission the shit hit the fan back in Denmark, not really at the UN. First and foremost, they are still soldiers in their country’s armed forces. They are much more responsible to the folks at home, not the UN community.
The United States military is here for two very important reasons:
(1) The Republic of Korea cannot defend itself from the million man military ready to attack it at a moment’s notice.
(2) North Korea will attack if it decides that it can conquer the South. Rational decisions are not the forte of that regime.
Also, the United States began its presence in Korea as an army of occupation. I find it odd, though, that you complain about the US negotiating a deal for military presence. By the way, you do realize that there are some Chinese troops stationed in North Korea?
Having waded through this, let me see if I can help. The underpinning of the OP is the idea of Pacifism. In this cruel world we live in, Pacifism is simply foolish and immoral.
Foolish is obvious. As a practical matter, it isn’t. That has been pointed out. Let me discuss the other branch of thought; Pacifism is immoral.
Pacifism is expressed almost exclusively by two groups of people. Happy people who see no reason to make war, as they have everything they want and poor people who are on the receiving end of other people’s military.
You do not see it espoused by people who are oppressed and see force as a means of gaining justice. Do you want to tell the Palestinians that the UN has blown the whistle on war and they need to go back to their refugee camps and chill out? How about Tamils in Sri Lanka? Resistance people in Burma?
War, as terrible as it is, is the last appeal for justice. Those who are victims when nothing else works.
So we return to the first point I mentioned. Pacifism is not practical. No group will give up all they have in order to avoid war.
I consider tanks to be important when judging such things.
“During wartime, the Coast Guard falls under the operational orders of the Department of the Navy. In other times, Coast Guard Port Security Units are often sent overseas to guard the security of ports and other assets. The Coast Guard also jointly staffs the U.S. Navy’s Naval Coastal Warfare Groups and Squadrons … In 2002, the Coast Guard provided several 110-foot Patrol boats that were shipped to the Persian Gulf to conduct maritime interception operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Coast_Guard
Chock full of trivia: they used frickin’ Destroyers during Prohibition; commanded some of the boats, just as Navy personnel commanded identical ones, during the landings at Normandy (and Sicily, and North Africa, and Guadalcanal – where a Coast Guardsman won the Congressional Medal of Honor); they currently fly the Hercules C-130 just like the Navy, and likewise are getting heavily into UAVs; I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for, but let me know and I’ll try to find it.
I apologize, I overlooked it. But they appear to be the opposite of what I asked for, “Can you (not you personally E-Sabbath) give a cite where any police force has a pure military role?”
Instead they are a military force that has a police function.
From this site:
I would apply the same standards to the US Coast Guard. They are considered a military force more than a civilian agency such as the Border Patrol. But their primary role is policing, not combat. And even in wartime that is not their main focus.
Coast Guard’s National Security Role
But regardless, the roles are not interchangeable. Each force has extremely different functions, training and requirements.
I disagree obviously. Impractical? It is extremely difficult currently, but I hope not permanently. Immoral? Gandhi, Mandela, MLK Jr, and countless others have argued and demonstrated quite the opposite. I am definitely in their camp.
Pacifism is premised on two conditions - that true peace can only be achieved by peaceful means, and that peace through the strength of law is stronger than by the force of arms. If the law requires arms to enforce it, then it is devoid of strength and merely a shell. I believe most people follow the law out of integrity and respect, not fear.
I believe that pacifism is greater than militarism both as a matter of principle and of policy. Military victories always breed resentment and discontent. Their achievements must be maintained by the force of arms, not by the rule of law. Militarism is also premised on the condition that humanity is in perpetual competition that will inevitably lead to conflict, and that cooperation is regarded as either impractical at best, or impossible at worst, yet cooperation is the general rule among developed societies, and a necessity within the military itself.
Pacifism posits that non-violent confrontation and negotiation will achieve far longer lasting achievements.
Nice tautology. If they consider force an option, they are not pacifists by definition.
And Aung San Suu Kyi is under house arrest for preaching non-violence, not armed revolution.
Getting off topic, but Telemark, I am glad to hear that in respect to the Danish. Not all, but most of the media highlights the UN aspect, and their reputation receives the brunt of the damage. Tell me, in ten years, will the public remember which country the troops came from, or the color of the helmet? Every scandal makes it that much more difficult for the next peace-keeping mission, no matter where the troops come from or what happens to them back home, where their victims have little recourse.
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to respond again until tomorrow, but I do respect (most) everyone’s response even if I emphatically disagree with some of them.
What about defending the interests, security, safety, and liberty of other countries. Must the Army in your plan only be used to protect domestic threats? Are you against the intervention of global atrocities? Must a problem be on your own land and/or involving your fellow citizens for it to be legitamate or worth while?
I certainly agree that most people obey laws out of integrity rather than fear of punishment. Unfortunately there are those who do not wish to obey the law and can only be brought into compliance with either the fear of violence being used against them or actual violence. All laws are backed up with the threat of violence
in that disobeying them can result in having your stuff taken away or being seperated from society for an extended period of time.
Marc
I don’t think anyone disagrees with the concept of world peace; constant war and preparation for war is ridiculously stupid (see medieval feudal Europe vs modern Europe as an example) and I expect national warfare to further decline in frequency and severity as history trudges on.
The question is, how to get there? Being the first nation to melt down all its hardware is quite a risk, and since it takes awhile it’s not as though one can sign a treaty that says, in effect, throw down your guns on the count of three - at some point a nation will perceive an advantage and strike…
Global communication is a bit of a help - it’s harder to demonize the folks in the next country when citizens are talking to them all the time. Back in the old days, ignorance helped a lot in this regard.
Economic codependence helps as well as others have brought up, but as Iraq has shown this can also be the root cause of a war.
In principle, a world-state could lead to world peace as well, but that’s a bit far-fetched, I can’t think of a mechanism to create one that would not also so the seeds of its own destruction; other than voluntary inclusion which is no sure thing.
It’s conceivable that once folks have forgotten WWII enough (“never again”, right?) there will be an Uber-War that will shock folks into being sensible for a while (“WWIII, never again and we mean it!!”) Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
Also possible is a “Court of the World” that resolves disputes between nations. Sort of like the UN, but with more focus and clout. However - “Justice is the advantage of the stronger” is what the historical Thrasymachus said and I agree - might has made right time and again in the past so it’s hard to see how a mechanism of enforcement wouldn’t be war all over again…
I agree with the principle of the OP though, it’s frustrating to observe all the stupidity going on. If war were a disease that killed young men in their prime by the thousands (it does) then we’d scramble for a cure. Yet somehow the status quo is acceptable.