[lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:30:27 -0500

Lawrence, I'm impressed.  I almost didn't go into this link but I did it 
anyway.   Since when do you read Russian?  I'm not going to plow through this 
whole thing, but where did you see the $293 billion?  (Not that that's exactly 
a small amount of money; a third of a trillion instead of a half.)  This is 
getting weirder and weirder.  When I went into your link on the web site, it 
came up in Russian.  I found the armies page and the U.S. page.  It's this 
link:  

http://topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/texts.pl?category=state&mode=show&unit=19&lng=rus

When I went into it in on the email, it came up in English.  So I take it back, 
I'm not impressed.  You don't read Russian.  Now after I send this I'll see if 
the link is in English or Russian.

Anyway, Keynes is not an assertion.  It's a theory.  It was used during the 
Depression and used without calling it so during WWII.  Supply side is another 
(Chicago School is yet another, but that's for another time; I'd have to 
refresh it for myself anyway.  I think it's what the fed does.  I love 
economics).  Likewise, Vietnam took everything we gave them and didn't cave.  
Iraq is winning on home made stuff, and Afghanistan is the world largest narco 
state, producing 90% of the world's opium, almost completely lawless outside of 
Kabul.  These are facts.  Theories and arguments are okay, but money makes the 
world go round.  And the U.S. is living on borrowed money.  And now to see if 
the above site opens in Russian or English.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 3/23/2006 12:49:38 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land


How do I address unsupported assertions?  I try not to.  Try again with an 
argument.

By the way, our military budget is $293 billion according to the Russians: 
http://topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/texts.pl?category=state&mode=show&unit=19&lng=eng 



From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:18 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

Lawrence, how do you address the military Keynesianism?  We're spending nearly 
half a trillion dollars a year on the military and we're flat out broke.  We 
borrow that money, among other money.  Our debt goes to paying the interest on 
what we borrow.  The armies that defeated are all low tech: the Vietnamese, the 
Afghans (they beat the Russians' high tech army), now the insurgents with their 
IED's.  The IED's are such a problem they're addressed separately by the 
military.  You see the "imperalism" argument, while I saw the Keynesian 
argument.  Getting into a tomato/tomahto argument about Imperialism doesn't 
address that we're spending half a trillion dollars on defense every year, yet 
9/11 happened, Vietnam happened, Afghanistan happened, Iraq happened.  But 
don't tell me, I know, they're success stories, Vietnam could have been "won", 
etc. etc. so let's have it your way and end the discussion here.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lawrence Helm 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 3/23/2006 11:39:20 AM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

If this guy is a military historian, I feel sorry for the people who took his 
classes.  One can intuitively know he is all wet by three facts.  1) He implies 
weve got wall-to-wall troops covering the planet but we by no means have the 
largest army on the planet.  We didnt have enough troops to do engage in an 
overwhelming invasion of Iraq.  Rumsfeld was faulted for not using more 
troops, but notice that there werent troops standing by with nothing to do.  
Notice that our existence troops had to serve two and three tours.  Did they 
serve these multiple tours while zillions of Marines lived it up on Okinawa?  

2) The U.S. has a history of isolationism.  We never used to have much of a 
military and we paid for it more than once.  We were ill-equipped in WWI and 
cover the ill-preparation with the fact that certain units fought well, 
especially at Bealleau Woods.  But after that war to end all wars we disarmed, 
through our weapons away, and so were in no position to deter either Japan or 
Germany.  Youd think we would have learned from that, but we were anxious to 
disarm after WWII once again.  Englehardt hints at that when he speaks of the 
rapid rearmament beginning in 1947, but I enlisted in the USMC in 1952 and we 
had nothing but WWII weapons.  If we had started rearming in 1947, it wasnt 
with any weapons that were handed down to the Marines.  However, during the 
Cold War we did learn our lesson and resolved never to disarm agai n.  It is 
about that that Englehardt complains.  

3) Englehardt describes the trillions of dollars we spend on defense but then 
says that our weapons arent particularly good, and that other nations have 
built better ones.  These two criticisms of the Pentagon are essentially 
contradictory.  I worked with people in the Air Force who wanted us to consider 
how the latest scientific discoveries could be turned to military use.  Not all 
of them were, but there were very smart people at the Pentagon asking all the 
right questions.  A huge variety of studies were authorized and any new weapon 
had to not only prove its effectiveness but compete of a line-item in the 
military budget.  What other nations could match this procedure?   If a nation 
happened to build a weapon that was better at some particular action, it 
probably wasnt because we hadnt thought of it.  It was pro bably because we 
had thought of it but decided on a different approach.  Englehardt is taking a 
cheap shot and I cant help but wonder why he is taking it, thi
 s hippy want-to-be who wishes he had joined the anti-war movement?

Five more points:  1) I wonder what sort of a military historian he was if he 
doesnt know that the Pentagon is supposed to war-game all potential threats to 
the U.S.  He is appalled and surprised that the Pentagon did this.  Im 
appalled and surprised that he didnt know this.   He seems an isolationist at 
heart.  He has the mindset that would have us surprised by military attacks and 
threats again and again. 

2) Having just read a book by a better military historian, Bevin Alexander, I 
know it is now common knowledge that we cant win a war where we invade and 
successfully stay in a weaker nation that is hostile to us.  The guerrillas of 
a weaker nation can always wear down and outlast a stronger nation.  It can be 
said by way of explanation that we thought we would have popular support in 
Vietnam, that there was a way to win the hearts and minds of the South 
Vietnamese, but our enemy was better at that than we were.  We fought the North 
Vietnamese with the same tactics the French used.  We hadnt learned a thing 
from their defeat, but we have since.  Better military historians than 
Englehardt have taught us the lessons we needed to learn. 

3) When I was in the Marine Corps we led rough lives.  After Vietnam, the draft 
was dead; so the alternative was to attract people into the military.  Pay, 
living quarters, base facilities became much better.  You didnt need to join 
the military to fight.  You could join to get an education.  This is a recent 
occurrence (since the 70s).

4) One of the most prolific and visible historians arguing that the U.S. is an 
empire is Niall Ferguson.  Ive read some of his books and heard him speak on 
C-Span.  I think there is nothing wrong with our being an Empire if that is 
what we are, but right after arguing that we are an Empire, he spends the rest 
of the time describing how we are doing everything wrong from an Imperial 
standpoint.  The fact is we are not an Empire.  The very term doesnt fit the 
modern situation.  It is from an earlier era when there were kings and 
emperors.  You dont have kings (at least not working kings) or emperors in the 
modern world and it serves little purpose as far as I can see to invoke a term 
from an earlier era.   Perhaps it would have died out had Lenin not written 
Imperialism, the highest form of Capitalism.  But as Andreas has mentioned we 
now have globablism, the IMF, and the World Bank.   Not only that, the 
predilection of the average American citizen is still that of an isolat
 ionist.  He wishes things could be as they once were when we could leave all 
those war-like Europeans to their own wars as long as they left us alone.  

5) In order for the U.S. to be an empire, the people of the U.S. would have to 
have an Imperial mindset (as a majority once did in Imperial Britain), but that 
is never likely to be the case.  Witness for example Bushs recent speeches.  
He realizes that the majority of the people in the U.S. dont understand what 
he is doing in Iraq.  They dont understand for two reasons, 1) the Media 
hasnt provided a balanced view of the situation in Iraq, and 2) Bush hasnt 
explained his strategy well enough.  He knows there is a minority that is 
dead-set against him.  He wouldnt bother giving speeches to those people, but 
the majority who in another era might have an Imperial-mindset is another 
matter.  In this era these people are isolationists at heart.  They want to be 
convinced that their security is going to be improved by what i s going on in 
Iraq.  Bush is now explaining that to them and I suspect his approval rating is 
going to climb.  We may have weaponry suitable for an Empire
 , but we dont have the heart or the people for it.  

Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:12 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iran/al-Qaeda Ties Suggested

For Lawrence and Eric, from a former US Navy officer.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HC23Aa01.html 

That's what's truly ominous about the American empire.
In most empires, the military is there, but militarism
is so central to ours - militarism not meaning
national defense or even the projection of force for
political purposes, but as a way of life, as a way of
getting rich or getting comfortable. I guarantee you
that the 1st Marine Division lives better in Okinawa
than in Oceanside, California, by considerable orders
of magnitude. After the Wall came down, the Soviet
troops didn't leave East Germany for five years. They
didn't want to go home. They were living so much
better in Germany than they knew they would be back in
poor Russia. 

Most empires try to disguise that military aspect of
things. Our problem is: For some reason, we love our
military. We regard it as a microcosm of our society
and as an institution that works. There's nothing more
hypocritical, or constantly invoked by our
politicians, than "support our boys". After all, those
boys and girls aren't necessarily the most admirable
human beings that ever came along, certainly not once
they get into another society where they are told they
are, by definition, doing good. Then the racism that's
such a part of our society emerges very rapidly - once
they get into societies where they don't understand
what's going on, where they shout at some poor Iraqi
in English. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2006