The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Emancipation of Military: Containing the Citizenry
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_290225993

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Those who try to understand military policy often confuse themselves by focusing on minor matters such as strategy, tactics, logistics, and armament. Here they err. For years the central goal of the military, the brass ring, has been independence from control by civilians. It has been achieved.

In time of war, the first concern of the command is to limit the flow of information to their publics. The actions of the enemy are an important but secondary consideration. Thus militaries strive to prevent the dissemination of photos of mutilated soldiers or, as in Washington today, of governmentally tortured prisoners. In the United States, which characteristically fights wars unrelated to the safety of the country, the Pentagon must also keep soldiers from being told that they are being sacrifice for the benefit of arms manufacturers and imperialist ambitions. In wars before Vietnam, this was adroitly effected. You could go to jail for criticizing a war.

In Vietnam, something new happened. The press covered the war freely. Reporters went where they pleased, beyond the control of the military. Their publications ran the results. National magazines printed horrific photographs of what was really happening.

Truth tells. The coverage was one of the two factors that forced Washington to quit the war. The other was the passionate unwillingness of young men to be forced to fight a war in which they had no interest. The war, a source of meaning for Washington’s thunderous hawks and fern-bar Napoleons, was getting them killed.

The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today. GIs in Asia would assault a hill, usually of no importance, and, after three days, with the aid of helicopters, helo gunships, napalm, artillery, and fighter-bombers, would capture it. This would be called a triumph. The astute observed that if the Americans had to fight on equal terms, without overwhelming material superiority, they would last perhaps ten minutes. This is now a recognized pattern. Note that numerically superior and hugely armed American forces have been outfought for years by lightly armed Afghan goat herds. Since neither the wars nor the soldiers in them are of much importance, this doesn’t matter.

The Pentagon learned a lot from Vietnam: It learned that its greatest enemies are the press and the American public. The burning question became how to keep the goddam public from interfering in wars which were none of its business and, particularly in the award of large contracts.

The problem was solved in two major ways. The first was to end the draft and go to the All Volunteer Army. The command realized that if they conscripted kids from Yale and the University of Virginia to come back in body bags, the prospective conscriptees, their girlfriends, and their families would take to the streets. This would threaten the smooth flow of funds. If volunteer kids from Tennessee died, no one would care.

The second step in keeping the public out of the loop was to control the press. This was done partly by “embedding” reporters in American military units in the victim country. The control was furthered, more by happenstance than plan, by the amalgamation of the major media in a few large corporations which then controlled content. It worked.

A third and crucial element was the quiet and de facto abolition of the restrictions imposed by the Constitution. As long as that document was held to be canonical, Congress would have to declare war before the military could attack anyone. A congressman voting for a war would have to explain to his constituents why he wanted to spend a trillion dollars on killing remote peasants when his jurisdiction had crumbling schools. People in Oklahoma might ask, “Can’t we grow our own goat herds more cheaply and kill them here?”

Congress was happy to shed this responsibility, or for that matter any responsibility. And so it did. The Commander-in-Chief was now able to send troops anywhere he pleased. It was his private army. He could , in effect, contract out the US military to Israel to crush its enemies or to the petro-interests to try to capture oil fields.

However, this happy canvas was not yet raised to Rafaelsesque perfection. There was still the awkward, though now minor, matter of body bags. The Presidency did what it could. It forbade the filming of flag-draped coffins coming into Dover Air Force Base on grounds of protecting the privacy of the occupants. Logicians might question just what intimate private details a photo of a box might reveal. But the public wasn’t William of Ockham. The point was to keep the rubes from knowing what the shrapnel cone of an RPG does the the head of Jimmy Jack Perkins of Memphis.

However, the damage was controllable. Not to Jimmy Jack’s head, but to the Army’s PR persona. That was what the Army cared about. Yet…things were not quite perfect. An awful lot of kids were coming back from obscure wars with TBI–Traumatic Brain Injury, which is what happens when seventy–five pounds of C4 in an IED blows. It turns said kid’s brain into the equivalent of a pudding stirred by an enthusiastic but poorly trained chef. For the next fifty years he stumbles, mumbles, drools, shuffles, and has the IQ of a duckbill platypus.

This was not a serious difficulty. The corporate media were in line, so there was no danger that CBS would do a hostile expose. Besides, with luck the creep would die early. But it was still a potential source of political blowback.

ORDER IT NOW

A solution appeared: Drones. They were wonderful, serving several purposes at once. They cost not as much as fighter planes, but enough to funnel lots of loot to contractors.. No body bags ever came back and so didn’t need to be hidden. Drones could be flown by wet-lipped sociopaths in air-conditioned comfort in Colorado. They couldn’t win a war, but neither could they lose one. This was ideal, since either winning or losing would slow the award of contracts.

The remaining bump in the road to full emancipation was the military budget. This matter was neutralized by the major media, which had become for practical purposes minor federal departments. In Mein Kampf, der Fuehrer pointed out that the masses would eventually believe any idea repeated often enough. A corollary was that the masses would ignore any idea mentioned only once or twice. Hiding financial grotesquery was not necessary. It sufficed to mention it briefly in paragraph seventeen or, on the tube, in passing in tones usually used in reporting uneventful weather. Done.

Close. Very close. There was no longer a single columnist in the major media who actually knew the technology, bureaucracy, and tactics of the military, or had been near a rifle. The networks could therefore hire retired colonels to explain that the military was dedicated to truth, justice, and the American way. The final condom in this chain of chastity was the president asserting that America was a city on a hill and a beam of light for darkened mankind, who to reach heaven needed only to give us their oil fields.

In sum, the foregoing measures constituted the greatest military victory since Waterloo. Neither Congress or the goddam public could any longer meddle where it had no business meddling. Fewer and fewer troops actually went to war, so the unpatriotic bastards couldn’t disrupt the war effort by coming home in body bags. The Pentagon had achieved its long-sought emancipation. It looked forward to killing any peasants who struck its fancy with the insouciant independence of a trust-fund baby in the fleshpots of the Orient.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 80 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Note that numerically superior and hugely armed American forces have been outfought for years by lightly armed Afghan goat herds.

    Didn’t know Goat Simulator was meant to be realistic!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/emancipation-of-military-containing-the-citizenry/#comment-1303191
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Excellent.

    This, not Ms. Mercer’s latest chorus of hot Trumpet, should be at the top of the page.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vendetta
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Damn Fred!! If you continue laying off the Presidente Brandy, you might write yourself a Pulitzer prize winner!! I’m mighty proud of ya boy!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Control vs. Influence.
    , @dfordoom

    if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October
     
    Maybe the military is quite happy to cave in to demands for gender equality/LGBT equality and other PC silliness because such things don't matter to them. All they care about is that the money keeps flowing to them, and that nothing interferes with their career paths. After all as Fred points out it doesn't matter how pathetically useless they are at fighting - with their overwhelming technological and numerical superiority even the most useless soldiers become formidable.

    And it also pays to remember, as Fred suggests, that the US military doesn't care about winning wars. They just want to fight more and more wars so the money keeps flowing. Winning or losing is irrelevant. Remember your Orwell - the last thing Oceania wants is to defeat Eastasia. Permanent war is the objective. Wars don't have to have objectives. A war that never ends and that has no objectives is going to be a very profitable war offering lots of opportunities for career advancement.

    Keeping the PC crowd happy by putting the male soldiers into high heels and frocks is a small price to pay for all that lovely money, all that cool military hardware and all those career opportunities. In fact the lower the standards of the troops the better - that means they need more money and more hardware.
    , @dfordoom

    your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control
     
    I think Fred is mostly right, but the military doesn't want to stop all civilians from having control over them. They just want to stop the wrong sorts of civilians from having control. The wrong sorts being any civilians who question the wisdom of never-ending wars, or raise doubts about the morality of those wars, or question whether the Pentagon really needs more and more money and more and more high-tech toys. Ordinary decent Americans who think the American armed forces exist to serve the interests of Americans are most definitely the wrong sorts of civilians.

    They have no problems with the right sorts of civilians having an influence. Blood-crazed neocon warmongers are the right sorts of civilians. They are welcome to use the military for any purposes that they like. The purpose of the US military is not to defend the US - they could do that for a fraction of the current defense budget. The purpose of the US military is to grow bigger and bigger and suck up more and more money and to offer senior officers more and better promotion prospects. So the US military is quite happy to be used as an army for hire for any crazy war the neocons might like to come up with. If the neocons decided that New Zealand was becoming a problem the Pentagon would be happy to bomb New Zealand into rubble. They're essentially mercenaries.

    There's no conflict of interest between globalist elites and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only concerned about civilians who hold dangerous extremist beliefs - you know, the nutters who believe in democracy, international law, accountability, responsible government, silly dangerous stuff like that.
    , @Stan D Mute

    Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?
     
    I think there is civilian control, but it is unserious. Serious control of military would entail deep abiding interest in actual results and objectives. How many bodies, of whom, what was destroyed and why, and how the interests of American citizens were advanced. Our unserious control instead see the military as bureaucrats playing dress-up and we know the girls and homos love to play dress-up.

    Also, contra Fred, I think we do have some very capable parts within our military. Overall, it's a monstrosity designed to spend more and waste more every year while granting absurd rank promotions and pay raises to a monstrously bloated corps of officers. It is the army we should expect after seventy years with little oversight and no real enemies to fight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    High fives for laying it all out as it really is. American wars are not boxing matches where both parties are evenly matched. There’s no intent for it ever to be on “equal terms” but rather for it to be lopsided in our favor with our overwhelming firepower. That things haven’t always worked out according to plan just shows the incompetence of American planners who underestimate other people’s capabilities and will. Remember, they live there and we don’t so of course the levels of motivation on both sides are going to be different. American soldiers signed up for a job, maybe for some promised college money or perhaps some want some excitement but there’s a limit as to how much risk they’re willing to undertake for that. In this they’re quite right, there’s no real cause, they know they’re not defending the homeland. To be fair it always seems to be the chickenhawks who are the gung-ho ones; actual military people usually seem to be rather cautious about making promises about what can be accomplished.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. The truth hurts… somebody. But it does a body good to hear it. Even though at long last, they have no shame.

    How is it, like a Hollywood trope where you can’t solve the crime till you get kicked off the force, that this is mostly able to be freely proclaimed only by those exiled from our country?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Vendetta says:
    @Rex Little
    Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?

    Control vs. Influence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Realist says:

    Excellent article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Rich says:

    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can’t think of anyone who’s actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they’re the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn’t been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn’t feel like doing that. If we’d wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred’s mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon’s impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn’t have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn’t pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world’s finest from the nation’s founding and it’s an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who’ve been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    and the US didn’t pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.
     
    War are fought to achieve concrete political objectives. If you fail to achieve your political objectives you lose. The US lost the Vietnam War.

    The US armed forces don't mind losing wars. They lose most of their wars, because the wars they fight are ill-advised and unwinnable and inherently futile. But what they don't like is to be seen to lose a war. The Vietnam War was a very public defeat.

    I'm not suggesting any lack of courage on the part of the US soldiers. Napoleon's soldiers fought bravely in Russia in 1812 and won all the major battles. They lost the war. Charles XII's Swedes fought bravely in the Great Northern War but they lost the war to the Russians. Some wars can't be won. Never invade Russia. Never fight a land war in Asia.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Let it go, Rich, it's all coming from the ego. Follow Fred's logic to its ultimate conclusion and more American fighting men will go home to their families and ultimately serve the nation.

    It's the ego thing that causes young, hot-blooded men to rush off to wars which only serve those that want to lower the minimum wage, cut spending on health and education and lord it over all. Those are the wars worth fighting as it's very unlikely anyone will invade the US (with an army, that is) although third world peasants have already pulled off that mission for the gods using little more than their feet.
    , @anonymous
    If not an "American fighting man," you're at least American, right?

    Do you realize you adore Uncle Sam's military in the same way that a 5th grader does "his" favorite football team?
    , @Biff
    It took the Vietnamese a thousand years to throw out the Chinese, 60 years to throw out the Freanch, 20 years to throw out the Japanese, and only 10 to rid themselves of the Yankees. The Americans were a push over, but they certainly left a mess behind.
    , @Hibernian
    Rich, YOU make some decent points, but going on like a recruiting sergeant doesn't help you make your points.
    , @Bragadocious
    I think the worst outcome of the Vietnam War is we got Linh Dinh, aka We Hate U Long Time. Reading him almost makes me yearn for a VC reeducation camp.
    , @Art
    Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat?

    No one is defaming the American solder – the point of the article is the war mongering of the generals. Our guys should NOT be in these wars in the first place!

    Two wise generals and presidents warned America – George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower. They said “do not get involved in foreign intrigues and watch out for the military industrial complex.”

    The Zionist Jew and the generals have formed an unholy alliance – a pox on both.
    , @annamaria
    "The Commander-in-Chief was now able to send troops anywhere he pleased. It was his private army."
    And who controls the Commander-in-Chief? Certainly not the citizenry, since the U.S. is officially an oligarchy. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
    This bitter truth does have something to do with the "world’s finest" soldiers; namely, the existing institution of interwoven MIC & oligarchy has been degrading the ideas of patriotism, valiancy, and true courage, while making the soldiers into perpetrators of the slaughter enterprises as well as a fodder for these enterprises.
    As for the "ungrateful" Vietnamese (and for Middle Easterners), do you personally prefer that you family feuds were solved by strangers? And how about agent orange and the horrific birth defects courtesy the U.S. MIC? Fred is deadly on point about the visuals: The noisy Christians like Bush the lesser (a shy warrior that heard God's commands) and other pro-lifers should have been shown pictures of the tiny corpses and kids with birth defects from Vietnam and Fallujah (hello, depleted uranium!) by American MSM on a daily basis. Instead, the media became a tool of oligarchy and the U.S. oligarchy needs to glorify "the world’s finest" while hiding the unspeakable war crimes committed for the corporations and lunatic-ziocons. The MIC is always ready to supply the presstituting MSM with the "retired colonels to explain that the military was dedicated to truth, justice, and the American way."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. AnalogMan says:

    The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today.

    Nations engaged in a war get a reputation for their fighting abilities. I don’t know how much of the legends are based on fact, and how much on propaganda. For example in WW2, the Italians had a terrible rep. Germans were considered competent. Russians were feared because they fought to the death, never retreated and seldom cried out when shot. Gurkhas (from Nepal) were regarded as fierce and brave fighters. Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, Commander of the Allied forces during WWII, said

    “Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will breach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers (from South Africa) and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth.”

    Sorry, guys, but I have spoken to several WW2 veterans, both South African and British, and the fact is that the American fighting men were not that highly regarded by their allies. That may be due to jingoism, I’m not in a position to say. America’s strength in world conflicts was its industrial base back home. Now that you are buying military equipment from China, how confident do you feel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Easy for Monty to say. How well did the English do fighting in 1940 against a Germany not engaged in an existential struggle with the greatest army of World War 2, the Soviets? How well are the Boers fighting these days for independence and freedom? (I wish they would fight for independence, fwiw.)

    The UK and the USA are two examples of nations born on third base who think they hit a triple. Our advantage was exactly as you say: we had oil, which we exported, and an industrial base with industrial workers who could crank out materiel while under NO threat of bombardment. After the failure to take Moscow in1941, Nazi Germany was a cooked goose. One reason we can be thankful for the end of the Cold War is that we can finally admit who did the work of crushing the Nazi war machine.
    , @Anonymous
    Ah found the Brit.

    The truth is British soldiers are only ferocious when they are facing hopelessly outclassed enemies. If they bring guns and their enemies have spears, then yeah the British will roar and charge into battle.

    If the British have to fight a strong enemy they resort to divide and conquer tactics like a coward. The British element in America's founding is why you see America doing this today.

    Let's see British troops go against Chinese or Russian forces head on then we'll talk.
    , @Hibernian
    Russians certainly did retreat 1941-1943, that's how the Germans got to Stalingrad.
    , @Another Chris
    "Jingoism" may be part of it, another may be that since the US arrived later than the others to the war, the veterans that had survived or those trained by them from other countries saw the American's rookie mistakes that they forgot making or had trained to eliminate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. My favorite comment about the Vietnam war was made by former POW and future Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. He said that when some say we could have won in Vietnam, he’d say “Win What?”

    The entire thing was a disaster, lost from the start. I grew tired of the right-wing spinmasters attempts to cleanse that mess with “but we never lost a battle”. I wrote of a few lost battles and posted them on-line, which grew to 98 “Lost Battles of the Vietnam War.” Google it; if I post a link at Unz it drops the comment, and for good reasons.

    We didn’t fail because of war protesters or reporters, we succeeded because they made democracy and Christianity win. We failed in Afghanistan and Iraq too, but have yet to concede. There is too much money to be made. This reminds me of a 1984 passage from the late Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF:

    ” …we must understand that it has become the objective of ‘low intensity conflict’ to continue the wasting of money, the pointless killing of defenseless people, and the consumption or attrition of costly war materiel to make way for the procurement of more. ‘Low-intensity conflict’ is a way in which the hundreds of billions of dollars of armaments produced each year can be used, destroyed, and wasted this year in order that more may be procured and used next year.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    The wars will continue until someone finds a paradigm where peace is as useful in looting the taxpayer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rex Little
    Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?

    if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October

    Maybe the military is quite happy to cave in to demands for gender equality/LGBT equality and other PC silliness because such things don’t matter to them. All they care about is that the money keeps flowing to them, and that nothing interferes with their career paths. After all as Fred points out it doesn’t matter how pathetically useless they are at fighting – with their overwhelming technological and numerical superiority even the most useless soldiers become formidable.

    And it also pays to remember, as Fred suggests, that the US military doesn’t care about winning wars. They just want to fight more and more wars so the money keeps flowing. Winning or losing is irrelevant. Remember your Orwell – the last thing Oceania wants is to defeat Eastasia. Permanent war is the objective. Wars don’t have to have objectives. A war that never ends and that has no objectives is going to be a very profitable war offering lots of opportunities for career advancement.

    Keeping the PC crowd happy by putting the male soldiers into high heels and frocks is a small price to pay for all that lovely money, all that cool military hardware and all those career opportunities. In fact the lower the standards of the troops the better – that means they need more money and more hardware.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. rod1963 says:

    The ROE put in by Patreus(aka: perfumed prince) in Afghanistan guaranteed we’d bleed and lose and we did just that. The pols and media loved that man, he told the geriatric fools on the Hill exactly what they wanted to hear.

    The ROE made it so you couldn’t shoot a bad guy the moment he stopped shooting or dropped his boom stick or was simply aiming it at some poor grunt.

    It also prevented us from killing those deploying IED’s as well.

    We couldn’t even protect our own men from blue on green fire or even publicly admit the causes of it.

    Why should the Pentagon brass care, it wasn’t their asses on the line. So what if Johnny from OKC gets shot in the back by Achmed the goat molester because he just got radicalized by local Mullah? Plenty more where that came from.

    It’s hard to get a okay to do much of anything when you have a couple of Pentagon lawyers second guessing what you’re planning on doing over the phone. Not to mention facing a court-martial if you dared overstep, even if it is to save your men.

    Or heaven forbid you stop a Afghani soldier from raping and beating some 10 year old kid because it’s a approved custom.

    In WWII we bombed the shit out of German factories using slave labor without qualms. We pumped tracer rounds and dropped napalm on Gerry and Tojo like it was going out of style. Hell both sides killed prisoners they captured if they decided they weren’t worth the effort to send to rear lines. The Rangers in Tunisia butchered some 300 dagoes who surrendered to them, but since orders said “take no prisoners” they shot them dead. So much for the Geneva Convention. Le May fire bombed cities the same way others take a dump.

    That’s war. Afghanistan wasn’t that. It was a case of PC/MC run amok where we tried to make nice to a bunch of animal and child molesters all the while trying to separate the religious nutters among them. And ignoring the fact they all wanted us dead, some just more than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "both sides killed prisoners they captured" - How come Japanese had only 5 wounded for every 100 killed while Americans had 200% wounded? So who was finishing off the wounded? And don't tell me that Japanese soldiers did not want to surrender? 800,000 did to Soviets in the last few weeks of the war while only 40,000 did to Americans in Pacific. Which is less 2.5% of their dead. The statistics are unprecedented.
    , @utu
    "both sides killed prisoners they captured" - How come Japanese had only 5 wounded for every 100 killed while Americans had 200% wounded? So who was finishing off the wounded? And don't tell me that Japanese soldiers did not want to surrender? 800,000 did to Soviets in the last few weeks of the war while only 40,000 did to Americans in Pacific. Which is less 2.5% of their dead. The statistics are unprecedented since biblical times. Americans thought they were fighting another Indian war.
    , @Talha
    The Geneva conventions were specifically drafted in the aftermath of the second World War - the most horrific conflict mankind has ever endured - precisely to prevent mankind from engaging in raping, burning cities to the ground, etc. The signatories to these regulations were the exact nations and the generation of soldiers and leaders that were first-hand witnesses to these horrors.

    Admiral Leahy said (of what US forces did to Japan - especially the use of the atomic bombs) - " I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rex Little
    Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?

    your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control

    I think Fred is mostly right, but the military doesn’t want to stop all civilians from having control over them. They just want to stop the wrong sorts of civilians from having control. The wrong sorts being any civilians who question the wisdom of never-ending wars, or raise doubts about the morality of those wars, or question whether the Pentagon really needs more and more money and more and more high-tech toys. Ordinary decent Americans who think the American armed forces exist to serve the interests of Americans are most definitely the wrong sorts of civilians.

    They have no problems with the right sorts of civilians having an influence. Blood-crazed neocon warmongers are the right sorts of civilians. They are welcome to use the military for any purposes that they like. The purpose of the US military is not to defend the US – they could do that for a fraction of the current defense budget. The purpose of the US military is to grow bigger and bigger and suck up more and more money and to offer senior officers more and better promotion prospects. So the US military is quite happy to be used as an army for hire for any crazy war the neocons might like to come up with. If the neocons decided that New Zealand was becoming a problem the Pentagon would be happy to bomb New Zealand into rubble. They’re essentially mercenaries.

    There’s no conflict of interest between globalist elites and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only concerned about civilians who hold dangerous extremist beliefs – you know, the nutters who believe in democracy, international law, accountability, responsible government, silly dangerous stuff like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    Everyone chuckles when you suggest bombing New Zealand, but from my blog:

    May 25, 2013 - Will Our Army Invade Mongolia?

    I like to skim through Stripes.com every day because it provides great reporting on our empire, even though it is mostly a propaganda outfit for our military. For example, the head of U.S. Army Pacific was just quoted as saying: "The Army's Alaska brigades are focused on Mongolia, Nepal, northern India, northern Japan and southern New Zealand, Wiercinski said..."

    This is more proof that our Generals plan to rule the world, although General Wiercinski is far too ambitious and delusional. Nepal? New Zealand is doable. Watch out Kiwis! Stop gouging us with inflated lamb chop prices! You're past due to send some colonial troops to Afghanistan too! Shape up, or our Alaskan soldiers will invade! General Wiercinski has them training for that mission right now!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    and the US didn’t pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    War are fought to achieve concrete political objectives. If you fail to achieve your political objectives you lose. The US lost the Vietnam War.

    The US armed forces don’t mind losing wars. They lose most of their wars, because the wars they fight are ill-advised and unwinnable and inherently futile. But what they don’t like is to be seen to lose a war. The Vietnam War was a very public defeat.

    I’m not suggesting any lack of courage on the part of the US soldiers. Napoleon’s soldiers fought bravely in Russia in 1812 and won all the major battles. They lost the war. Charles XII’s Swedes fought bravely in the Great Northern War but they lost the war to the Russians. Some wars can’t be won. Never invade Russia. Never fight a land war in Asia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    Let it go, Rich, it’s all coming from the ego. Follow Fred’s logic to its ultimate conclusion and more American fighting men will go home to their families and ultimately serve the nation.

    It’s the ego thing that causes young, hot-blooded men to rush off to wars which only serve those that want to lower the minimum wage, cut spending on health and education and lord it over all. Those are the wars worth fighting as it’s very unlikely anyone will invade the US (with an army, that is) although third world peasants have already pulled off that mission for the gods using little more than their feet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    If not an “American fighting man,” you’re at least American, right?

    Do you realize you adore Uncle Sam’s military in the same way that a 5th grader does “his” favorite football team?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Randal says:

    Fred hits the nail firmly on the head yet again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Rehmat says:

    Let’s all join Sarah Palin and blame the US forces Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama for all things bad with American soldiers.

    On January 19, former Governor of Alaska and Tea Party’s presidential hopeful, Israel First Sarah Louis Palin endorsed billionaire Donald Trump for the presidency. Next day, while stumping for Trump, she blamed Barack Obama for her son’s “domestic violence arrest” on Monday. She claimed that her son’s criminal behavior was result of post traumatic stress disorder from his service in 2003 Iraq War for the Zionist entity.

    “It starts from the top. The question, though, is that comes from own president where they have to look at him and wonder, ‘Do you know what we go through? Do you know what we are trying to do to secure America? When my own son is going through what he goes through coming back, I can certainly relate with other families who kind of feel these ramifications of some PTSD and the woundedness that our soldiers do return with. It makes me realize more than ever it’s now or never for the sake of America’s finest that we have that commander-in-chief who will respect them and honor them,” she said.

    Never mind the fact that it was Dubya Bush who sent her son to Iraq in order to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, women and men – and it was Barack Obama who brought her son back. Never mind the fact that Trump also want more American soldiers to die in Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan for Israel.

    According to police report, Palin’s son Track punched his girlfriend in the eye, kicked her and then threatened to shoot himself in the head with an AR-15 assault rifle. He was charged with three misdemeanors counts.

    It seems Palin never told her son how nicely she was treated by her footballer boyfriend Glenn Rice and Brad Hanson……

    http://rehmat1.com/2016/01/23/palin-blame-obama-for-sons-crimes/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I now realize we were sold a bill of goods and lied to regarding Vietnam. I now can see clearly that it’s impossible for Vietnamese to invade Vietnam, they live there. It’s us who were the invaders. This blarney about the north invading the south skips over the fact the country of Vietnam was divided by us against their will. The communists provided the leadership to reunify their country and it was nationalism that provided the strength to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Welcome to the club. The same is true in Iraq, and Afghanistan and many other places where we ave police actions going. The people our military and lapdog LSM label "insurgents" and "terrorists" are patriots defending their countries against the invaders - us. I often use the movie "Red Dawn" as an example and ask people defending our invasions how they'd feel if the tables were turned. They generally call me names or refuse to answer. I think that is because the truth scares them. It certainly hasn't been fun learning how corrupt amerika really is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Rex Little
    Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?

    Fred, your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control, how did it arrive at the state of affairs you described last October (http://fredoneverything.org/a-petticoat-military-comedy-in-uniform/)?

    I think there is civilian control, but it is unserious. Serious control of military would entail deep abiding interest in actual results and objectives. How many bodies, of whom, what was destroyed and why, and how the interests of American citizens were advanced. Our unserious control instead see the military as bureaucrats playing dress-up and we know the girls and homos love to play dress-up.

    Also, contra Fred, I think we do have some very capable parts within our military. Overall, it’s a monstrosity designed to spend more and waste more every year while granting absurd rank promotions and pay raises to a monstrously bloated corps of officers. It is the army we should expect after seventy years with little oversight and no real enemies to fight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Biff says:
    @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    It took the Vietnamese a thousand years to throw out the Chinese, 60 years to throw out the Freanch, 20 years to throw out the Japanese, and only 10 to rid themselves of the Yankees. The Americans were a push over, but they certainly left a mess behind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @AnalogMan
    The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today.

    Nations engaged in a war get a reputation for their fighting abilities. I don't know how much of the legends are based on fact, and how much on propaganda. For example in WW2, the Italians had a terrible rep. Germans were considered competent. Russians were feared because they fought to the death, never retreated and seldom cried out when shot. Gurkhas (from Nepal) were regarded as fierce and brave fighters. Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, Commander of the Allied forces during WWII, said

    "Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will breach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers (from South Africa) and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth."

    Sorry, guys, but I have spoken to several WW2 veterans, both South African and British, and the fact is that the American fighting men were not that highly regarded by their allies. That may be due to jingoism, I'm not in a position to say. America's strength in world conflicts was its industrial base back home. Now that you are buying military equipment from China, how confident do you feel?

    Easy for Monty to say. How well did the English do fighting in 1940 against a Germany not engaged in an existential struggle with the greatest army of World War 2, the Soviets? How well are the Boers fighting these days for independence and freedom? (I wish they would fight for independence, fwiw.)

    The UK and the USA are two examples of nations born on third base who think they hit a triple. Our advantage was exactly as you say: we had oil, which we exported, and an industrial base with industrial workers who could crank out materiel while under NO threat of bombardment. After the failure to take Moscow in1941, Nazi Germany was a cooked goose. One reason we can be thankful for the end of the Cold War is that we can finally admit who did the work of crushing the Nazi war machine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Rich says:

    A few replies to some anti-American soldier comments;

    Biff- The US was winning the war. Read a history book, read comments by the North Vietnamese commanders, and see if your “opinion” remains the same.

    Anonymous- “Adore like a 5th grader”? Wow you got me there. The fact that the world trembles at the thought of war against the US is meaningless, right? I’m stating facts, not cheering for a “football team.”

    Noseytheduke- “Ego”? Gee, is stating facts ego, now? Rocky Marciano was heavyweight champ of the world, that’s a fact, stating it has nothing to do with ego. It’s the same as stating the American fighting man is among the world’s best and always has been.

    dfordoom- The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren’t met, I’ll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Marciano? More like Jerry Quarry.

    And how does noting your childish jingoism make me "anti-American soldier"? You conspicuously left out your illustrious war record. So I ask again: Where did you keep us safe and free? Or are you another Ashton Carter, content to let other Americans do the killing and dying?
    , @dfordoom

    The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren’t met, I’ll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?
     
    It doesn't matter how many battles you win if you lose the war. The US, with overwhelming material superiority and with a staggering advantage in firepower, failed to achieve victory. They killed a lot of peasants in pyjamas but the North Vietnamese Army was still intact and went on to win. Fighting well doesn't count if you fight stupidly and the US has fought stupidly time and time again. Countries that fight wars as stupidly as the US does would be well advised to find another hobby. The US loves war but it isn't very good at it.

    The only battlefield that counts at the end of the day is the political one.
    , @Bill jones
    Wrong. The worst outcome was insane McCain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @dfordoom

    your premise begs one question: if the military is free from civilian control
     
    I think Fred is mostly right, but the military doesn't want to stop all civilians from having control over them. They just want to stop the wrong sorts of civilians from having control. The wrong sorts being any civilians who question the wisdom of never-ending wars, or raise doubts about the morality of those wars, or question whether the Pentagon really needs more and more money and more and more high-tech toys. Ordinary decent Americans who think the American armed forces exist to serve the interests of Americans are most definitely the wrong sorts of civilians.

    They have no problems with the right sorts of civilians having an influence. Blood-crazed neocon warmongers are the right sorts of civilians. They are welcome to use the military for any purposes that they like. The purpose of the US military is not to defend the US - they could do that for a fraction of the current defense budget. The purpose of the US military is to grow bigger and bigger and suck up more and more money and to offer senior officers more and better promotion prospects. So the US military is quite happy to be used as an army for hire for any crazy war the neocons might like to come up with. If the neocons decided that New Zealand was becoming a problem the Pentagon would be happy to bomb New Zealand into rubble. They're essentially mercenaries.

    There's no conflict of interest between globalist elites and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only concerned about civilians who hold dangerous extremist beliefs - you know, the nutters who believe in democracy, international law, accountability, responsible government, silly dangerous stuff like that.

    Everyone chuckles when you suggest bombing New Zealand, but from my blog:

    May 25, 2013 – Will Our Army Invade Mongolia?

    I like to skim through Stripes.com every day because it provides great reporting on our empire, even though it is mostly a propaganda outfit for our military. For example, the head of U.S. Army Pacific was just quoted as saying: “The Army’s Alaska brigades are focused on Mongolia, Nepal, northern India, northern Japan and southern New Zealand, Wiercinski said…”

    This is more proof that our Generals plan to rule the world, although General Wiercinski is far too ambitious and delusional. Nepal? New Zealand is doable. Watch out Kiwis! Stop gouging us with inflated lamb chop prices! You’re past due to send some colonial troops to Afghanistan too! Shape up, or our Alaskan soldiers will invade! General Wiercinski has them training for that mission right now!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Nepal? New Zealand is doable. Watch out Kiwis!
     
    Not only did the "right wing" party in New Zealand enact same-sex connubiality, the parliament celebrated by singing an indigenous love ballad.

    That's not a place any sane soldier would want to invade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This is the article of the year. Yes even in January I’m calling it. Powerfull stuff.

    What I take from this is that all the hippies protesting the war in the 70s were never truly antiwar. They just didn’t want to go themselves. They were perfectly fine with conquering the world as long as they didn’t have to go do the fighting themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AnalogMan
    The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today.

    Nations engaged in a war get a reputation for their fighting abilities. I don't know how much of the legends are based on fact, and how much on propaganda. For example in WW2, the Italians had a terrible rep. Germans were considered competent. Russians were feared because they fought to the death, never retreated and seldom cried out when shot. Gurkhas (from Nepal) were regarded as fierce and brave fighters. Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, Commander of the Allied forces during WWII, said

    "Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will breach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers (from South Africa) and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth."

    Sorry, guys, but I have spoken to several WW2 veterans, both South African and British, and the fact is that the American fighting men were not that highly regarded by their allies. That may be due to jingoism, I'm not in a position to say. America's strength in world conflicts was its industrial base back home. Now that you are buying military equipment from China, how confident do you feel?

    Ah found the Brit.

    The truth is British soldiers are only ferocious when they are facing hopelessly outclassed enemies. If they bring guns and their enemies have spears, then yeah the British will roar and charge into battle.

    If the British have to fight a strong enemy they resort to divide and conquer tactics like a coward. The British element in America’s founding is why you see America doing this today.

    Let’s see British troops go against Chinese or Russian forces head on then we’ll talk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "Whatever happens
    we have got,
    the Gatling gun
    and they have not."
    - Hillaire Belloc


    When the British faced the Germans, who did have the Gatling gun they suffered 60,000 casualties on a single day.
    , @dfordoom

    The truth is British soldiers are only ferocious when they are facing hopelessly outclassed enemies. If they bring guns and their enemies have spears, then yeah the British will roar and charge into battle.
     
    The British and the Americans have both had the advantage of not having to fight foreign armies on their own soil. Their wars have not been wars for survival. They have not been in danger of invasion (neither Napoleon nor Hitler had any serious intention of doing something as daft as invading Britain).

    That's why Britain was so enthusiastic about joining in the First World War even though it was none of their business. If things went badly their country was not going to be overrun.

    That's why Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. They couldn't do anything to help Poland but it didn't matter because the ones whose countries were going to be overrun were the Poles and the French. If things went badly the Brits could always run away, as they did in 1940.

    People like the Germans and the Poles and the Russians tend to view war differently because it's always potentially a struggle for survival. For the British and the Americans it's a jolly adventure and a chance to kill foreigners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rich
    A few replies to some anti-American soldier comments;

    Biff- The US was winning the war. Read a history book, read comments by the North Vietnamese commanders, and see if your "opinion" remains the same.

    Anonymous- "Adore like a 5th grader"? Wow you got me there. The fact that the world trembles at the thought of war against the US is meaningless, right? I'm stating facts, not cheering for a "football team."

    Noseytheduke- "Ego"? Gee, is stating facts ego, now? Rocky Marciano was heavyweight champ of the world, that's a fact, stating it has nothing to do with ego. It's the same as stating the American fighting man is among the world's best and always has been.

    dfordoom- The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren't met, I'll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?

    Marciano? More like Jerry Quarry.

    And how does noting your childish jingoism make me “anti-American soldier”? You conspicuously left out your illustrious war record. So I ask again: Where did you keep us safe and free? Or are you another Ashton Carter, content to let other Americans do the killing and dying?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Although Jerry Quarry was a good fighter, I don't believe he was ever Heavyweight champ nor did he defeat Imperial Japan, Imperial Britain, Germany under the Kaiser or the Nazis, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Sioux, etc.. And, yes, I did serve in the US Army, but giving you my service record would be a waste of time wouldn't it? I mean I could make up stories about awards and medals, but unless I provided my DD214, what would that prove? I am referring to the defamation of the American fighting man and thereby also defaming all the other soldiers in the world who met defeat at his hands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. utu says:
    @rod1963
    The ROE put in by Patreus(aka: perfumed prince) in Afghanistan guaranteed we'd bleed and lose and we did just that. The pols and media loved that man, he told the geriatric fools on the Hill exactly what they wanted to hear.

    The ROE made it so you couldn't shoot a bad guy the moment he stopped shooting or dropped his boom stick or was simply aiming it at some poor grunt.

    It also prevented us from killing those deploying IED's as well.

    We couldn't even protect our own men from blue on green fire or even publicly admit the causes of it.

    Why should the Pentagon brass care, it wasn't their asses on the line. So what if Johnny from OKC gets shot in the back by Achmed the goat molester because he just got radicalized by local Mullah? Plenty more where that came from.

    It's hard to get a okay to do much of anything when you have a couple of Pentagon lawyers second guessing what you're planning on doing over the phone. Not to mention facing a court-martial if you dared overstep, even if it is to save your men.

    Or heaven forbid you stop a Afghani soldier from raping and beating some 10 year old kid because it's a approved custom.

    In WWII we bombed the shit out of German factories using slave labor without qualms. We pumped tracer rounds and dropped napalm on Gerry and Tojo like it was going out of style. Hell both sides killed prisoners they captured if they decided they weren't worth the effort to send to rear lines. The Rangers in Tunisia butchered some 300 dagoes who surrendered to them, but since orders said "take no prisoners" they shot them dead. So much for the Geneva Convention. Le May fire bombed cities the same way others take a dump.

    That's war. Afghanistan wasn't that. It was a case of PC/MC run amok where we tried to make nice to a bunch of animal and child molesters all the while trying to separate the religious nutters among them. And ignoring the fact they all wanted us dead, some just more than others.

    “both sides killed prisoners they captured” – How come Japanese had only 5 wounded for every 100 killed while Americans had 200% wounded? So who was finishing off the wounded? And don’t tell me that Japanese soldiers did not want to surrender? 800,000 did to Soviets in the last few weeks of the war while only 40,000 did to Americans in Pacific. Which is less 2.5% of their dead. The statistics are unprecedented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. utu says:
    @rod1963
    The ROE put in by Patreus(aka: perfumed prince) in Afghanistan guaranteed we'd bleed and lose and we did just that. The pols and media loved that man, he told the geriatric fools on the Hill exactly what they wanted to hear.

    The ROE made it so you couldn't shoot a bad guy the moment he stopped shooting or dropped his boom stick or was simply aiming it at some poor grunt.

    It also prevented us from killing those deploying IED's as well.

    We couldn't even protect our own men from blue on green fire or even publicly admit the causes of it.

    Why should the Pentagon brass care, it wasn't their asses on the line. So what if Johnny from OKC gets shot in the back by Achmed the goat molester because he just got radicalized by local Mullah? Plenty more where that came from.

    It's hard to get a okay to do much of anything when you have a couple of Pentagon lawyers second guessing what you're planning on doing over the phone. Not to mention facing a court-martial if you dared overstep, even if it is to save your men.

    Or heaven forbid you stop a Afghani soldier from raping and beating some 10 year old kid because it's a approved custom.

    In WWII we bombed the shit out of German factories using slave labor without qualms. We pumped tracer rounds and dropped napalm on Gerry and Tojo like it was going out of style. Hell both sides killed prisoners they captured if they decided they weren't worth the effort to send to rear lines. The Rangers in Tunisia butchered some 300 dagoes who surrendered to them, but since orders said "take no prisoners" they shot them dead. So much for the Geneva Convention. Le May fire bombed cities the same way others take a dump.

    That's war. Afghanistan wasn't that. It was a case of PC/MC run amok where we tried to make nice to a bunch of animal and child molesters all the while trying to separate the religious nutters among them. And ignoring the fact they all wanted us dead, some just more than others.

    “both sides killed prisoners they captured” – How come Japanese had only 5 wounded for every 100 killed while Americans had 200% wounded? So who was finishing off the wounded? And don’t tell me that Japanese soldiers did not want to surrender? 800,000 did to Soviets in the last few weeks of the war while only 40,000 did to Americans in Pacific. Which is less 2.5% of their dead. The statistics are unprecedented since biblical times. Americans thought they were fighting another Indian war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Within a century, unless something changes, the Pentagon will be running the nation and elections will mean nothing. We’re almost there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Carlton Meyer
    Everyone chuckles when you suggest bombing New Zealand, but from my blog:

    May 25, 2013 - Will Our Army Invade Mongolia?

    I like to skim through Stripes.com every day because it provides great reporting on our empire, even though it is mostly a propaganda outfit for our military. For example, the head of U.S. Army Pacific was just quoted as saying: "The Army's Alaska brigades are focused on Mongolia, Nepal, northern India, northern Japan and southern New Zealand, Wiercinski said..."

    This is more proof that our Generals plan to rule the world, although General Wiercinski is far too ambitious and delusional. Nepal? New Zealand is doable. Watch out Kiwis! Stop gouging us with inflated lamb chop prices! You're past due to send some colonial troops to Afghanistan too! Shape up, or our Alaskan soldiers will invade! General Wiercinski has them training for that mission right now!

    Nepal? New Zealand is doable. Watch out Kiwis!

    Not only did the “right wing” party in New Zealand enact same-sex connubiality, the parliament celebrated by singing an indigenous love ballad.

    That’s not a place any sane soldier would want to invade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?

    Not only New Zealand a White settlers occupied land like the US and Canada - it's prime minister John Phillip Key happens to be Jewish.

    Nepal, on the other hand, is a country with no natural resource.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/12/24/new-zealand-occupied-by-jewish-minority/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. I spent many hours tracking down confessions of North Vietnamese Generals that they had lost the war. These stories began to appear in right-wing publications in the 1980s, but all turned out false. Snopes.com has a good summary. North Vietnam was never near defeat. Some claim we should have invaded north, but everyone rightly feared China’s reaction, which might have resulted another American Korean war Yalu disaster if millions of Chinese troops joined the fight. Allow me to summarize the conflict from my book:

    General William Westmoreland’s insurgent tactics during the Vietnam war were simple; take the war to the enemy and kill him faster than he could be replaced. Where possible, apply an overwhelming, stunning force. “A great country”, he liked to say quoting the Duke of Wellington, “cannot wage a little war.” Westmoreland proudly bragged that his forces were killing ten enemy soldiers for every American that died, so it was just matter of time before they were destroyed.

    By 1968, it was becoming apparent that something was wrong with Westmoreland’s strategy. The man who sounded the alarm was a lowly Army Lt. Colonel, John Paul Vann, whose life was depicted in an excellent book, “A Bright Shining Lie.” Vann had years of experience in Vietnam and explained to anyone who would listen that North Vietnam had a population of 20 million people. Half were men, and half of those were boys and old men, so that left five million fighting age North Vietnamese men. At that time, some 25,000 Americans had died in the war. Vann pointed out that a 10 to 1 killing ratio will cost 500,000 more American deaths to finish off those five million Vietnamese men. This figure didn’t even include a million local Viet Cong guerrillas in the South, plus Chinese and women volunteers.

    Vann showed that at the current rate of killing 100,000 Vietnamese insurgents a year, it would take 50 years and 500,000 American dead to kill those 5 million fighters. However, some 150,000 boys were becoming men each year, so Westmoreland was making no progress at all with his 10:1 kill ratio. Westmoreland eventually realized that his strategy was not working, so he asked for 200,000 more troops to increase the kill rate. There were already 500,000 US troops in Vietnam to crush rag tag insurgents from a small backward nation, so President Johnson told him no. The US military failed in Vietnam, but didn’t learn much as an institution as blame was shifted to the media and protesters for ending the war too soon.

    __________________

    And things weren’t always rosy on the battlefield, something kept hidden from those back home. From my blog.

    Nov 28, 2014 – Vietnam War Lies

    One reason the USA lost in Vietnam was the U.S. military’s perpetual public relations campaign combined with a zero defects culture in the U.S. military. American Generals often angrily dismissed news reports from battlefields as hogwash, only to discovered they had been lied to by their own lower-ranking officers. The great book “A Bright Shining Lie” covers this problem.

    I recently stumbled across an example. I like reading the “Stars and Stripes” on-line because it has interesting stuff, but keep in mind that it is a U.S. government funded publication. I noticed this article linked in its archive: Marines kill 300 as Utah trap closes. That 1966 report began with:

    QUANG NGAI, Vietnam — Eight Vietnamese and U.S. Marine Corps Battalions Sunday closed in on a north Vietnamese force estimated at regiment size. A Marine spokesman reported 300 of the enemy confirmed killed and a Vietnamese spokesman said government forces killed another 225. American and Vietnamese casualties were light.

    I took notice because I included that battle in my list of 70 “Lost Battles of the Vietnam War”. My summary is based on the Marine Corps’ official history about the battle that can be read on-line: Here is my summary:

    13. Operation Utah – On Mar 4, 1966, the 2nd battalion of the 7th Marines helicoptered into an area near Quang Ngai to investigate reports of an NVA regiment in the area. They found it dug into fortifications around Hill 50. Their attacked failed and the Marines fell back, but were surprised when the NVA counterattacked. The battalion was in trouble and more Marine units where flown in to join the battle. The enemy withdrew, but only after the Marines lost 98 dead, 278 wounded, with several aircraft destroyed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes. Vietnam lost many battles but was never in danger of losing the war. Those soldiers were fighting for their country and could fight a defensive war of attrition.

    Meanwhile Americans were spending far more to fight the war overseas. Before America could ever kill attrition the Vietnamese America would go bankrupt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Talha says:
    @rod1963
    The ROE put in by Patreus(aka: perfumed prince) in Afghanistan guaranteed we'd bleed and lose and we did just that. The pols and media loved that man, he told the geriatric fools on the Hill exactly what they wanted to hear.

    The ROE made it so you couldn't shoot a bad guy the moment he stopped shooting or dropped his boom stick or was simply aiming it at some poor grunt.

    It also prevented us from killing those deploying IED's as well.

    We couldn't even protect our own men from blue on green fire or even publicly admit the causes of it.

    Why should the Pentagon brass care, it wasn't their asses on the line. So what if Johnny from OKC gets shot in the back by Achmed the goat molester because he just got radicalized by local Mullah? Plenty more where that came from.

    It's hard to get a okay to do much of anything when you have a couple of Pentagon lawyers second guessing what you're planning on doing over the phone. Not to mention facing a court-martial if you dared overstep, even if it is to save your men.

    Or heaven forbid you stop a Afghani soldier from raping and beating some 10 year old kid because it's a approved custom.

    In WWII we bombed the shit out of German factories using slave labor without qualms. We pumped tracer rounds and dropped napalm on Gerry and Tojo like it was going out of style. Hell both sides killed prisoners they captured if they decided they weren't worth the effort to send to rear lines. The Rangers in Tunisia butchered some 300 dagoes who surrendered to them, but since orders said "take no prisoners" they shot them dead. So much for the Geneva Convention. Le May fire bombed cities the same way others take a dump.

    That's war. Afghanistan wasn't that. It was a case of PC/MC run amok where we tried to make nice to a bunch of animal and child molesters all the while trying to separate the religious nutters among them. And ignoring the fact they all wanted us dead, some just more than others.

    The Geneva conventions were specifically drafted in the aftermath of the second World War – the most horrific conflict mankind has ever endured – precisely to prevent mankind from engaging in raping, burning cities to the ground, etc. The signatories to these regulations were the exact nations and the generation of soldiers and leaders that were first-hand witnesses to these horrors.

    Admiral Leahy said (of what US forces did to Japan – especially the use of the atomic bombs) – ” I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Admiral Leahy said (of what US forces did to Japan – especially the use of the atomic bombs) – ” I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
     
    Maybe one day the US will realise that Leahy was right. Maybe. But a lot more women and children will die before that happens.

    And it's worth remembering that sanctions are in fact an act of war and that sanctions kill mostly women and children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Hibernian says:
    @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    Rich, YOU make some decent points, but going on like a recruiting sergeant doesn’t help you make your points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Hibernian says:
    @AnalogMan
    The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today.

    Nations engaged in a war get a reputation for their fighting abilities. I don't know how much of the legends are based on fact, and how much on propaganda. For example in WW2, the Italians had a terrible rep. Germans were considered competent. Russians were feared because they fought to the death, never retreated and seldom cried out when shot. Gurkhas (from Nepal) were regarded as fierce and brave fighters. Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, Commander of the Allied forces during WWII, said

    "Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will breach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers (from South Africa) and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth."

    Sorry, guys, but I have spoken to several WW2 veterans, both South African and British, and the fact is that the American fighting men were not that highly regarded by their allies. That may be due to jingoism, I'm not in a position to say. America's strength in world conflicts was its industrial base back home. Now that you are buying military equipment from China, how confident do you feel?

    Russians certainly did retreat 1941-1943, that’s how the Germans got to Stalingrad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Carlton Meyer
    My favorite comment about the Vietnam war was made by former POW and future Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. He said that when some say we could have won in Vietnam, he'd say "Win What?"

    The entire thing was a disaster, lost from the start. I grew tired of the right-wing spinmasters attempts to cleanse that mess with "but we never lost a battle". I wrote of a few lost battles and posted them on-line, which grew to 98 "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War." Google it; if I post a link at Unz it drops the comment, and for good reasons.

    We didn't fail because of war protesters or reporters, we succeeded because they made democracy and Christianity win. We failed in Afghanistan and Iraq too, but have yet to concede. There is too much money to be made. This reminds me of a 1984 passage from the late Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF:

    " ...we must understand that it has become the objective of 'low intensity conflict' to continue the wasting of money, the pointless killing of defenseless people, and the consumption or attrition of costly war materiel to make way for the procurement of more. 'Low-intensity conflict' is a way in which the hundreds of billions of dollars of armaments produced each year can be used, destroyed, and wasted this year in order that more may be procured and used next year."

    The wars will continue until someone finds a paradigm where peace is as useful in looting the taxpayer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon7
    I agree, but I don't think anything like it will ever be discovered, unless we start taking Title IX totally seriously.

    There are two numbers, and one simple concept, to understand US Military spending.

    $100,000 (the approximate cost of supporting a US war fighter at a US military base, and $1,000,000 (the approximate cost of supporting a US War fighter in a foreign conflict.

    The basic concept is that war destroys or obsoletes very expensive materiel at an incredible rate.

    For example, to put 100,000 war fighters in Iraq for a year costs 100 billion dollars. There is no return from this expenditure.

    That's why I don't care about the hated term "war fighter" or about female or even transgender soldiers. It's the money that matters, because practically all of it goes to war profiteer companies who buy congressmen, generals and presidents. The war fighter is just a proxy for giving vast sums to war profiteering companies.

    (I apologize to families whose children proudly serve. I know some of you, and I would never say this to you. But the mission of the US military, which is to make obscene billions for global corps, is not worthy of your patriotism.)

    Great article, Fred.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    I think the worst outcome of the Vietnam War is we got Linh Dinh, aka We Hate U Long Time. Reading him almost makes me yearn for a VC reeducation camp.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill jonez
    Wrong. The worst outcome was insane McCain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Rich says:
    @anonymous
    Marciano? More like Jerry Quarry.

    And how does noting your childish jingoism make me "anti-American soldier"? You conspicuously left out your illustrious war record. So I ask again: Where did you keep us safe and free? Or are you another Ashton Carter, content to let other Americans do the killing and dying?

    Although Jerry Quarry was a good fighter, I don’t believe he was ever Heavyweight champ nor did he defeat Imperial Japan, Imperial Britain, Germany under the Kaiser or the Nazis, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Sioux, etc.. And, yes, I did serve in the US Army, but giving you my service record would be a waste of time wouldn’t it? I mean I could make up stories about awards and medals, but unless I provided my DD214, what would that prove? I am referring to the defamation of the American fighting man and thereby also defaming all the other soldiers in the world who met defeat at his hands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    I spent many hours tracking down confessions of North Vietnamese Generals that they had lost the war. These stories began to appear in right-wing publications in the 1980s, but all turned out false. Snopes.com has a good summary. North Vietnam was never near defeat. Some claim we should have invaded north, but everyone rightly feared China's reaction, which might have resulted another American Korean war Yalu disaster if millions of Chinese troops joined the fight. Allow me to summarize the conflict from my book:

    General William Westmoreland's insurgent tactics during the Vietnam war were simple; take the war to the enemy and kill him faster than he could be replaced. Where possible, apply an overwhelming, stunning force. "A great country", he liked to say quoting the Duke of Wellington, "cannot wage a little war." Westmoreland proudly bragged that his forces were killing ten enemy soldiers for every American that died, so it was just matter of time before they were destroyed.

    By 1968, it was becoming apparent that something was wrong with Westmoreland's strategy. The man who sounded the alarm was a lowly Army Lt. Colonel, John Paul Vann, whose life was depicted in an excellent book, "A Bright Shining Lie." Vann had years of experience in Vietnam and explained to anyone who would listen that North Vietnam had a population of 20 million people. Half were men, and half of those were boys and old men, so that left five million fighting age North Vietnamese men. At that time, some 25,000 Americans had died in the war. Vann pointed out that a 10 to 1 killing ratio will cost 500,000 more American deaths to finish off those five million Vietnamese men. This figure didn't even include a million local Viet Cong guerrillas in the South, plus Chinese and women volunteers.

    Vann showed that at the current rate of killing 100,000 Vietnamese insurgents a year, it would take 50 years and 500,000 American dead to kill those 5 million fighters. However, some 150,000 boys were becoming men each year, so Westmoreland was making no progress at all with his 10:1 kill ratio. Westmoreland eventually realized that his strategy was not working, so he asked for 200,000 more troops to increase the kill rate. There were already 500,000 US troops in Vietnam to crush rag tag insurgents from a small backward nation, so President Johnson told him no. The US military failed in Vietnam, but didn't learn much as an institution as blame was shifted to the media and protesters for ending the war too soon.

    __________________

    And things weren't always rosy on the battlefield, something kept hidden from those back home. From my blog.

    Nov 28, 2014 - Vietnam War Lies

    One reason the USA lost in Vietnam was the U.S. military's perpetual public relations campaign combined with a zero defects culture in the U.S. military. American Generals often angrily dismissed news reports from battlefields as hogwash, only to discovered they had been lied to by their own lower-ranking officers. The great book "A Bright Shining Lie" covers this problem.

    I recently stumbled across an example. I like reading the "Stars and Stripes" on-line because it has interesting stuff, but keep in mind that it is a U.S. government funded publication. I noticed this article linked in its archive: Marines kill 300 as Utah trap closes. That 1966 report began with:

    QUANG NGAI, Vietnam — Eight Vietnamese and U.S. Marine Corps Battalions Sunday closed in on a north Vietnamese force estimated at regiment size. A Marine spokesman reported 300 of the enemy confirmed killed and a Vietnamese spokesman said government forces killed another 225. American and Vietnamese casualties were light.

    I took notice because I included that battle in my list of 70 "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War". My summary is based on the Marine Corps' official history about the battle that can be read on-line: Here is my summary:

    13. Operation Utah - On Mar 4, 1966, the 2nd battalion of the 7th Marines helicoptered into an area near Quang Ngai to investigate reports of an NVA regiment in the area. They found it dug into fortifications around Hill 50. Their attacked failed and the Marines fell back, but were surprised when the NVA counterattacked. The battalion was in trouble and more Marine units where flown in to join the battle. The enemy withdrew, but only after the Marines lost 98 dead, 278 wounded, with several aircraft destroyed.

    Yes. Vietnam lost many battles but was never in danger of losing the war. Those soldiers were fighting for their country and could fight a defensive war of attrition.

    Meanwhile Americans were spending far more to fight the war overseas. Before America could ever kill attrition the Vietnamese America would go bankrupt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @AnalogMan
    The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today.

    Nations engaged in a war get a reputation for their fighting abilities. I don't know how much of the legends are based on fact, and how much on propaganda. For example in WW2, the Italians had a terrible rep. Germans were considered competent. Russians were feared because they fought to the death, never retreated and seldom cried out when shot. Gurkhas (from Nepal) were regarded as fierce and brave fighters. Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery, Commander of the Allied forces during WWII, said

    "Give me 20 divisions American soldiers and I will breach Europe. Give me 15 consisting of Englishmen, and I will advance to the borders of Berlin. Give me two divisions of those marvellous fighting Boers (from South Africa) and I will remove Germany from the face of the earth."

    Sorry, guys, but I have spoken to several WW2 veterans, both South African and British, and the fact is that the American fighting men were not that highly regarded by their allies. That may be due to jingoism, I'm not in a position to say. America's strength in world conflicts was its industrial base back home. Now that you are buying military equipment from China, how confident do you feel?

    “Jingoism” may be part of it, another may be that since the US arrived later than the others to the war, the veterans that had survived or those trained by them from other countries saw the American’s rookie mistakes that they forgot making or had trained to eliminate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. “The Commander-in-Chief was now able to send troops anywhere he pleased. It was his private army. He could , in effect, contract out the US military to Israel to crush its enemies or to the petro-interests to try to capture oil fields.”

    What “enemies of Israel” did the US crush, under contract or not?

    The Commander-in-Chief is the President, a civilian whose legal orders the military is sworn under oath to follow. The President appoints several civilians, called Secretaries, over the military. Several US Rangers were “pinned down” 2 weeks ago in Afghanistan and no attack aircraft were used because of fear of killing civilians. This is not the the unleashed-military-looking-for-goat-herders-in-other-countries-to-kill-just-because-they-have-a-budget scenario the author seeks to portray. The President ordered them into those countries.

    The Congress relinquishing control over the military is a problem for both the United States and the rest of the world. The military leadership did blame the media for losing in Vietnam instead of their own failures, so the military leadership does try to control the media narrative. Solutions to these problems are not advanced by calling the military sociopathic murderers acting without restraint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, to start.

    Maybe Iran soon all in the interest of Isreal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Anonymous
    Ah found the Brit.

    The truth is British soldiers are only ferocious when they are facing hopelessly outclassed enemies. If they bring guns and their enemies have spears, then yeah the British will roar and charge into battle.

    If the British have to fight a strong enemy they resort to divide and conquer tactics like a coward. The British element in America's founding is why you see America doing this today.

    Let's see British troops go against Chinese or Russian forces head on then we'll talk.

    “Whatever happens
    we have got,
    the Gatling gun
    and they have not.”
    - Hillaire Belloc

    When the British faced the Germans, who did have the Gatling gun they suffered 60,000 casualties on a single day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Most of those were probably shot in the back trying to run away. :)
    , @another fred

    “Whatever happens
    we have got,
    the Gatling Maxim gun
    and they have not.”
    - Hillaire Belloc
     
    FTFY
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. What flavor of moron would ever want to fight a war on “equal terms” when it comes to military technology, arms, support, intelligence and training? From finding a better, heavier rock to hit the other guy with through advances in metallurgy getting the upper hand through technology has been part of the game.

    And it’s a bit specious to conclude that the U.S. has been fighting on “equal terms” as regards the ROE since WWII, and as Rich concludes above the ROE are essentially suicidal at times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Truth says:

    Note that numerically superior and hugely armed American forces have been outfought for years by lightly armed Afghan goat herds.

    Have you totally lost it now, Old Boy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Bill Jones
    "Whatever happens
    we have got,
    the Gatling gun
    and they have not."
    - Hillaire Belloc


    When the British faced the Germans, who did have the Gatling gun they suffered 60,000 casualties on a single day.

    Most of those were probably shot in the back trying to run away. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Another Chris
    "The Commander-in-Chief was now able to send troops anywhere he pleased. It was his private army. He could , in effect, contract out the US military to Israel to crush its enemies or to the petro-interests to try to capture oil fields."

    What "enemies of Israel" did the US crush, under contract or not?

    The Commander-in-Chief is the President, a civilian whose legal orders the military is sworn under oath to follow. The President appoints several civilians, called Secretaries, over the military. Several US Rangers were "pinned down" 2 weeks ago in Afghanistan and no attack aircraft were used because of fear of killing civilians. This is not the the unleashed-military-looking-for-goat-herders-in-other-countries-to-kill-just-because-they-have-a-budget scenario the author seeks to portray. The President ordered them into those countries.

    The Congress relinquishing control over the military is a problem for both the United States and the rest of the world. The military leadership did blame the media for losing in Vietnam instead of their own failures, so the military leadership does try to control the media narrative. Solutions to these problems are not advanced by calling the military sociopathic murderers acting without restraint.

    Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, to start.

    Maybe Iran soon all in the interest of Isreal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Art says:
    @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat?

    No one is defaming the American solder – the point of the article is the war mongering of the generals. Our guys should NOT be in these wars in the first place!

    Two wise generals and presidents warned America – George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower. They said “do not get involved in foreign intrigues and watch out for the military industrial complex.”

    The Zionist Jew and the generals have formed an unholy alliance – a pox on both.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Rehmat says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Nepal? New Zealand is doable. Watch out Kiwis!
     
    Not only did the "right wing" party in New Zealand enact same-sex connubiality, the parliament celebrated by singing an indigenous love ballad.

    That's not a place any sane soldier would want to invade.

    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?

    Not only New Zealand a White settlers occupied land like the US and Canada – it’s prime minister John Phillip Key happens to be Jewish.

    Nepal, on the other hand, is a country with no natural resource.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/12/24/new-zealand-occupied-by-jewish-minority/

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?
     
    It's better to fight the New Zealanders in New Zealand. If you don't you'll end up having to fight them on your own soul. When the New Zealand army is marching triumphantly through the streets of LA and New York just remember - I did warn you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rich
    A few replies to some anti-American soldier comments;

    Biff- The US was winning the war. Read a history book, read comments by the North Vietnamese commanders, and see if your "opinion" remains the same.

    Anonymous- "Adore like a 5th grader"? Wow you got me there. The fact that the world trembles at the thought of war against the US is meaningless, right? I'm stating facts, not cheering for a "football team."

    Noseytheduke- "Ego"? Gee, is stating facts ego, now? Rocky Marciano was heavyweight champ of the world, that's a fact, stating it has nothing to do with ego. It's the same as stating the American fighting man is among the world's best and always has been.

    dfordoom- The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren't met, I'll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?

    The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren’t met, I’ll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?

    It doesn’t matter how many battles you win if you lose the war. The US, with overwhelming material superiority and with a staggering advantage in firepower, failed to achieve victory. They killed a lot of peasants in pyjamas but the North Vietnamese Army was still intact and went on to win. Fighting well doesn’t count if you fight stupidly and the US has fought stupidly time and time again. Countries that fight wars as stupidly as the US does would be well advised to find another hobby. The US loves war but it isn’t very good at it.

    The only battlefield that counts at the end of the day is the political one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    "The US loves war but isn't very good at it." Ha Ha Ha. I guess that's why the Emperor of Japan still holds China, here in the Colonies we still bow to the King, Goebbels's grandson was recently elected Fuehrer, Saddam and his sons are still torturing dissidents, the Taliban is comfortably stoning girls for reading, Puerto Rico and Cuba and the Philippines still pay taxes to the King of Spain, the American Southwest is still the Mexican Northwest, and the American Indians still hunt buffalo in the Black Hills.
    Let me ask you a simple question, did Rome lose Britannia to the Picts after pulling her Legions out to battle the Barbarians? This is similar to the US situation in regards to Vietnam, except the Barbarians we were fighting were American leftists.
    I disagree with your statement that the political battlefield is the one that counts, I think the real battlefield is the one that counts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Ah found the Brit.

    The truth is British soldiers are only ferocious when they are facing hopelessly outclassed enemies. If they bring guns and their enemies have spears, then yeah the British will roar and charge into battle.

    If the British have to fight a strong enemy they resort to divide and conquer tactics like a coward. The British element in America's founding is why you see America doing this today.

    Let's see British troops go against Chinese or Russian forces head on then we'll talk.

    The truth is British soldiers are only ferocious when they are facing hopelessly outclassed enemies. If they bring guns and their enemies have spears, then yeah the British will roar and charge into battle.

    The British and the Americans have both had the advantage of not having to fight foreign armies on their own soil. Their wars have not been wars for survival. They have not been in danger of invasion (neither Napoleon nor Hitler had any serious intention of doing something as daft as invading Britain).

    That’s why Britain was so enthusiastic about joining in the First World War even though it was none of their business. If things went badly their country was not going to be overrun.

    That’s why Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. They couldn’t do anything to help Poland but it didn’t matter because the ones whose countries were going to be overrun were the Poles and the French. If things went badly the Brits could always run away, as they did in 1940.

    People like the Germans and the Poles and the Russians tend to view war differently because it’s always potentially a struggle for survival. For the British and the Americans it’s a jolly adventure and a chance to kill foreigners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha
    The Geneva conventions were specifically drafted in the aftermath of the second World War - the most horrific conflict mankind has ever endured - precisely to prevent mankind from engaging in raping, burning cities to the ground, etc. The signatories to these regulations were the exact nations and the generation of soldiers and leaders that were first-hand witnesses to these horrors.

    Admiral Leahy said (of what US forces did to Japan - especially the use of the atomic bombs) - " I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

    Admiral Leahy said (of what US forces did to Japan – especially the use of the atomic bombs) – ” I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    Maybe one day the US will realise that Leahy was right. Maybe. But a lot more women and children will die before that happens.

    And it’s worth remembering that sanctions are in fact an act of war and that sanctions kill mostly women and children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Rich says:
    @dfordoom

    The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren’t met, I’ll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?
     
    It doesn't matter how many battles you win if you lose the war. The US, with overwhelming material superiority and with a staggering advantage in firepower, failed to achieve victory. They killed a lot of peasants in pyjamas but the North Vietnamese Army was still intact and went on to win. Fighting well doesn't count if you fight stupidly and the US has fought stupidly time and time again. Countries that fight wars as stupidly as the US does would be well advised to find another hobby. The US loves war but it isn't very good at it.

    The only battlefield that counts at the end of the day is the political one.

    “The US loves war but isn’t very good at it.” Ha Ha Ha. I guess that’s why the Emperor of Japan still holds China, here in the Colonies we still bow to the King, Goebbels’s grandson was recently elected Fuehrer, Saddam and his sons are still torturing dissidents, the Taliban is comfortably stoning girls for reading, Puerto Rico and Cuba and the Philippines still pay taxes to the King of Spain, the American Southwest is still the Mexican Northwest, and the American Indians still hunt buffalo in the Black Hills.
    Let me ask you a simple question, did Rome lose Britannia to the Picts after pulling her Legions out to battle the Barbarians? This is similar to the US situation in regards to Vietnam, except the Barbarians we were fighting were American leftists.
    I disagree with your statement that the political battlefield is the one that counts, I think the real battlefield is the one that counts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    If I may Rich, perhaps the moral battlefield is the one that counts. One can bring the whole world under the nation's collective foot by means of technically flawless, ruthless tactical victories and lose their collective souls.

    Niestczhe, the great immoralist, predicted the unprecedented coming slaughter on the landscape of a European continent that had lost its God-oriented moral compass and warned, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you."
    , @dfordoom

    I disagree with your statement that the political battlefield is the one that counts, I think the real battlefield is the one that counts.
     
    The real battlefield is the political battlefield. War is not about blowing stuff up and killing people.

    Believing that the real battlefield is the one that counts is how the British managed to lose the Second World War. They started the war as a wealthy great power with a vast empire and ended the war as a bankrupt third-rate vassal state of the US and with their empire doomed. They failed to save P0land. They helped Stalin conquer the whole of eastern Europe. They went into war without a clue as to how they were going to achieve their political objectives and as a result they failed to achieve anything, although they did get to blow stuff up and kill lots of people (many of them women and children).

    Stalin got to blow stuff up and kill lots of people as well but he won the war, because he understood that war is politics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Talha says:
    @Rich
    "The US loves war but isn't very good at it." Ha Ha Ha. I guess that's why the Emperor of Japan still holds China, here in the Colonies we still bow to the King, Goebbels's grandson was recently elected Fuehrer, Saddam and his sons are still torturing dissidents, the Taliban is comfortably stoning girls for reading, Puerto Rico and Cuba and the Philippines still pay taxes to the King of Spain, the American Southwest is still the Mexican Northwest, and the American Indians still hunt buffalo in the Black Hills.
    Let me ask you a simple question, did Rome lose Britannia to the Picts after pulling her Legions out to battle the Barbarians? This is similar to the US situation in regards to Vietnam, except the Barbarians we were fighting were American leftists.
    I disagree with your statement that the political battlefield is the one that counts, I think the real battlefield is the one that counts.

    If I may Rich, perhaps the moral battlefield is the one that counts. One can bring the whole world under the nation’s collective foot by means of technically flawless, ruthless tactical victories and lose their collective souls.

    Niestczhe, the great immoralist, predicted the unprecedented coming slaughter on the landscape of a European continent that had lost its God-oriented moral compass and warned, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. annamaria says:
    @Rich
    Fred makes a few decent points, but is way off base in defaming the American fighting man. Should American soldiers tie one hand behind their back and throw spears in combat? I can't think of anyone who's actually defeated the US, the goat herders can throw their rocks and blow themselves up, but they're the ones hiding in the mountains starving to death. The only reason the entire Middle East hasn't been brought to their knees and converted to a more civilized religion is that the US didn't feel like doing that. If we'd wanted, we could have paved over the whole region.

    But, of course, Fred's mischaracterization of the Vietnam War is way overboard. The US won every major battle against the NVA. The VC were done by 1970 and if not for Nixon's impeachment the Vietnamese people wouldn't have had to suffer the horrors of the Communists. Remember, the South was defeated only after the US pulled out of the country, and the US didn't pull out because it was being beaten, but because of the political situation at home.

    The American fighting man has been among the world's finest from the nation's founding and it's an insult to all the other soldiers in the world who've been defeated by the US, to say any different.

    “The Commander-in-Chief was now able to send troops anywhere he pleased. It was his private army.”
    And who controls the Commander-in-Chief? Certainly not the citizenry, since the U.S. is officially an oligarchy. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
    This bitter truth does have something to do with the “world’s finest” soldiers; namely, the existing institution of interwoven MIC & oligarchy has been degrading the ideas of patriotism, valiancy, and true courage, while making the soldiers into perpetrators of the slaughter enterprises as well as a fodder for these enterprises.
    As for the “ungrateful” Vietnamese (and for Middle Easterners), do you personally prefer that you family feuds were solved by strangers? And how about agent orange and the horrific birth defects courtesy the U.S. MIC? Fred is deadly on point about the visuals: The noisy Christians like Bush the lesser (a shy warrior that heard God’s commands) and other pro-lifers should have been shown pictures of the tiny corpses and kids with birth defects from Vietnam and Fallujah (hello, depleted uranium!) by American MSM on a daily basis. Instead, the media became a tool of oligarchy and the U.S. oligarchy needs to glorify “the world’s finest” while hiding the unspeakable war crimes committed for the corporations and lunatic-ziocons. The MIC is always ready to supply the presstituting MSM with the “retired colonels to explain that the military was dedicated to truth, justice, and the American way.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I would say the US is more of a plutocracy than an oligarchy, and I would argue that it always has been. I agree fully that the US should avoid foreign wars and that we should let foreigners solve their own problems and I also feel terrible for the innocent civilians, especially the children, who suffer in war. My disagreement with Fred is in his characterization of the American fighting man, who he defames by saying they weren't very good at fighting in Vietnam and aren't very good today. I disagree completely with that assessment and have tried to give a few examples to explain my reasoning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rich
    "The US loves war but isn't very good at it." Ha Ha Ha. I guess that's why the Emperor of Japan still holds China, here in the Colonies we still bow to the King, Goebbels's grandson was recently elected Fuehrer, Saddam and his sons are still torturing dissidents, the Taliban is comfortably stoning girls for reading, Puerto Rico and Cuba and the Philippines still pay taxes to the King of Spain, the American Southwest is still the Mexican Northwest, and the American Indians still hunt buffalo in the Black Hills.
    Let me ask you a simple question, did Rome lose Britannia to the Picts after pulling her Legions out to battle the Barbarians? This is similar to the US situation in regards to Vietnam, except the Barbarians we were fighting were American leftists.
    I disagree with your statement that the political battlefield is the one that counts, I think the real battlefield is the one that counts.

    I disagree with your statement that the political battlefield is the one that counts, I think the real battlefield is the one that counts.

    The real battlefield is the political battlefield. War is not about blowing stuff up and killing people.

    Believing that the real battlefield is the one that counts is how the British managed to lose the Second World War. They started the war as a wealthy great power with a vast empire and ended the war as a bankrupt third-rate vassal state of the US and with their empire doomed. They failed to save P0land. They helped Stalin conquer the whole of eastern Europe. They went into war without a clue as to how they were going to achieve their political objectives and as a result they failed to achieve anything, although they did get to blow stuff up and kill lots of people (many of them women and children).

    Stalin got to blow stuff up and kill lots of people as well but he won the war, because he understood that war is politics.

    Read More
    • Agree: TomSchmidt
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rehmat
    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?

    Not only New Zealand a White settlers occupied land like the US and Canada - it's prime minister John Phillip Key happens to be Jewish.

    Nepal, on the other hand, is a country with no natural resource.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/12/24/new-zealand-occupied-by-jewish-minority/

    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?

    It’s better to fight the New Zealanders in New Zealand. If you don’t you’ll end up having to fight them on your own soul. When the New Zealand army is marching triumphantly through the streets of LA and New York just remember – I did warn you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Oh - that is too good - thanks for the laugh! Please give ample early warning if you spot boats full of angry, armed kiwis!
    , @Rehmat
    Forget about what 9th grader New Zealand army marching in American streets. American should be more worried about Israeli army personnel who have been training US armed forces and internal security agencies for the last two decades. The Israeli infiltration has given Americans 9/11 and many terrorist events since then.

    In October 2014, Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz published an editorial cartoon (see below) by its political cartoonist Amos Biderman showing Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu piloting one of the so-called “two hijacked” passenger planes which hit the World Trade Center building on September 11, 2001....

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/11/01/israeli-cartoonist-nethanyahu-behind-911/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Rich says:
    @annamaria
    "The Commander-in-Chief was now able to send troops anywhere he pleased. It was his private army."
    And who controls the Commander-in-Chief? Certainly not the citizenry, since the U.S. is officially an oligarchy. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
    This bitter truth does have something to do with the "world’s finest" soldiers; namely, the existing institution of interwoven MIC & oligarchy has been degrading the ideas of patriotism, valiancy, and true courage, while making the soldiers into perpetrators of the slaughter enterprises as well as a fodder for these enterprises.
    As for the "ungrateful" Vietnamese (and for Middle Easterners), do you personally prefer that you family feuds were solved by strangers? And how about agent orange and the horrific birth defects courtesy the U.S. MIC? Fred is deadly on point about the visuals: The noisy Christians like Bush the lesser (a shy warrior that heard God's commands) and other pro-lifers should have been shown pictures of the tiny corpses and kids with birth defects from Vietnam and Fallujah (hello, depleted uranium!) by American MSM on a daily basis. Instead, the media became a tool of oligarchy and the U.S. oligarchy needs to glorify "the world’s finest" while hiding the unspeakable war crimes committed for the corporations and lunatic-ziocons. The MIC is always ready to supply the presstituting MSM with the "retired colonels to explain that the military was dedicated to truth, justice, and the American way."

    I would say the US is more of a plutocracy than an oligarchy, and I would argue that it always has been. I agree fully that the US should avoid foreign wars and that we should let foreigners solve their own problems and I also feel terrible for the innocent civilians, especially the children, who suffer in war. My disagreement with Fred is in his characterization of the American fighting man, who he defames by saying they weren’t very good at fighting in Vietnam and aren’t very good today. I disagree completely with that assessment and have tried to give a few examples to explain my reasoning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?
     
    It's better to fight the New Zealanders in New Zealand. If you don't you'll end up having to fight them on your own soul. When the New Zealand army is marching triumphantly through the streets of LA and New York just remember - I did warn you.

    Oh – that is too good – thanks for the laugh! Please give ample early warning if you spot boats full of angry, armed kiwis!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. In Mein Kampf, der Fuehrer pointed out that the masses would eventually believe any idea repeated often enough.

    if you insist on quoting der Fuehrer, get it right — the World Union of Jewish Students, the folks who publish the Hasbara Manual understand exactly the principles of propaganda that der Fuehrer learned by observing the practices of Social Democrats [Bolsheviks] then distilled:

    [MORE]

    “Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations.

    I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who are neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the hope proved always to be a foolish one, for they were never left in peace.

    The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their Victims.

    Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value of strength, and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it scents stuff of the more stalwart kind, which is indeed a very rare possession. On the other hand it praises every weakling among its adversaries, more or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mental qualities known or presumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power than of a vigorous character with mediocre intelligence and at the same time they highly commend those who are devoid of intelligence and will-power.

    The Social Democrats know how to create the impression that they alone are the protectors of peace. In this way, acting very circumspectly but never losing sight of their ultimate goal, they conquer one position after another, at one time by methods of quiet intimidation and at another time by sheer daylight robbery, employing these latter tactics at those moments when public attention is turned towards other matters from which it does not wish to be diverted, or when the public considers an incident too trivial to create a scandal about it and thus provoke the anger of a malignant opponent.

    These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here it is a case of to be or not to be.
    I also came to understand that physical intimidation has its significance for the mass as well as for the individual. Here again the Socialists had calculated accurately on the psychological effect.
    Intimidation in workshops and in factories, in assembly halls and at mass demonstrations, will always meet with success as long as it does not have to encounter the same kind of terror in a stronger form.

    Then of course the Party will raise a horrified outcry, yelling blue murder and appealing to the authority of the State, which they have just repudiated. In doing this their aim generally is to add to the general confusion, so that they may have a better opportunity of reaching their own goal unobserved. Their idea is to find among the higher government officials some bovine creature who, in the stupid hope that he may win the good graces of these awe-inspiring opponents so that they may remember him in case of future eventualities, will help them now to break all those who may oppose this world pest.
    The impression which such successful tactics make on the minds of the broad masses, whether they be adherents or opponents, can be estimated only by one who knows the popular mind, not from books but from practical life. For the successes which are thus obtained are taken by the adherents of Social Democracy as a triumphant symbol of the righteousness of their own cause; on the other hand the beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance.
    The more I understood the methods of physical intimidation that were employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that had succumbed to it. Mein Kampf, p. 44 – 45

    and

    The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by the word, propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of the individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain things, the importance of which can be brought home to the masses only by this means.

    Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly before the minds of the people as to create a general conviction regarding the reality of a certain fact, the necessity of certain things and the just character of something that is essential. But as this art is not an end in itself and because its purpose must be exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention of the masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to those who already have an educated opinion on things or who wish to form such an opinion on grounds of objective study – because that is not the purpose of propaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their reasoning powers.

    All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid
    to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.

    The more modest the scientific tenor of this propaganda and the more it is addressed exclusively to public sentiment, the more decisive will be its success. This is the best test of the value of a propaganda, and not the approbation of a small group of intellectuals or artistic people.

    The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. That this is not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed to have been sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of their vanity or mental inertia.

    Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate the persuasive forces of propaganda on the broad masses of the people, the following lessons result therefrom:

    That it is a mistake to organize the direct propaganda as if it were a manifold system of scientific instruction.

    The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. If this principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract and general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will not be able to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way. Therefore, the greater the scope of the message that has to be presented, the more necessary it is for the propaganda to discover that plan of action which is psychologically the most efficient.

    It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had been deceived by the manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore, instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.

    On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that they had already received and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their respective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the infamous foe was increased.

    The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their own weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that the information which he received at home was untrue.

    Unfortunately the opposite was the case with the Germans, who finally wound up by rejecting everything from home as pure swindle and humbug. This result was made possible because at home they thought that the work of propaganda could be entrusted to the first ass that came along, braying of his own special talents, and they had no conception of the fact that propaganda demands the most skilled brains that can be found.

    Thus the German war propaganda afforded us an incomparable example of how the work of ‘enlightenment’ should not be done and how such an example was the result of an entire failure to take any psychological considerations whatsoever into account.

    From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not yet become sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual flood of enemy propaganda.
    The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with. In this regard so many errors were committed, even from the very beginning of the war, that it was justifiable to doubt whether so much folly could be attributed solely to the stupidity of people in higher quarters.
    pp. 146 – 148 Mein Kampf

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    The raving of a madman and an idiot. So modern propaganda would have us believe. Rather astute judgments there, and he fairly well describes both Republican and Democratic public pronouncements. "They hate us for our freedom" is probably my favorite one. Thank you for posting this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Bill Jones
    "Whatever happens
    we have got,
    the Gatling gun
    and they have not."
    - Hillaire Belloc


    When the British faced the Germans, who did have the Gatling gun they suffered 60,000 casualties on a single day.

    “Whatever happens
    we have got,
    the Gatling Maxim gun
    and they have not.”
    - Hillaire Belloc

    FTFY

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Rehmat says:
    @dfordoom

    Why the heck and western country would like to invade New Zealand?
     
    It's better to fight the New Zealanders in New Zealand. If you don't you'll end up having to fight them on your own soul. When the New Zealand army is marching triumphantly through the streets of LA and New York just remember - I did warn you.

    Forget about what 9th grader New Zealand army marching in American streets. American should be more worried about Israeli army personnel who have been training US armed forces and internal security agencies for the last two decades. The Israeli infiltration has given Americans 9/11 and many terrorist events since then.

    In October 2014, Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz published an editorial cartoon (see below) by its political cartoonist Amos Biderman showing Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu piloting one of the so-called “two hijacked” passenger planes which hit the World Trade Center building on September 11, 2001….

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/11/01/israeli-cartoonist-nethanyahu-behind-911/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @SolontoCroesus

    In Mein Kampf, der Fuehrer pointed out that the masses would eventually believe any idea repeated often enough.
     
    if you insist on quoting der Fuehrer, get it right -- the World Union of Jewish Students, the folks who publish the Hasbara Manual understand exactly the principles of propaganda that der Fuehrer learned by observing the practices of Social Democrats [Bolsheviks] then distilled:

    "Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, in its teaching and the technique of its operations.

    I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, who are neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks. The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable drum-fire of lies and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the nerves of the latter gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the hope proved always to be a foolish one, for they were never left in peace.

    The same tactics are repeated again and again, until fear of these mad dogs exercises, through suggestion, a paralysing effect on their Victims.

    Through its own experience Social Democracy learned the value of strength, and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it scents stuff of the more stalwart kind, which is indeed a very rare possession. On the other hand it praises every weakling among its adversaries, more or less cautiously, according to the measure of his mental qualities known or presumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power than of a vigorous character with mediocre intelligence and at the same time they highly commend those who are devoid of intelligence and will-power.

    The Social Democrats know how to create the impression that they alone are the protectors of peace. In this way, acting very circumspectly but never losing sight of their ultimate goal, they conquer one position after another, at one time by methods of quiet intimidation and at another time by sheer daylight robbery, employing these latter tactics at those moments when public attention is turned towards other matters from which it does not wish to be diverted, or when the public considers an incident too trivial to create a scandal about it and thus provoke the anger of a malignant opponent.

    These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here it is a case of to be or not to be.
    I also came to understand that physical intimidation has its significance for the mass as well as for the individual. Here again the Socialists had calculated accurately on the psychological effect.
    Intimidation in workshops and in factories, in assembly halls and at mass demonstrations, will always meet with success as long as it does not have to encounter the same kind of terror in a stronger form.

    Then of course the Party will raise a horrified outcry, yelling blue murder and appealing to the authority of the State, which they have just repudiated. In doing this their aim generally is to add to the general confusion, so that they may have a better opportunity of reaching their own goal unobserved. Their idea is to find among the higher government officials some bovine creature who, in the stupid hope that he may win the good graces of these awe-inspiring opponents so that they may remember him in case of future eventualities, will help them now to break all those who may oppose this world pest.
    The impression which such successful tactics make on the minds of the broad masses, whether they be adherents or opponents, can be estimated only by one who knows the popular mind, not from books but from practical life. For the successes which are thus obtained are taken by the adherents of Social Democracy as a triumphant symbol of the righteousness of their own cause; on the other hand the beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance.
    The more I understood the methods of physical intimidation that were employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that had succumbed to it. Mein Kampf, p. 44 - 45
     
    and

    The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by the word, propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of the individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain things, the importance of which can be brought home to the masses only by this means.

    Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly before the minds of the people as to create a general conviction regarding the reality of a certain fact, the necessity of certain things and the just character of something that is essential. But as this art is not an end in itself and because its purpose must be exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention of the masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to those who already have an educated opinion on things or who wish to form such an opinion on grounds of objective study - because that is not the purpose of propaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their reasoning powers.

    All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid
    to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.

    The more modest the scientific tenor of this propaganda and the more it is addressed exclusively to public sentiment, the more decisive will be its success. This is the best test of the value of a propaganda, and not the approbation of a small group of intellectuals or artistic people.

    The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. That this is not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed to have been sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of their vanity or mental inertia.

    Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate the persuasive forces of propaganda on the broad masses of the people, the following lessons result therefrom:

    That it is a mistake to organize the direct propaganda as if it were a manifold system of scientific instruction.

    The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. If this principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract and general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will not be able to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way. Therefore, the greater the scope of the message that has to be presented, the more necessary it is for the propaganda to discover that plan of action which is psychologically the most efficient.

    It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had been deceived by the manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore, instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.

    On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that they had already received and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their respective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the infamous foe was increased.

    The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their own weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that the information which he received at home was untrue.

    Unfortunately the opposite was the case with the Germans, who finally wound up by rejecting everything from home as pure swindle and humbug. This result was made possible because at home they thought that the work of propaganda could be entrusted to the first ass that came along, braying of his own special talents, and they had no conception of the fact that propaganda demands the most skilled brains that can be found.

    Thus the German war propaganda afforded us an incomparable example of how the work of ‘enlightenment’ should not be done and how such an example was the result of an entire failure to take any psychological considerations whatsoever into account.

    From the enemy, however, a fund of valuable knowledge could be gained by those who kept their eyes open, whose powers of perception had not yet become sclerotic, and who during four-and-a-half years had to experience the perpetual flood of enemy propaganda.
    The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with. In this regard so many errors were committed, even from the very beginning of the war, that it was justifiable to doubt whether so much folly could be attributed solely to the stupidity of people in higher quarters.
    pp. 146 - 148 Mein Kampf
     

    The raving of a madman and an idiot. So modern propaganda would have us believe. Rather astute judgments there, and he fairly well describes both Republican and Democratic public pronouncements. “They hate us for our freedom” is probably my favorite one. Thank you for posting this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Mark Green says: • Website

    Good one, Fred! Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Anon7 says:
    @Bill Jones
    The wars will continue until someone finds a paradigm where peace is as useful in looting the taxpayer.

    I agree, but I don’t think anything like it will ever be discovered, unless we start taking Title IX totally seriously.

    There are two numbers, and one simple concept, to understand US Military spending.

    $100,000 (the approximate cost of supporting a US war fighter at a US military base, and $1,000,000 (the approximate cost of supporting a US War fighter in a foreign conflict.

    The basic concept is that war destroys or obsoletes very expensive materiel at an incredible rate.

    For example, to put 100,000 war fighters in Iraq for a year costs 100 billion dollars. There is no return from this expenditure.

    That’s why I don’t care about the hated term “war fighter” or about female or even transgender soldiers. It’s the money that matters, because practically all of it goes to war profiteer companies who buy congressmen, generals and presidents. The war fighter is just a proxy for giving vast sums to war profiteering companies.

    (I apologize to families whose children proudly serve. I know some of you, and I would never say this to you. But the mission of the US military, which is to make obscene billions for global corps, is not worthy of your patriotism.)

    Great article, Fred.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Rehmat says:

    “He could , in effect, contract out the US military to Israel to crush its enemies or to the petro-interests to try to capture oil fields.”

    NOPE, Mr. Reed most American top military leaders know that the Jewish soldiers can only fight unarmed young Palestinian rock-throwers. Israeli army has failed to defeat a single Islamic resistance group since 1990s. On the other hand, Lebanese Hizbullah freedom fighters, who like Taliban, has no jet fighter, tank or even a commercial plane, have defeated Jewish army twice – in 2000 and 2006.

    Israeli Winograd Commission in its report released on April 30, 2007 – harshly criticized the Zionist regime and Jewish military leadership – while praised Hizbullah leader Sheikh Nasrallah for inflicting military humiliation on Israeli army.

    In March 2012, Jeffrey Felton (a Zionist Jew) former US assistant secretary of state and currently Ban Ki-moon’s adviser for ME, advised Israeli leaders to stay out of Lebanon because Jewish army cannot defeat Hizbullah alone.

    In April 2012, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told Netanyahu that the US will not attack as it’s not convinced that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. In response, Netanyahu called Dempsey a “servant of Iran”.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/07/24/hizbullah-to-stay-the-most-powerful-resistance/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. […] Fred Reed’s latest essay adds a nice perspective to my post on women and gays in combat units. […]

    Read More
  68. woodNfish says:
    @anonymous
    I now realize we were sold a bill of goods and lied to regarding Vietnam. I now can see clearly that it's impossible for Vietnamese to invade Vietnam, they live there. It's us who were the invaders. This blarney about the north invading the south skips over the fact the country of Vietnam was divided by us against their will. The communists provided the leadership to reunify their country and it was nationalism that provided the strength to do so.

    Welcome to the club. The same is true in Iraq, and Afghanistan and many other places where we ave police actions going. The people our military and lapdog LSM label “insurgents” and “terrorists” are patriots defending their countries against the invaders – us. I often use the movie “Red Dawn” as an example and ask people defending our invasions how they’d feel if the tables were turned. They generally call me names or refuse to answer. I think that is because the truth scares them. It certainly hasn’t been fun learning how corrupt amerika really is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I remember hearing - and I wish I could find the reference for it - in a lecture regarding a meeting that the invading French colonial army had with Algerian tribal leaders. The French were trying to mollify them and convince them that it was in their best interests to cooperate. It went something like this:

    French delegation - "Don't you see, we are bringing you wonderful advances like democracy and liberty.."

    Algerian tribal leaders - "That is all well and good, but why did you bring all that gunpowder?"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Talha says:
    @woodNfish
    Welcome to the club. The same is true in Iraq, and Afghanistan and many other places where we ave police actions going. The people our military and lapdog LSM label "insurgents" and "terrorists" are patriots defending their countries against the invaders - us. I often use the movie "Red Dawn" as an example and ask people defending our invasions how they'd feel if the tables were turned. They generally call me names or refuse to answer. I think that is because the truth scares them. It certainly hasn't been fun learning how corrupt amerika really is.

    I remember hearing – and I wish I could find the reference for it – in a lecture regarding a meeting that the invading French colonial army had with Algerian tribal leaders. The French were trying to mollify them and convince them that it was in their best interests to cooperate. It went something like this:

    French delegation – “Don’t you see, we are bringing you wonderful advances like democracy and liberty..”

    Algerian tribal leaders – “That is all well and good, but why did you bring all that gunpowder?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Let me add another shocker many people seem unaware of.

    After WWI Britain, France, Italy and the League of Nations broke up the Ottoman Empire into the much smaller countries that make up the Middle East today. They created a real mess. In the 1950s our CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah - a dictator. All this came back to haunt us on September 11, 2001. The 911 attackers left messages that their atrocities were revenge for our continued interference in the Middle East.

    I also invite you to read this very well written and eye-opening article:
    http://www.unz.com/article/why-i-support-donald-trump-and-not-ted-cruz/

    We amerikans are the biggest pack of grubers in the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. woodNfish says:
    @Talha
    I remember hearing - and I wish I could find the reference for it - in a lecture regarding a meeting that the invading French colonial army had with Algerian tribal leaders. The French were trying to mollify them and convince them that it was in their best interests to cooperate. It went something like this:

    French delegation - "Don't you see, we are bringing you wonderful advances like democracy and liberty.."

    Algerian tribal leaders - "That is all well and good, but why did you bring all that gunpowder?"

    Let me add another shocker many people seem unaware of.

    After WWI Britain, France, Italy and the League of Nations broke up the Ottoman Empire into the much smaller countries that make up the Middle East today. They created a real mess. In the 1950s our CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the Shah – a dictator. All this came back to haunt us on September 11, 2001. The 911 attackers left messages that their atrocities were revenge for our continued interference in the Middle East.

    I also invite you to read this very well written and eye-opening article:

    http://www.unz.com/article/why-i-support-donald-trump-and-not-ted-cruz/

    We amerikans are the biggest pack of grubers in the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Faust says:

    Whenever I begin to think critically of the U.S. as “policemen of the world”, a thought always emerges. The job will not go vacant, if not us, who?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    1. who polices USA?

    2. Iran was doing ok until US CIA decided to police it.

    3. Iraq was doing ok until G H W Bush insisted on policing a situation the Arab world insisted they were competent to handle. King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, by Jack O'Connell & Vernon Loeb

    4. Libya was doing ok until Power, Rice and Clinton felt compelled to police it.

    5. ditto Syria.

    6. China knows how to run its own affairs, having done so for several thousand years longer than US policemen.

    7. ditto Russia

    8. the one entity in the ME that desperately needs policing is Israel. Instead of reining in Israeli actions that violate international law and UN resolutions, USA police protect the criminals.
    , @Simon in London
    If the US actually did police the sealanes and suppress piracy that would be something. Instead she just spreads chaos. A good policeman doesn't break into peoples' homes and kill them because he doesn't like their politics. He doesn't see a domestic dispute and set the house on fire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. “All this came back to haunt us on September 11, 2001. The 911 attackers left messages that their atrocities were revenge for our continued interference in the Middle East.”

    Fiction! The official explanation is pure fiction. Precision explosives were used to bring down those THREE large building within hours of each other and a bunch of jihadists living out in Afghanistan had FA to do with it.

    Repeating this silly meme is self destructive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Faust
    Whenever I begin to think critically of the U.S. as "policemen of the world", a thought always emerges. The job will not go vacant, if not us, who?

    1. who polices USA?

    2. Iran was doing ok until US CIA decided to police it.

    3. Iraq was doing ok until G H W Bush insisted on policing a situation the Arab world insisted they were competent to handle. King’s Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, by Jack O’Connell & Vernon Loeb

    4. Libya was doing ok until Power, Rice and Clinton felt compelled to police it.

    5. ditto Syria.

    6. China knows how to run its own affairs, having done so for several thousand years longer than US policemen.

    7. ditto Russia

    8. the one entity in the ME that desperately needs policing is Israel. Instead of reining in Israeli actions that violate international law and UN resolutions, USA police protect the criminals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. This is the reason for the hate-Russia agitprop in the MSM. Unlike the tiny nations we destroy, they can fight back. So it’s all Putin-the-Monster, and the Global Soviet Menace redux.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @Faust
    Whenever I begin to think critically of the U.S. as "policemen of the world", a thought always emerges. The job will not go vacant, if not us, who?

    If the US actually did police the sealanes and suppress piracy that would be something. Instead she just spreads chaos. A good policeman doesn’t break into peoples’ homes and kill them because he doesn’t like their politics. He doesn’t see a domestic dispute and set the house on fire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. I just re-read this and have another serious not to pick: For accuracy, Fred needs to replace “oil” with “Israel” in every occurrence. Our military adventures aren’t “for oil” since we have copious abundance of energy in our own hemisphere and even in our own continent. We don’t need arabia’s oil. We like it because it’s the cheapest oil around and our pals in Europe are even more fond of it than we are, but we don’t *need* it.

    Israel, on the other hand, is an object of religious sanctimony for our hundred million voting Christians. The more fervently Christian, the more rabidly Zionist. And then there are the wealthy Zionist Jews who own and operate 100% of our mainstream media and fund 50%+ of our national politicians’ election campaigns. Thus our slaughter of Arab goatherds is result of Zionist policy with the added benefit that some of the elites are further enriched by oil deals. But you could remove oil from the formula entirely and all that would change is that semi-critical pundits like Fred would need to conjure a new false rationale to keep the non-Zionist rubes from reaching the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @scoops
    kudos
    , @scoops
    kudos again!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. scoops says:
    @Stan D Mute
    I just re-read this and have another serious not to pick: For accuracy, Fred needs to replace "oil" with "Israel" in every occurrence. Our military adventures aren't "for oil" since we have copious abundance of energy in our own hemisphere and even in our own continent. We don't need arabia's oil. We like it because it's the cheapest oil around and our pals in Europe are even more fond of it than we are, but we don't *need* it.

    Israel, on the other hand, is an object of religious sanctimony for our hundred million voting Christians. The more fervently Christian, the more rabidly Zionist. And then there are the wealthy Zionist Jews who own and operate 100% of our mainstream media and fund 50%+ of our national politicians' election campaigns. Thus our slaughter of Arab goatherds is result of Zionist policy with the added benefit that some of the elites are further enriched by oil deals. But you could remove oil from the formula entirely and all that would change is that semi-critical pundits like Fred would need to conjure a new false rationale to keep the non-Zionist rubes from reaching the truth.

    kudos

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. scoops says:
    @Stan D Mute
    I just re-read this and have another serious not to pick: For accuracy, Fred needs to replace "oil" with "Israel" in every occurrence. Our military adventures aren't "for oil" since we have copious abundance of energy in our own hemisphere and even in our own continent. We don't need arabia's oil. We like it because it's the cheapest oil around and our pals in Europe are even more fond of it than we are, but we don't *need* it.

    Israel, on the other hand, is an object of religious sanctimony for our hundred million voting Christians. The more fervently Christian, the more rabidly Zionist. And then there are the wealthy Zionist Jews who own and operate 100% of our mainstream media and fund 50%+ of our national politicians' election campaigns. Thus our slaughter of Arab goatherds is result of Zionist policy with the added benefit that some of the elites are further enriched by oil deals. But you could remove oil from the formula entirely and all that would change is that semi-critical pundits like Fred would need to conjure a new false rationale to keep the non-Zionist rubes from reaching the truth.

    kudos again!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Bragadocious
    I think the worst outcome of the Vietnam War is we got Linh Dinh, aka We Hate U Long Time. Reading him almost makes me yearn for a VC reeducation camp.

    Wrong. The worst outcome was insane McCain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Rich
    A few replies to some anti-American soldier comments;

    Biff- The US was winning the war. Read a history book, read comments by the North Vietnamese commanders, and see if your "opinion" remains the same.

    Anonymous- "Adore like a 5th grader"? Wow you got me there. The fact that the world trembles at the thought of war against the US is meaningless, right? I'm stating facts, not cheering for a "football team."

    Noseytheduke- "Ego"? Gee, is stating facts ego, now? Rocky Marciano was heavyweight champ of the world, that's a fact, stating it has nothing to do with ego. It's the same as stating the American fighting man is among the world's best and always has been.

    dfordoom- The US pulled out of the fight several years before the fall of South Vietnam, how is that a defeat for the US military? Okay, political machinations of previous administrations weren't met, I'll give you that, but on what battlefield did the US military lose?

    Wrong. The worst outcome was insane McCain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave