Abolish the U.S. Military?

[mnaz]

Is the U.S. military (or "armed forces", as I put it) only good for imperialist aggression and abuse (...the "nature of the beast")? Or is the U.S. military in something like its current form necessary for national defense (and possibly even humanitarian functions at times), and any campaigns of imperialist aggression and abuse it may be connected to extend directly from specific corrupt leaders and not the military in and of itself? Am I suffering blindness here? Is there simply no distinguishing the troops from the imperialist agendas put on them?

I always thought there was, or should be, a clear distinction drawn... seemed like common sense to me. But maybe I've been too charitable to "the troops". In my writings, I've tried to call for "us" to hold our leaders more accountable... no more blind flag-waving and uncritical "patriotism" in general... I targeted the makers of needlessly violent, aggressive and corrupt policy and various cheerleaders of that policy and not the soldiers ordered to carry it out. Is this a fundamentally naive POV, or approach?

[eyelidlessness]

Go to your local library and see if you can find the book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens by Ward Churchill. If not, hell, buy it. It's worth owning.

There are three sections in the book. The first is an essay, The Ghosts of 911, which you can find online. I've also posted it on this board, and really pissed off stilltrucking in the process.

The next two sections detail, as a timeline, US military actions since 1776, and US violations of international law since World War II. If you have any doubt about the nature of the US military, read about what they've been busy doing for the last 231 years. Aggressive war, imperialism, genocide are nothing new for the US. They're par for the course.

[Doreen Peri]

I don't think we could abolish the military.

Not unless the entire world abolished their militaries. (now wouldn't that be nice? But it ain't happening! Not in our lifetimes anyway, unfortunately)

I mean, what if another country decided to attack the US and destroy our homes, take our land, steal our resources and take over?

We'd have to be able to defend ourselves, no?

Military should NOT be used for aggression, though, I definitely agree with you on that!

[mnaz]

Eyelidlessness. Thanks for the reference. You're right. This is the kind of stuff we all need to know and own up to. One thing that has always incensed me is when pundits and politicians smash complex phenomena down into shrinkwrapped packages of "good (us) versus evil (them)", as if "evil" exists continually in a vaccuum and certain others would attack us for no other reason than "they hate our freedom" or some other such disingenuous tripe.

You know, it's funny. In a way I should welcome your ass-kicking brutal honesty; it does put forth in plain language what many of us may be thinking but are unwilling to state so absolutely and uncompromisingly. I have to concede that much. On the other hand, I'm inherently suspicious of any extreme POV across the entire political spectrum, far left to far right, and that's how I see your general approach and worldview-- rather extreme, based on loudly proclaimed absolutes (not that you care what I might think in that regard).

Anyway... If the military were disbanded, how would national defense be addressed? Local militia, perhaps? Every citizen for himself? Curious.

And how do we know for certain that the U.S. military is by definition absolutely incapable of any other function beside bloodthirsty imperialism?

And on the broader subject of foreign war in general: Is there absolutely no such thing as a "justified" war? Iraq (and even Afghanistan, as I've come to understand) are pretty easy calls to make. Hell, the DC mob barely bothered to disguise its imperialistic bent at all, figuring 9/11 was all it needed to justify any and all manner of geopolitical rape in the Mid East. But what if troops could be sent to, say, intervene in genocide (in a country where the US has no strategic interests)? Would this still amount to murdering imperialism no matter how you slice it? I realize I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but again, I think it's fair to subject any absolute stance such as your own to these type of questions.

[Doreen Peri]

And how do we know for certain that the U.S. military is by definition absolutely incapable of any other function beside bloodthirsty imperialism?

It's not incapable of only bloodthirsty imperialism? Where'd you get that idea?

By definition, it's supposed to be for defense! And I'm sure if our country was attacked, the military would act defensively.

Just because they CLAIM they are defending our country now by attacking another country that had nothing to do with the 911 attack on us, doesn't mean that it is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do.

Sorry to interrupt.

[Doreen Peri]

Oh and yeah... eyelidlessness can be pretty darn blunt and sure of himself. Maybe he's right about a lot of things but sometimes I've had a hard time talking to him when he gets that way.

Wonder where he got that from?

lol

[mnaz]

The imperialism only aspect....

That seems to be eyelidlessness' (very uncompromising) take on the US military, judging by his posts.

And by all means Doreen, your thoughts are always welcome.

[Doreen Peri]

Ohhh... you're not saying that the military is, by definition, incapable of anything other than imperialistic agression?

You're saying eyelidlessness is saying that?

OK. Geesh. Duh. Sorry, I got confused. I didn't realize he was saying that.

Is that what you're saying, eyelidlessOne?

[eyelidlessness]

We'd have to be able to defend ourselves, no?

What makes you think we need the US military for that, or that the US military is interested in doing that? In what instance has it ever done that?

By definition, it's supposed to be for defense!

Yes. But defense of what? Certainly not of you and me.

You know, it's funny. In a way I should welcome your ass-kicking brutal honesty; it does put forth in plain language what many of us may be thinking but are unwilling to state so absolutely and uncompromisingly. I have to concede that much.

Thanks for that.

On the other hand, I'm inherently suspicious of any extreme POV across the entire political spectrum, far left to far right, and that's how I see your general approach and worldview-- rather extreme, based on loudly proclaimed absolutes (not that you care what I might think in that regard).

I don't think the word "extreme" really has any meaning in this context. It's "extreme" to oppose all oppression, but it's "moderate" to accept some oppression. Okay, I guess I'm extreme. I'm also right.

Anyway... If the military were disbanded, how would national defense be addressed? Local militia, perhaps? Every citizen for himself? Curious.

I did answer this in the other thread. I wrote: "collectively operated community-defense groups that are directly comprised of, and accountable to, the community they defend."

And how do we know for certain that the U.S. military is by definition absolutely incapable of any other function beside bloodthirsty imperialism?

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck and looks like a duck...

Is there absolutely no such thing as a "justified" war?

I also answered this in the other thread.

To me, I guess it depends on what you mean by "war" and by "peace". Conflict is natural, and sometimes mutually exclusive positions are valid and irreconcilable. War as we know it (what was historically called "total war", such as the wars of annihilation in the Congo or parts of Eastern Africa; imperial and colonial war, such as the US invasion of Iraq; for instance) is completely illegitimate and atrocious. But not all war is like that.

…

It's complicated. But I think this might be the wrong question to ask. I think a more appropriate question might be: when is force appropriate? War, as we understand it, is probably invariably murder. We've almost completely obliterated any memory of collective conflict that was any other way. In a society like ours, conceiving of appropriate force is, to me, mainly reserved for interpersonal matters: it would be appropriate to use force to prevent a man from raping a woman (or for the woman to defend herself), for instance.

But what if troops could be sent to, say, intervene in genocide (in a country where the US has no strategic interests)?

No such thing as a country where the US has no strategic interests. And given the US' track record on genocide (perpetrated hundreds on this continent and a few around the world, as well as financing yet more around the world), what makes you think the US could be an anti-genocidal force?

Would this still amount to murdering imperialism no matter how you slice it? I realize I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but again, I think it's fair to subject any absolute stance such as your own to these type of questions.

I just think the hypothetical assumptions are too unlikely to even warrant much speculation. Should we, as a culture, be a force to prevent genocide and oppresion? Yes. Absolutely. But we live in a glass house and our hands are bloody, we shouldn't throw stones.

[mnaz]

So you're saying the United States military has never fought a war that was actually in defense of the homeland-- not even one time-- and that every single mission has amounted to something of an imperialistic, murderous genocidal campaign. Is that right?

I wonder how you can claim this as incontrovertible truth, end of story, just like that. And even if it were essentially the whole truth, it doesn't necessarily imply that the military could not be transformed to serve a more genuine national defense function. Again, this just seems like quite an extreme viewpoint. But to be fair, perhaps I should read your suggested literature before I comment any further along that line.

[eyelidlessness]

So you're saying the United States military has never fought a war that was actually in defense of the homeland-- not even one time-- and that every single mission has amounted to something of an imperialistic, murderous genocidal campaign.

What's more, the "homeland" itself exists as a product of imperialism and genocide. Yes. This is occupied land.

By US admission, about 1/3 of US-claimed territory was never legitimately ceded by any means: neither treaty nor the laughable "right of conquest"; the latter makes up about half of the remaining land the US claims, and a significant proportion of the former was duplicitous or coerced.

I wonder how you can claim this as incontrovertible truth, end of story, just like that.

I… send electrical impulses from my brain, through my nervous system, to my fingers, which depress the keys on my keyboard. Not sure what you mean? Are you asking for proof? I already offered it. My source is a timeline of US military actions 1776-present.

And even if it were essentially the whole truth, it doesn't necessarily imply that the military could not be transformed to serve a more genuine national defense function.

Let me put it this way. Even if that were to be the case, I'd still oppose it because of what I'm talking about above. We can't claim any right to "defend" our occupation of ethnically cleansed territory.

I understand that that's a little hard to swallow, but let's put it this way. After Hitler's murder of dozens of millions of people, suppose he'd won the war. Suppose that nazism became a dominant force in the world, and evolved over the course of the next several centuries to be so powerful as to be indistinguishable from a "moral leader in global affairs". Suppose that Europeans came to know the nazi regime as "us", and the SS as a "defensive" organization.

Suggesting, all that time later, that maybe the whole thing was a bloody sham might be badly received. But it wouldn't be wrong.

Here we are, dozens of millions of murders later, in exactly that situation. We occupy almost an entire continent, and quite a lot of territory besides. We want to "defend" ourselves from "attack", but really… who could attack us? I mean, I'm not saying we're invincible. I'm saying, how could any operation against the US be construed as an "attack"?

The best defense we have is to end these crimes, to throw off our rulers who perpetuate this centuries-old cycle—and by virtue of that, to help others in the world with similar conditions, not to mention others in the world who are our victims. By letting the US collapse under its own weight (which would probably be an easier task than is immediately obvious), those in power would be that much closer to reach, and that much closer to accountability.

Again, this just seems like quite an extreme viewpoint.

Well yes, but you know… it used to be "extreme" to suggest that Africans aren't subhuman, or that women aren't property. It's still "extreme" to say that children are people, or that non-humans have thought and emotion. I already said how I feel about my ideas being labeled "extreme"… it just means I'm unwilling to compromise what I believe. That isn't to say that I'm unwilling to be proved wrong, by the way.

But to be fair, perhaps I should read your suggested literature before I comment any further along that line.

I highly recommend it.

[mnaz]

Well first off, eyelidlessness, thank you for your effort and time spent to communicate your views to me... you probably covered much of this ground in other threads, and I know how annoying it is to keep on explaining one's position to newcomers. Some of your earlier comments make more sense to me in light of this information.

I should read your suggested material before commenting much further and too specifically on your posts.

A couple of general comments here:

The human race is (purportedly) evolving slowly as it fills in every corner of the planet. And one would be hard-pressed to find any present-day nation or region that hasn't at some point in history been "won" by some degree of imperialism and genocidal practice. How far back is it necessary to go? As the world fills in, the regions and borders naturally gain more inertia. At what point can we say, "OK, this is what happened, how the borders came to be, and it wasn't always just and fair, and it should never have gone down that way, but this is pretty much all we (realistically) have to work with at this point?"

Re: Hitler. It's hard to imagine such ready European capitulation as you describe in the face of such blatant mid-20th Century abuse of the continent by the Nazis, but then you did say, "the next several centuries", so I suppose that leaves open many possibilities.

But more to the point of this thread, who was it that stopped Hitler? Did not the U.S. military play a significant role?

[Doreen Peri]

Right. Give one example, eyelidless? That's one. WW2.

And what about WW1?

There's another one.

[mtmynd]

abolish the military and put the warriors out of business? sounds reckless.

[mnaz]

or vitally necessary, it may be argued.