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

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:49:38 -0800

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
<http://topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/texts.pl?category=state&mode=show&unit=19&lng=
eng> &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 <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  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, this 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 isolationist.  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