The Pacific Campaign during WW II was certainly a full blown war in it's own right and WW II can certainly be referred to as the origin of the "Two Consectutive Wars" military philosophy that continued from that point on with the US military. But there is another lesson we learned from WW II and that is that the US military did not require a large standing military at the outset of the war. Most of the Americans that were involved in WW II joined the US military after the outbreak of hostilities. What we did lack was a substantial reserve that could have filled in the gap between the initial hostilities and the time required to recruit and train more soldiers. We also learned that we had a technology lag or gap that would have been able to repell the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We had radar that warned us of the approaching Japanese attack in ample time to respond to it but the technology was late in being deployed and the warning was ignored. This argues that the US should continue even today with exploiting new advanced technologies, similiar to what radar was in 1941, so that it can be deployed as it increases our mission effectiveness while reducing the need for manpower. The one radar station in Hawaii that warned us of the impending Japanese attack, even though that warning was ignored, replaced a need for literally hundreds of aircraft that would have been required to patrol the same lines of attack on Hawaii. So two lessons learned as it relates to the ability of the US military to defend the United States: Maintain a large reserve military to provide immediate manpower in the event of an attack. Invest in advanced technology as it reduces the size of the military while increasing it's mission capability. Both of these are very cost effective means for providing for the defense of the United States and we could easily reduce the size of the active US military by as much as 75% if the sole purpose of our military was to defend the United States.
No corporation is "too big to fail" and that was a fallacy generated by the Bush adminstration. It was the US banking interests in protecting the banks and investments of millionaires that TARP addessed. Why would we want to protect millionaires from sustaining losses because their investments failed. TARP did not benefit any average Americans but did benefit many US and foreign millionaires that were invested in the US banking system. There is plenty of oil and while regional conflicts may temporarily reduce imported oil causing a slight increase in prices it would not lead to an economic downturn. During the 1970's when we had severe oil shortages the GDP and employment continued to grow. The cost of war is far more than any economic benefit the US economy might realize from it.
The Battle of Iwo Jima late on typifies US involvement . About 70 000 Marines were sent to rout just 22000 Japanese . The Yanks made such a pig's ear of the whole matter that 6000 marines were killed and over 20 000 injured within an 8 square mile area . Unbelievable . Who won ? Why theAmericans did not reduce the island to ash and rubble by naval big gun fire is beyond my comprehension . Why did one American Marine ever set foot on the island? Which leads to another tack . After the Vietnam War , thousands of GIs were interviewed and it was found that up to 85% of combatants deliberately never shot to kill . And of those that did fire to kill , 98% suffered appalling post war trauma . It was therefore said that 2% of all US combatants were crazy before during and after battle and the other 98% were sent crazy by what they were asked to do . I am not suggesting that US soldiers are more crazy than those from other countries . But if all forces are similar , what a complete farce army warfare is objectively .
Typically the forces required to overcome a well fortified defensive position require a 10:1 ratio so the US forces were inadequite if we consider that 22,000 Japanese were in fortified defensive positions at Iwo Jima. It is almost amazing that we won in this battle and the fact that we did can only be credited to those Marines that were involved in the combat. Artillery bombardment, while very effective against installations in the open, was relatively worthless as most of the Japanese defensive forces that were in caves that the artillery couldn't penetrate. The Japanese had very good defensive positions on Iwo Jima. http://www.cv6.org/1945/iwo/default.htm Iwo Jima served as a critical air base for the US Army Air Force during WW II as it was critically located halfway between Saipan and Japan. It served as both a P-51 figher base that flew cover for US bomber missions as well as an emergency landing field for B-29 bombers. A ground assault was absolutely necessary to take the island for use in this capacity and was the sole reason for the attack on Iwo Jima.
in the 1970s wealth was not as concentrated in a few entities as it is today that is due to Reagan giving more power to big business when he got rid of alot of safety net regulations that prevented this the only logical reason i can see behind the lies of the leaders for why government would send the troops out to war past, present, and future is to protect financial interests as today the corporations have alot of money invested and concentrated in them and are responsible for much of american productivity and GDP and if they failed it would be really bad what is your opinion of why the US plans for war and not peace, is it legitimately for defense purposes?
Look a little closer as US military interventionism is about US world domination as proposed by the right-wing neo-cons and embraced by some Democrats. Of course it doesn't hurt that it lines the campaign chests of the politicans that are more interested in getting elected and re-elected than in what is good for America.
"The problem of US power is not that is American, the problem is simply the power. It would be dangerous for even an archangel to wield such power." I forgot who said that (it was in one of my political science class text books). If the Soviets had prevailed in the cold war, do you think they would not choose to be doing the same things (in terms of world domination)? Unipolar power is dangerous, regardless of it being American, Soviet, or any other. As to your second point, maybe we should enact term limits for Congress so that their career isn't just a huge reelection campaign. Then they might get something useful done.
I agree with everyone. I think we should maintain a strong military defense and I also think we should stay out of other countries' business. There is little excuse for our "foreigh policy." Nobody invited us to be the planetary police force and we should stop doing it. Let China do it.
While I don't advocate China playing "world cop" their record is actually far superior to the US since WW II. No nation has been involved in more military interventionism since WW II than the US.
And , as I tell them daily --- and never had one decent result --- sub text , won . They nearly had a result with Libya . Unfortunately their image was so loathed that they had to pretend and let it seem that France and the English Gentlemen were fronting it . But once they have feasted off Syria and possibly Lebanon , will they meet their match when facing the wily old Khomeini ?
Just in case the thought of attacking might enter their minds? (See Israel for 'pre-emptive' acts of aggression...).
The Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, Indians, Filipinos and Uigurs don't agree with you. The temptation of empire has only been resisted once in all of history to the best of my knowledge. And military defeat was instrumental in breaking the temptation in that case. I refer to Sweden. The world is going to get a taste of Chinese ruthlessness in the next half century. They aren't any different than any one else when it comes to temptation.
While China has provided material support for conflicts that does not constitute active military interventionism. The Chinese did not deploy it's military to Vietnam and the Vietnam War was the result of Western interventionism that prevented the democratic unification of Vietnam after the French withdrawal. China has not invaded Japan. The Korean War was a civil war and US intervened. It was the threat by the US and UN forces that lead to Chinese involvement. Tibet is a disputed political region under Chinese control. Reference to Indians, Filipinos and Uigurs does not represent nations but instead people. Nations are invaded so what invasions by Chinese forces are being claimed? Defensive deterance is all that is really required to stop empire building. The United States only invades countries where the United States is not deterred by the countries defensive capabilities. For example, the United States has not invaded N Korea because N Korea has nuclear weapons and has openly stated that if the US attacks it will use them in self-defense. Not surprising though is the fact that even though the US only invades countries where it has a significant military advantage the US mostly gets it's ass kicked. We didn't win in Korea and 60 years later still have a significant military presence there. We lost in Vietnam. We sort of won in Granada but there was virtually no military resistance. The Iraq War seems to be headed into a "losing" proposition as it continues down a part to civil war. We're probably going to lose in Afghanistan because I don't see the tyrannical and corrupt regime of Karzai existing after NATO leaves.
The reason for 11+ Aircraft Carriers is because we must always maintain a presence in both the Mediterranean and the Pacific. We always have at least one carrier deployed in each area. We also have one Carrier group scheduled to replace them and they are working up to deployment. Other carriers are in various forms of operations, qualifications, overhaul, etc. Currently, An Aircraft Carrier will go on Deployment every 18 months. Deployments last anywhere from 6 months to 8 months ( I have never been on a deployment for greater than 7 months, but I have had friends extended for a month greater than that). Sea Power is about Force Projection. The argument for this is that our allies WANT to see our forces nearby (I think they really want our money). Deployment allows us to have forces near any hotspot within 24-48 hours. We would have to drastically redesign our worldview if we want to reduce our military footprint and the only one even willing to discuss it is Dr. Paul. Yes, I do believe that there is a upper power base in the United states who WANT to be at war all the time. War is money for the powerful.
Uncle Ferd says, "Well, it's kinda like... ... sometimes ya gotta smack someone upside the head... ... to get `em to come around... ... to a peaceful way o' thinkin'."
I believe the saying in the 1960's was "Fighting to end war is like (*)(*)(*)(*)ing to end love." (I'm sure members can figure that one out)
