Webb's "New Militarism"

[JOHN THURSTON]

Hello:

Well, seconded by my readings of Mr. Webb in bygone years, I did read the articles recommended by Hugh by Senator Webb.

This gentleman knows war.

Without having an entire biography in front of me, His Novels "Fields of Fire" and "Sense of Honor" were (along with the Series on the Vietnam Air war by Gerry Carrol and the rather less known Books: "Body Count" "Rat Pack Six" "Cadillac Flight" and others.

Even in the first of the two bried articles recommended Sen. Webb raises the spectre of a New American Militarism.

To some extent his thoughts are in line with Gen. Eisenhuaer who regretted the creaton of the "Military Industrial Complex".

He regretted it inceptions, but his last military budget was $77 Billion, a lot of money in the 50's.

He also raises the question 'do we want to have troops in Iraq for 50 years" as General Petraeus suggested might be necessary.

As thoughought detestable as this possibility may be, it is not without precendent.

Webb thoughought destroys the MacArthurian occupation of Japan as such and example.

He notes that the Jpanese people were redy to follow the lead of their Emporer, that the Civil Government was intact (I question this, however, German civil service was still functioning after years of bombing.

But the point is made. Japan accepted it fate once it had been determined by Hirohito what that fate was to be-to live.

The closer parallel might have been the de nazification of Germany where the Military government of the allies had a very much harder job.


For comparsion I also raise the De Facto American annexation of the Phillipines as part of the settlement of the 1898 Spanish American War.

47,000 were killed in the campaign to suppress the independence minded Filipinos.

The Phillipines remained under Amercian control. what we could not later do, 'win the hearts and mind of the people' eventually happened.

Spanish rule tended to leae behind it an extemely class conscious society.

In the Mexican War, Lee and others were stupified to see them selves viewed indifferently by the peasantry, because the did not expect change, and the upper class simply was left in place, as, well, the upper class

So, although history does not repeat itself "historical situations recur".

I a companion thread I ointed out that Russia might be stepping back into the boots of a militaristic Governent.

Things, using a older comparsion, when the control of the romna State (Augustus called it the 'principiate' in which he was the "Princeps".

"Imperator' was the cry acclaiming a victorious general, which does not alter the fact that these Acclamations came to mean the acclamation of the General as "Princeps". Augustus, as well intentioned as he might have been, reft the power of the Legions (from the Senate not the people).

He also instituted "a parallell" bureaucracy to make suree the reins of powers grew more steady in his hands.

Any time that the forces of a state center in the hands of one man, or oligarchy, whatever, war at the whim of the "princeps' becomes more likely.

The 'Founding Fathers" viewed a standing army as a dangerous beast.

Know do I think that we will have to stay in Iraq for 50 years?

Well, I hope we do not have to.

Germany remained heavily garrisoned by American troops at least until the First Gulf War. Paying the farmer for fields damaged by Nato tank treads seems to have benn a good investment.

Korea is still garrsioned to a growing dismay of the Koreans-so 1953-2008, I guess that is 59 years, but reder will be quick to point out that the situation is quite diferrent, althogh we , in effect, established Synghman Rhees rule..

Outright US rule:

the Phillipines, 1898-1947
Guam-1945 to present
Samoa (?) to present

Garrsoned:

Germany
Okinawa
Korea
Iraq
Panama (in part)
Coastal Portions of China
Japan Proper (mostly Naval Bases and Airfields)

So, the 'situation' has arisen before.

So, yes, it could happen in Iraq. It might well happen if the Iraqis cannot maintain a peaceful state via civlian rule.

We did not find any WMD in Iraqs, just millions buried in mass graves .

Why should we be the judge?

Whether or not it should happen is another matter



My dates are not completel and, as I said, all the situations differy

[Hugh]

John, you might just ask yourself why it was that George H. W. Bush did not pursue the 1991 Gulf War into Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. Perhaps he saw the probable result as being what we now have on our hands. Remember that Powell told W that the china shop rule applied, "You break it, you own it." But W and his neocon buddies were not inclined to listen and here we are, 17 years later in the trap that Dad and his staff so feared.

[JOHN THURSTON]

My position throughut, despite the fact the this dictator got what he deserved, was not to stir up this particularly Hornet's nest.

Looking at the curret state of combat i a completely sanguine way; the "war" can be won.

Several 'staffers' called me last night.

Not one could say their candidate actually had an 'exit strategy".

Hillary's staffer reported that 'she' would work that out as things went, and I don't think McCain wants us out any time soon.


As For George HW Bush's Strategy I think his arab allies would not countenance a full occupation.

I assume you are for the GHW Bush strategy, or maybe not, in either ev ent the advice given was sage.

We were/willl be damned for leaving and willl be damned for staying.

I direct answer to your question, yes, I have thought of what might have happened if GHWB made a full blown invasion.

I don't really like any of the scenarios I see.

I am not dodging the bullet-jbutWe sure as heck own the vase now' and not that it was a great idea to break it.

[f.Channell]

At the time George Sr left it up to his General to make the final peace arrangements. Huge mistake, Generals are for defeating their enemy, not negotiating peace. He foolishly allowed them to use their helicopters, in guise of not being able to move around the country because of blown out bridges, to quell the rebellions which would have overthrown the government for us.

Our allies in Iraq stood in horror as we turned our back on them and allowed Sadam to regain power.

This could have all been done and over in the early nineties.

[Hugh]

But Bush Sr. and his advisers wanted to keep Saddam as he was, a thoroughly caged tiger without the ability to threaten anyone but with the ability to control the internal problems of Iraq which we now see in stark relief. For the minimal cost of maintaining a pair of "No-Fly Zones" and the embargo on Iraqi oil, they could do that. The problem was in the enforcement of the embargo by the crooked bureaucrats at the UN and elsewhere who allowed Saddam to bribe and to buy his way out of it for what he needed but not for what his people needed.

[JOHN THURSTON]

Well, I think the chance of caging the Tiger have gone

Do you folk seemed to feel that the coalition should have invaded Iraq in 1991? or 1993? Or is it PC incorrect to say what needs to be done, given the errors,

Arab nations seemed to taking a certain objection to this 'reality' in 2008


Though The Arab backing to the 1991 Coalition was stronger .
Arab nations in each case remained disdisiclined to include themselves in an actual invasion .

Here, Hugh, there were to be 2 Nuclear Generating stationsat Pilgrime, and three at Sea Brook--given the theory that proposed plants were 'stopped" around the counrty, then, we shoot ourselves in our own feet and made us dependent on foeigh oil indefinitley,

[jorvik]

Iraq was a big mistake. and even if folks get "Bullish" about it it is still going to be a big mistake. I think one of our Royal family Prince Andrew said that he wished the US had listened to us about this war .I totally agree
Many years ago I had an argument with one guy on these forums ( not yours ) .I said to him what was the greatest Empire EVER...and he said the Greeks or Romans ( Moron).it was the BRITISH Empire ....and we have had the irish Insurgent problem to combat as well ( to use American terminology)...so we know about stuff like this.even folks on the street with no military experience..it's not going to get better............I am really surprised when folks go on about decapitating contract oilworkers or strapping up mongol;s with bombs.are folks really that dumb!!.it's a war there are no rules............and it is not over until they say it's over...............and a regime change is on the way ( obama or Clinton .maybe )
Folks on other forums don't like my blunt approach.but heck that s the way I am......also...don't forget the economy, recession etc.what you gonna cut??
....military expenditure

[Hugh]

John, and I say this with great care, please reread your last post and edit it. I will then attempt to respond to it, as I cannot understand it at the moment.

RANT ON
Jorvik, W had to work his way through a number of senior commanders before he found a very few who would agree with what he, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were proposing. Most of the command structure were horrified as what they were proposing violated every lesson for which we had paid so dearly 40 years earlier in the jungles of VietNam. In Rumsfeld, God help us, we had another egotistical, self-centered jackass who thought that he knew better than the people who had spent their lives learning the arts of war just as Robert McNamara had thought 40 years earlier and to the same effect. I am a Quaker but I grew up in a family with a tradition of military service to this nation going back to before we were a nation, so I resent the Hell out of idiots like Rumsfeld and McNamara who waste the lives of brave young men and women. VietNam came close to destroying an entire generation and Iraq may yet accomplish the same. If there is, indeed, a Hell then I have two excellent candidates for it.
RANT OFF

[jorvik]

Hugh
Sorry I don't understand your take either .You are a quaker..doesn't that mean that taking a life is a sin, "thou shall not kill"..bible is a bit vague on that one, No.................doesn't really say who we shall not kill.personally being a conservative I would go with everyone , so I would kill nobody without good reason.
What do you disagree with??
Iraq wasn't a big mistake?.Prince Andrew spoke out of turn?
or indeed that war isn't played to the rules that you want it played to......you can show pictures of saddam's dead sons .but it's not right to show pictures of dead US and UK servicemen .............sorry Hugh you will have to be very specific.................being a Quaker you should know that GOD made all men equal and dosen't differentiate between the flags of nations..so please specify what you want me to edit ....and if it doesn't conflict with my belief system .I will edit it l

[f.Channell]

Did Sadam have a plan to continue a guerilla war?

I would certainly think so.

Winston Churchill had extensive plans and explosives and weapons set aside figuring they would be occupied by Nazi Germany.

I can't see why any country fearing invasion wouldn't have one.

What is your old family line Hugh? I've gotten back to 1621 so far.
No pilgrims yet though.

F.

[JOHN THURSTON]

The were preset stores of munition and lists of men marked to keeping the ''New Regime" for stabilizing itself.

How uniform and extensive these plans were, I don;t know..

I we see what data I cand find on it, beyond pictures of men dressed as "fedayeem Saddam".

We are getting to much LOUD infromation, and not information upon which one should decided to continue the fight.

What the Iranians and the Turks might do if a civil was broke out----well I think the will declare action and we may find our servelves Defending the Westerns Reserves of Iraq and the state of Kuwait. Not a good corner to have pained oneself into..

I we are not in Iraq for an extended period of time, we will remain as needed to protect Kuwait.

Perhaps and I mean perhaps, if the Nuclear power program had been allowed to progress, we might not be fighting over oil.

[JOHN THURSTON]

I do not think that Hugh should be required to detail his religious convictions, unless he should wish to, on this thread

[Hugh]

Jorvik, I may be a Quaker by Conversion" but I was raised in a family with a tradition of military service to the United States going back to before there was a United States. So, I am not totally bought in to the the 1666 Testimony to Nonviolence. What angered me about VietNam was not so much that we got in there but that we stumbled into it not understanding what in the Hell we were doing. The result was that we would up killing and being killed for no visible purpose. In other words, we wasted however many lives we were responsible for ending. I do see wasting lives in pointless wars as a sin, whatever side they may serve.

Now, to Iraq. In 1991, George H. W. Bush and his advisers chose not to push on to Baghdad and to oust Saddam Hussein. Why do you suppose they made that decision when they held all of the cards? One reason that I have heard is that it would have shattered the Coalition, splitting off the Arab participants and, perhaps, turning them into enemies. But the real reason, I believe, is that they realized that Saddam, evil as he may have been, was all that was holding that pot together. He and his ruthless Baath Party were able to keep the Shi'a in the south, the Sunnis in the center and west and the Kurds in the north from going at each other in a bloody civil war that would wind up involving the neighbors, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. I suppose that the Arabian Gulf states might have gotten involved as well but their contributions would have been largely negligible in the 1991 timeframe.

Now, George W. Bush invaded using Donald Rumsfeld's screwed up strategy of minimal force, thinking that we could oust Saddam on the cheap in the same way that we had ousted the Taliban. The military in this country knew that there was a significant difference, that there was no Northern Alliance force such as we had used in Afghanistan, that the Iraqi populace was too cowed by Saddam's dictatorship to provide such a force in any realistic timeframe. They knew that it was going to have to be US boots on the ground, that we would have to go into Iraq and push Saddam and his Baathists out of power and hunt the Baathist leaders down and eliminate them just as the Allies had done in Germany in 1945-1949. But doing that properly would take a minimum of 500,000 troops and probably more. The bloody Administration was unwilling to do that so we sent in a minimum force which was able to topple Saddam but not able to secure the country or even the military supply dumps. The result is that the Baathist militia went into guerrilla mode, using those dumps, and that the Sunnis, seeing that the Shi'a were taking power from them, joined in with the Baathists, making for the "ocean in which the guerrilla fish could swim" to use Mao's metaphor. And, seeing the resulting chaos as a golden opportunity, the alQaeda types came rushing in to stir the pot by such horrors as random car bombings and the bombing of the Golden Mosque. That latter was an effort to set off the Sunni/Shi'a civil war and it damned near succeeded.

Now, you ask me what I think. I think that George H. W. Bush was right and that we should have kept Saddam in power, but with his teeth and claws firmly pulled so that he would not be a threat to his neighbors. And we could make it very clear, at minimal cost to ourselves, that his support of international terror would no longer be tolerated. We would have had to clean out the crooks in the UN's Oil for Food program so that it would really work and that would have pissed of a lot of 3rd World nations whose diplomats had their hands in that sugarbowl, but it needed doing in any case. That would have made the Embargo effective and made sure that the oil sold really did go for food and medical supplies for the Iraqi people instead of goodies for Saddam and his buddies. On the other hand, had the decision to invade been made, then we should have gone in whole hog and done it right, using massive military power, including large numbers of boots on the ground, to take and then to secure the country rather than pissing around as we did in 2003-2004. What we have been doing is wasting American, Coalition, and Iraqi lives, the greatest sin of all just as we wasted lives in VietNam.

[Hugh]

John, I chose to reply to Jorvik about my take on the 1666 Testimony to Nonviolence which is the core of Quaker pacifism.

As to my family history, there was a Captain Thomas Fuller, an ancestor, on the Mayflower but he didn't take kindly to the Puritan way in Massachusetts so he moved south. He was in Maryland at the time of the Cromwell Protectorate and helped set up a Protestant government to replace the Roman Catholic government of the Calvert family. But, the Restoration led to his moving on further south and he wound up on the Sea Islands of Georgia raising cotton, indigo, and sugar. Another ancestor was Pastor John Robinson, the pastor for the Pilgrim community who did not sail on the Mayflower but who remained in England to organize future expeditions. My family history has him in Plimouth goal for a while as a dissenter. A third ancestral line was the Parsons line, also Mayflower passengers, but it has a more interesting later person, Goody Parsons. She was accused of witchcraft during the Salem Witch Hysteria but was found to be "Not Guilty" so she then turned and sued her accusers of libel! There are a number of web sites devoted to her case. Here is one: http://ccbit.cs.umass.edu/parsons/goody ... /home.html

I also have Van Antwerp ancestors dating back to Dutch New Amsterdam. Then we get to the Chesapeake Bay area. I have ancestors at Jamestown in 1607 and at St. Mary's City, Maryland in March of 1634. One of my ancestors, Alexander Magruder, was apparently taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650 and sent in chains to Maryland in 1651. He served out his indenture and then married well, siring a number of children who intermarried on both sides of the Potomac River.

The Thomas Fuller who moved to the Sea Islands became very involved in the life and society of Charleston, South Carolina and of Savannah, Georgia.

In all of these family lines, the men have stood up and been counted when the call has come for volunteers for combat, right down to the current generation. I tried but was not able to serve due to an eye injury when I was twelve, but my cousin, VMI class of 1958, spent a bunch of time spookng around in North VietNam in mid and late 1960s. Given that he is a round-eye and some 6'3 or 4" tall, that must have taken some doing.

[JOHN THURSTON]

I posted a note to Jorvik re: his---ah-----questions about Quakerism.

I do not want contributors be called to task or questioned about such matters on my forum.

Julian took a look at the bloodshed Christianity had brought to the empire because it's adoption made the Empire no longer as "tolerant" as it was in 'classical' times.

I don't totally disagree and that's one way to look at it.

I think it was good of you to answer.

I have have some lively conversations on Leyden street with Plymouth Colony decendants---but this is not a place for that now.

Do keep in mind that I no longer type as fast as I think, and that is the why things come out from me sometimes.

So, my Email is on my profile, if a serious 'beef' advises (hugh and Fred have my super secret address .)

BTW Myles Standish was the shortest of and the only RC on the Mayflower.

I think I have Mentioned that before.

I am sure his beliefs might have caused friction with the "Leyedeners" (I once had an office on Leyden street).


Further, It was the British Empire that divided the Ottoman Empire as it saw fit--so it is is not a "way out", at this point time, for the British to stand back and say "not our war not our war"!!!.

Well it wasn't our wall in the Falklands, but Reagan made it clear that it woud suppy the RN and the RAF with the most advanced 'all aspect" AIM 9L that kept the Harriers very much in the fight.

Every Empire or the like has contributed to instablity, militarism and the "way of the dictators" that the Old Ottoman Empires' lands have fallen into.

JOHN