The purpose of the Armed Forces

[NinjaChick]

@cerberus

If I recall the oath that I took, it was something along the lines of defending the nation against all threats, domestic and foreign.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

From here.

[hildea]

@fushj00mang

Unfortunately, how do you practice occupation?

I have some vague memory of a peacekeeping/nationbuilding academy that US once had, and which was dismantled under a president with a “We don’t do nationbuilding” doctrine. (I think is was George W., which would be delightfully ironic, but I may be wrong.) Anyone else remember anything about that?

How do you practice relief?

Like this, I suppose.

I do not care how they do it in other countries. … Just because you have NO OTHER GROUPS which do it, and it is a primary duty of your armed forces in peacetime, doesn’t mean it’s OUR primary duty in peace.

Fair enough. And there are some serious problems with having military personell do humanitarian relief stuff in war zones – it has a tendency to make “people who do relief work” = “soldiers” = “legitimate targets”, and thus makes things more dangerous for Red Cross people and similar. Relief in times/places of peace are less problematic.

[AFAIKnow]

You people do understand that there is a reason why only the NG operates domestically and why the feds do not take a leading role in domestic disaster relief right? Hint: It’s not just some outdated rule so that the beaten Confederates wouldn’t get their feelings hurt.

I do think it’s and excellent idea to have the NG create units that specialize in peacekeeping and relief and such. That way the regulars can go break shit and the Guard can come behind 'em and fix it and yet have an affective disaster relief at home.

[Sevastopol]

@fushj00mang

The DoD’s primary purpose is to defend the USA (and often her Allies, as required by our treaties.) The most effective way to do this is to take war, in all it’s brutality and desolation, to the enemy.

Iraq: Defense or Crime?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Airman Doors

True, but that does not mean that we would be good at it, or even merely adequate. With the myriad of agencies in this country that focus solely on aid, disaster relief, and law enforcement, the situation had better be pretty desperate before the military is called in. In cases like that we succeed due to sheer volumes of numbers, not because we have any specific type of training in that regard.

The military makes bad police officers and nation builders because right now the primary purpose of the military is not focused on those areas, and the training soldiers receive is not focused on those areas. I don’t dispute or deny that. I just was making the point that the mission statement of the United States Military is not strictly “go in and blow stuff up” in fact that’s really not a very good description, a more adequate description than “kicking people” in the teeth would be two simple words - National Defense. And exactly what specific duties that involves is decided by the civilian government.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

And do the folks on the left REALLY want to give the current president MORE flexibility in using the military on US soil?

Not this one, and not future Presidents either. I was once convinced that I’d never see another U.S. President as bad as Nixon. I was wrong then. I could be wrong again.

Just for the record, the Nat’l Guard isn’t subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act so long as they are under the command of the states and not the feds.

And that’s a pretty sensible division of labor, as long as heavy use of the National Guard abroad is confined to brief and exceptional situations.

What worries me even more than regular military troops on domestic soil is Blackwater mercenaries on domestic soil.

Officially, Blackwater says its forces are in New Orleans to “join the Hurricane relief effort.” A statement on the company’s website, dated Sept. 1, advertises airlift services, security services and crowd control. The company, according to news reports, has since begun taking private contracts to guard hotels, businesses and other properties. But what has not been publicly acknowledged is the claim, made to us by two Blackwater mercenaries, that they are actually engaged in general law enforcement activities including “securing neighborhoods” and “confronting criminals.”

That raises a key question: under what authority are Blackwater’s men operating? A spokesperson for the Homeland Security Department, Russ Knocke, told the Washington Post he knows of no federal plans to hire Blackwater or other private security. “We believe we’ve got the right mix of personnel in law enforcement for the federal government to meet the demands of public safety,” he said.

But in an hour-long conversation with several Blackwater mercenaries, we heard a different story. The men we spoke with said they are indeed on contract with the Department of Homeland Security and the Louisiana governor’s office and that some of them are sleeping in camps organized by Homeland Security in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. They told us they not only had authority to make arrests but also to use lethal force.

I don’t care whether it’s Gov. Blanco or DHS Secretary Chertoff that’s hired these goons. I want them out*. It’s bad enough that they’re operating without rules while acting theoretically on our behalf in Iraq, but it’s intolerable at home.
*Not that anyone of importance gives a flip what I want, of course.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Shagnasty

The U.S. has the biggest, most expensive, and most advanced military in the world. It might be beneficial to train them on some other missions while we are waiting for WWIII to break out.

Dude. You can’t just wait for WWIII to break out. Killing people and breaking shit requires some initiative.

[fushj00mang]

@RTFirefly

I don’t care whether it’s Gov. Blanco or DHS Secretary Chertoff that’s hired these goons. I want them out. It’s bad enough that they’re operating without rules while acting theoretically on our behalf in Iraq, but it’s intolerable at home.

I’m wondering about a bunch of the smaller security companies who are helping out down there (Cobra Security, SC Securtiy Management Inc, Wakenhut, and a few others) who aren’t nearly as skilled/experienced/well equipt as Blackwater. At least Blackwater is staffed by mostly retired and former cops, soldiers, Marines, etc. These other guys are Barney Fife grade rent-a-cops.

[furt]

I am sympathetic to the OP, I really am, but there are some things I have to quibble with.

@fushj00mang

That’s fine, sir, but please remember that the primary purpose of the Armed Forces of the United States is, and I quote from a top-secret memo long forgotten, “To Kill People and Break Their Shit.”

Nope. Your mission is to advance the foreign policy aims of the US governement. Killing people and breaking shit are means, not ends.

And it appears increasingly likely that in the 21st century, killing people and breaking shit will often be inefficient or ineffective means. The Military must either adapt or see it’s purview shrink.

Nor does that fighting division want to play traffic cop. Hell, I’m a SP, and I don’t want to play traffic cop to civilians.

Since when does “want to” have fuck all to do with it?

[Rashak_Mani]

I’ll just add my 2 cents about the OP being wrong… the military should be flexible enough to do some relief work. Logistically they are well suited to the task… if not good policemen for sure.

After the Tsunami in Asia the US carrier group was the perfect instrument to help out in that situation. In New Orleans I read that the Coast Guard was quite quick in going into action. Other branches could do the same… even if the US military are usually a lot in demand to kill and break stuff.

Like someone said… if the US military were better at peacekeeping a lot of these fiascos in small countries wouldn’t have happened.

[Scumpup]

Also have to disagree with the OP. The military’s job is essentially to do whatever the civilian government orders it to do. That civilian government is perfectly at liberty to re-define the job description for the military at any time. Since we have an all-volunteer military, if that job description includes duties you “don’t want” you are at liberty to not enlist or to not re-enlist.

[fushj00mang]

@Rashak Mani

After the Tsunami in Asia the US carrier group was the perfect instrument to help out in that situation. In New Orleans I read that the Coast Guard was quite quick in going into action. Other branches could do the same… even if the US military are usually a lot in demand to kill and break stuff.

Well, in response. 1: A carrier battle group hauling matereal does not equate to “relief.” It’s like saying FedEx bringing you your computer is “tech support.” In addition to that, please remember when the Johnny Reb and it’s escort were dropping supplies off in Indonesia, it was unable to support the Nimitz CVBG further up the South Pacific. If China and Taiwan got into a pissing contest, we’d be up a shit creek. 2: The USCG is DHS, not DoD. It’s NEVER been DoD. Again, different mission.

@furt

Nope. Your mission is to advance the foreign policy aims of the US governement. Killing people and breaking shit are means, not ends.

And it appears increasingly likely that in the 21st century, killing people and breaking shit will often be inefficient or ineffective means. The Military must either adapt or see it’s purview shrink.

Actually, the mission of the DoD is to provide for a strong national defence, as well as projecting power globally to support our foreign policy. “Killing People and Breaking their Shit” is a catch all for what the DoD does to advance US Foreign Policy. As far as being inefficient or ineffective, well, how about letting us off the leash? A few flights of B-52’s would have solved the problems of insurgents in Fallujah fairly well. Instead, we sent in the Marines to play cops. And now we’re back to the same problem.

@Scumpup

The military’s job is essentially to do whatever the civilian government orders it to do. That civilian government is perfectly at liberty to re-define the job description for the military at any time.

Not exactly. There is a reason that individuals are allowed to protest their orders. If Bush ordered the CINC-USSTRATCOM to launch every available nuclear payload at Russia, for no reason, he would most likely refuse. Now that’s hyperbole, but it’s used to show that not all orders would be carried out. As part of any op-ord is a ‘purpose’ section, in addition to objectives and logistics and such. No purpose, no action. And as far as the government’s liberty to redefine the DoD at any time, I don’t buy it. Call it bureaucratic inertia or whatever, it just won’t happen that easily. You can’t turn soldiers into cops (hell, you can’t even really turn military LE into cops that easily.) In a pinch you can use them, but don’t expect them to work well.

[RickJay]

@fushj00mang

A few flights of B-52’s would have solved the problems of insurgents in Fallujah fairly well. Instead, we sent in the Marines to play cops.

That’s an amazing thing to say; you’ve managed in 25 or so words to have one total fantasy AND one total falsehood.

1. The Marines didn’t go into Fallujah to play cops. They went in and killed people and broke shit. In fact, they did exactly what you say their job is. Dude, I don’t know what news reports you were watching or what the cops are like where you live, but Fallujah was a full fledged combat action, not police work.

Perhaps you think that attacking Fallujah with ground troops was not the best strategy available, but it was nonetheless a military strategy in every respect, not a law enforcement effort.

2. Saying a “few flights of B-52s” would have solved the problem is, frankly, insane. A few flights of B-52s would have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians and had very little effect on the insurgency; if anything, it would have just recruited more insurgents. I gotta tell you, if I was an Iraqi sitting on the fence and the U.S. started carpet-bombing an Iraqi city full of civilians to deal with insurgents, I’d be signing up for the insurgency just as soon as I could find out where to do it. I mean, when you preferred strategy is complete destruction, you sure can’t then say with a straight face you’re there to help Iraqis. Surely you can’t seriously be telling us that murdering women and children in full view of every cable news channel on Earth wouldn’t have hurt U.S. policy aims?

3. How did that B-52 strategy work out for you in Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia? Not so good, as I recall. For that matter, B-52 strikes have not delivered victory in Afghanistan, either.
   I mean, I think we all agree that soldiers do not make the best cops, but neither Sen. Warner nor anyone else has suggested that soldiers should now become cops; he was speaking only of exceptional ciurcumstances where only the armed services has the logistical capability to respond. I don’t know how anyone could possibly argue with that after what’s happened in New Orleans; surely to God you think the Army would be preferably to NOTHING, where relief and order is needed?

What happens if a terrible earthquake hits Los Angeles tomorrow? A really bad one, an 8.5 near the surface that shakes the city to rubble, causes backwash tsunamis and kills a million people, and 15 million more are without food, water, power or means of escape? It could happen, you know.

What happens if Hurricane Rita drives up to category 5 and swerves right and hits the Gulf Coast again?

What happens if the Yellowstone caldera partially erupts and half the Midwest is covered in ash?

Should the federal government just drag their feet again and say “bah, Posse Comitatus, blah blah blah, army’s job is to kill people and break shit.”? Or should the armed services be prepared to respond to natural disasters?

[furt]

@fushj00mang

Actually, the mission of the DoD is to provide for a strong national defence, as well as projecting power globally to support our foreign policy. “Killing People and Breaking their Shit” is a catch all for what the DoD does to advance US Foreign Policy. As far as being inefficient or ineffective, well, how about letting us off the leash? A few flights of B-52’s would have solved the problems of insurgents in Fallujah fairly well. Instead, we sent in the Marines to play cops. And now we’re back to the same problem.

I have some sympathy for your view in that instance; it does not change the fact that KPABTS is increasingly done through automated means. Yes, there will always need to be an infantry; there will not necessarily need to be 6 (?) divisions of it on active duty.

If the military refuses to broaden the scope of tasks it is able to carry out, it will not be meeting the security needs of the nation. If it is not meeting those needs, other mechanisms will be need to be created, and the growth and influence of those mechanisms will come at the expense of the military.

IOW, the environment is changing. Evolve or die.

[Monty]

I’m quite amused by your assertion that it is the military refusing to broaden their mission. Surely, you’re not completely unaware that the Armed Forces are not an independent corporation, but rather an arm of the federal Executive Department?

[Merijeek]

I love how Rumsfeld is saying, ‘yeah, yeah, sure we can do that - we can do anything!’

Donnie - just because you fancy yourself to be the next Goering doesn’t mean you’re that talented.

-Joe