The Link Between Military and Political Service

[Empty Hands]

No elected official in the USA has ever failed to leave office when voted out. Therefore, the power to stop whatever it is you think needs to be stopped still remains in the hands of the electorate. If that effort fails, it is not the fault of the military. Place blame where it belongs; on the electorate.

I've made this point to you before, but everyone bears responsibility for what they do or don't do. In an unnecessary war, the electorate is responsible for supporting it/not voting out the leaders, the leaders and other parts of the government are responsible for starting and going along with it, and those that choose to fight bear their responsibility as well. Both/and not either/or. Washing your hands like Pilate does not absolve you of moral responsibility for your actions or inactions.

 

[CoryKS]

Uncalled for. Criticizing militarism and what one sees as unnecessary wars doesn't make someone unworthy of defense.

If you define patriotism as wanting what is best for the country, it should even count as patriotic. That doesn't make the argument necessarily correct, but it is an honorable intention.

Actually, it's a point that bears consideration. We have a volunteer military. What happens if those who volunteer look around and say, "Nah. Not worth it."? Of course, if maunakumu is right and we don't actually need a military then there's no problem.

Update: wanted to elaborate: what makes someone worthy of defense is in the eyes of the defender. You can argue that someone is worthy of defense, but only if someone is willing to pick up a rifle and do so.

 

[Makalakumu]

I've made this point to you before, but everyone bears responsibility for what they do or don't do. In an unnecessary war, the electorate is responsible for supporting it/not voting out the leaders, the leaders and other parts of the government are responsible for starting and going along with it, and those that choose to fight bear their responsibility as well. Both/and not either/or. Washing your hands like Pilate does not absolve you of moral responsibility for your actions or inactions.

That's basically my point. No one gets to absolve themselves of responsibility any more. As much as the voter is responsible, the recruit who chooses to serve in this unconstitutional fashion is also responsible. I don't think we should keep blindly supporting our troops when they are participating in this mess. No one needs to hurl insults or spit, but we can quietly turn our backs and show our displeasure.

Regarding politics and voting, well, the MIC has such a grip on the levers of power in both parties that I don't think you can solve this with the voting box unless something fundamental changes. We need a grassroots change in thinking in regards to the military. People need to redefine what is appropriate service and stop participating in actions that fall outside those definitions. People need to look at all of this from a different perspective.

 

[Empty Hands]

We have a volunteer military. What happens if those who volunteer look around and say, "Nah. Not worth it."?

Ideally, those in power would then constrain their military adventures to what the volunteers would see as necessary and worth fighting for. Of course, they wouldn't do that, they'd just draft who they needed.

Which brings up something I was surprised to learn when I was younger. I was surprised to find out there was a draft during WWII. I suppose I had naively assumed that enough people would volunteer to fight an obvious evil like Hitler. Obviously our focus on higher technology, lower manpower has its benefits.

Of course, if maunakumu is right and we don't actually need a military then there's no problem.

You know how I know you didn't really pay attention to what he said?

 

[Empty Hands]

Regarding politics and voting, well, the MIC has such a grip on the levers of power in both parties that I don't think you can solve this with the voting box unless something fundamental changes.

I don't think the MIC is a sufficient explanation, although it is part of it. The electorate basically likes war. Wars nearly always have high support at the beginning, there is no impetus to vote out war starting leaders unless those wars drag on too long or go too badly. Why that is, I couldn't say. I would guess very few of those so enthusiastic about war have ever experienced it. Even the great generals and soldiers of the past weren't too enamored of the experience, which their writings showed.

 

[Archangel M]

Of course this is coming from a 9/11 truther so take the rest as you will...

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't think the MIC is a sufficient explanation, although it is part of it. The electorate basically likes war. Wars nearly always have high support at the beginning, there is no impetus to vote out war starting leaders unless those wars drag on too long or go too badly. Why that is, I couldn't say. I would guess very few of those so enthusiastic about war have ever experienced it. Even the great generals and soldiers of the past weren't too enamored of the experience, which their writings showed.

It's part of our culture. Our schools focus way to much time and energy on war and we have all of these TV shows and movie that glorify it. Many of these same programs actually receive funding from the Pentagon, so they are directly linked to the MIC. In the end, I think it all ties back directly or indirectly.

 

[Sukerkin]

No elected official in the USA has ever failed to leave office when voted out. Therefore, the power to stop whatever it is you think needs to be stopped still remains in the hands of the electorate.

That was such an important point I thought it deserved highlighting.

For all we moan about our governments, that quintessential element of legitimacy and legality is so very important that taking it for granted is almost unforgivable.

It can be argued that often we are voting to replace one government with another that is a carbon copy but with a different name. But at least we have that established tradition of democracy that means that power does indeed spring from the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun.

Of course over here we have the great privilege of having that chain of legitimacy being overseen by the longest serving head of state in the world. I fear somewhat what will happen to our system once she has passed on as she has been such a sterling example of what a monarch should be. There is no-one with her gravitas to take on the mantle when the time comes.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The individual cannot absolve themselves of responsibility whether as a voter or as a military man. The bottom line remains that you must volunteer for this service. With all of the unconstitutional wars being waged across the world, volunteering for this service is like breaking your oath before you take it.

People need to think very seriously about that before they make the decision.

I'm curious about what "unconstitutional wars" are being waged "across the world"?

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm curious about what "unconstitutional wars" are being waged "across the world"?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=77

An interesting point of view on the matter, don't you think?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=77

An interesting point of view on the matter, don't you think?

With all due respect to Ron Paul (who I actually like), I don't believe it's that simple. The article brought these thoughts to my mind:

Although Congress has the exclusive right to declare war, does that mean that the only time the President can use military force is upon a declaration of war? If so, this brings up a couple of interesting thoughts in my mind.

Some Founders, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson agreed with the use of the military against the Barbary Corsairs, all without the "declaration of war" against them. So, did the people who just wrote the Constitution immediately defy what they just enacted? After all, it was their intent which gives meaning to the powers enacted by the Constitution.

Secondly, the old USSR screwed up what China now has a chance to do: they can wait till a Congressional recess when all of the Federal legistature goes back to their constitutant states and attack us with nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. Congress would never get back to D.C. in time to declare war to "authorize" a retaliatory strike, and they would be unharmed.

In this case, the only thing that the Congress could do, is to set a legal standard for an automatic declaration of war so that the President could utilize the nuclear arsenal, or for any invasion or attack on the United States. Or any other use of force as they see fit. Which is exactly what they did with the War Powers Act.

So, without any definitive guidance by the Founders as to what the nature of the ability to of the President, as Commander in Chief, to utilize the military, I would say that, based on the Separation of Powers, he has the ability to utilize it as he sees fit. Congress in turn can "defund" the military if it doesn't like how he is utilizing it. Or if they believe that how he is using it is an impeachable offense, they may do so.

Now, in terms of what Ron Paul calls the "unconstitutional" War Powers Act, I have heard the argument that it is not Congress' deferment of "war declaration" which makes it unconstitutional, but Congress' interference in an Executive Branch power that does so. The more I think about it, the more I actually agree with that interpretation.

So, I have to say that, even if I agreed with Ron Paul in principle about the ability of the President to authorize military force, it hardly goes to show that what is occuring is unconstitutional.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That was such an important point I thought it deserved highlighting.

For all we moan about our governments, that quintessential element of legitimacy and legality is so very important that taking it for granted is almost unforgivable.

It can be argued that often we are voting to replace one government with another that is a carbon copy but with a different name. But at least we have that established tradition of democracy that means that power does indeed spring from the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun.

Of course over here we have the great privilege of having that chain of legitimacy being overseen by the longest serving head of state in the world. I fear somewhat what will happen to our system once she has passed on as she has been such a sterling example of what a monarch should be. There is no-one with her gravitas to take on the mantle when the time comes.

Many have argued, and perhaps with merit, that at least in the USA, our manner of conducting our elections allow for undue influence through fair means and foul - from corporate spending to political party electioneering and so on. I 'get' the argument that even having a choice in an election means having no effective choice - we're presented with two or perhaps three candidates to choose from for a given office, and all of them have already been thoroughly corrupted and controlled and are not beholden to us but to those who have bought them. Yes, I get that.

However, it ignores a single possibility which still belongs to the electorate; that of not voting for the candidates put up by the two major parties.

Unlikely to happen? Yes. But that does not remove the power of the electorate; democracies and representative republics do not depend upon the electorate being smart or making wise decisions, but upon them maintaining the power of the vote, which they clearly do.

In short, we are (mostly) horribly stupid, shallow, vain, and willing to vote for whomever panders to our base selfish desires and needs. That may be a bad thing, but it is still control in the hands of the voter. We can't help it that they're mostly booger-eatin' morons.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, I have to say that, even if I agreed with Ron Paul in principle about the ability of the President to authorize military force, it hardly goes to show that what is occuring is unconstitutional.

I agree with Dr. Paul's interpretation. The writings of the Founding Fathers are specific. They wanted to limit the use of military force in order to make going to war difficult. I believe that when we circumvent the rules they gave us, we are circumventing the Constitution. If we use military force, we need to have specific goals, we need to achieve them efficiently, and we need to get out and get back to a peaceful society as soon as possible.

We can't have these unending wars with nebulous goals and endless propaganda. It's going to bankrupt our nation and destroy our freedoms. Our country is going to kill itself trying to maintain this unipolar hegemony with bases and troops spread across the world, fighting two wars (and possibly a third), and clamping down on dissent back at home. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see what we are doing now.

It's unconstitutional in principle and in spirit. What we are doing goes directly against the Founding Fathers advice to us and is leading to the very things they warned us against. It has to stop or America will be unrecognizable in a generation.

Here is another man who knew the terrible price we could pay by ignoring our Founding Father's advice.

 

[MBuzzy]

Since this has come up a couple of times already in other discussions, and the question is an obvious one: where does that oath place you if the President is acting in violation of the Constitution?

Exactly what Bill said - an order has to be pretty obviously illegal. It is not the place of a troop to determine the constitutionality of an order. If the president is issuing orders contrary to the constitution, it is WAY above most of our pay grade to determine its constitutionality - and believe it or not, there are some damn smart people who advise him and determine these things. We have very high ranking military leaders who determine these things.

This is a more philosophical discussion than anything, because if the president issues an order, it is about 40 levels of command before it reaches the people who are actually following it, by then, they are just going to do it.

 

[MBuzzy]

I have a really hard time with all of this. This topic is a very big philosophical debate...one that most people in the military don't really care about. To the majority of us, it is a job. Try to heap responsibility on us....but the image that some people seem to have of the helicopter pilot laughing and shooting children is WAY off. There are VERY few of us who want to or like killing ANYONE, let alone children....and those who do are quickly shown their way out.

I liken the whole thing to working for a large corporation. I don't like big box stores or huge corporations that destroy small business and don't care about the consumer....but I don't blame the workers. And I wouldn't say "if you don't agree with it, don't work for them." I can have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of a company and still work for them.

There are plenty of 18-22 year old kids with a wife and kids of their own who joined the military because it is a good job. The government takes care of us, teaches them a skill, and offers great benefits....mainly because the cost of doing your job, might be getting killed.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that the link between the military and political service happens at a very high level, not at the level of troops in the field. Those are just guys doing their jobs and quite frankly, with less people, it just means more work for those of us left. Something like 90% of the military has NOTHING to do with the business of fighting a war....we are support and no different than someone who works in an engineering firm or a restaurant or for an airline or in a hotel. I'm not about to quit my job because I disagree with the politics of what is being done or I have some philosophical disagreement with the constitution or how it is being executed.

I'm happy about how this country views the military...did any of the guys coming back from Vietnam deserve to get spit on? Some of them...probably, most of them, HELL NO. Personally, I'm about to deploy and I have no desire to be spit on when I get back.

 

[Makalakumu]

To the majority of us, it is a job. Try to heap responsibility on us....but the image that some people seem to have of the helicopter pilot laughing and shooting children is WAY off. There are VERY few of us who want to or like killing ANYONE, let alone children....and those who do are quickly shown their way out.

The wikileaks video was disturbing and they are just about to release who bunch of new ones that basically show the same things.

I can't see most people acting like that, however. Most people are decent folks, but at the same time, when you've got over a million dead civilians directly or indirectly tied to your actions, you've got a gigantic moral problem that you've got to deal with.

Going to work everyday and "accidentally" blowing away some innocent people doesn't seem like any solution, even if you are torn up about it afterward. It seems like avoiding responsibility to go back day after day...and that's the crux of my argument. You are responsible for what you do and eventually you need to make a choice regarding what you really stand for.

There are plenty of 18-22 year old kids with a wife and kids of their own who joined the military because it is a good job. The government takes care of us, teaches them a skill, and offers great benefits....

Yeah, I call many of these guys my friends. Our society has been offshoring jobs for a generation and this is about the only place where a person can find this kind of work. That's not right either.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I agree with Dr. Paul's interpretation. The writings of the Founding Fathers are specific. They wanted to limit the use of military force in order to make going to war difficult. I believe that when we circumvent the rules they gave us, we are circumventing the Constitution. If we use military force, we need to have specific goals, we need to achieve them efficiently, and we need to get out and get back to a peaceful society as soon as possible.

It's all well and good to agree with his interpretation, but I am interested in from where he derives his interpretation. After all, as I pointed out, the military had been used in combat when the Founders were still in charge of the country in absence of a declaration of war. So I don't get how he could believe that it is unconstitutional for the President to use military force unless such a declaration is made, when the people who wrote the Constitution did it.

We can't have these unending wars with nebulous goals and endless propaganda. It's going to bankrupt our nation and destroy our freedoms. Our country is going to kill itself trying to maintain this unipolar hegemony with bases and troops spread across the world, fighting two wars (and possibly a third), and clamping down on dissent back at home. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see what we are doing now.

We can agree with the net affect of these engagements, but that says nothing about the Constitutionality of said conflicts.

It's unconstitutional in principle and in spirit. What we are doing goes directly against the Founding Fathers advice to us and is leading to the very things they warned us against. It has to stop or America will be unrecognizable in a generation.

It may go against what they forsaw as being good for the country. But in the instances of military conflict, they gave Congress and the President their specific roles for using their discretion as to when to use their enumerated powers. And they are doing it. We may not agree with it, and the Founders may not agree with the specific way those powers are being used, but I don't think, based on their own actions and statements, that they would argue that it's unconstitutional.

In fact, a declaration of war is a legislative act which the President can veto. He can be overruled by two-thirds of Congress, and war can still be "declared". But there is nothing in the power of Congress which would allows them to force him to act upon it militarily. Because the executive, of which the military is apart, is controlled exclusively by the President. As such, he can determine when to use it.

The power of Congress is to control the purse strings. If they don't like the President's use of the military, then can cut him off.

Here is another man who knew the terrible price we could pay by ignoring our Founding Father's advice.

As you showed me a great man, I will show you the quote of another.

THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #74

 

[Makalakumu]

So, I don't get how he could believe that it is unconstitutional for the President to use military force unless such a declaration is made, when the people who wrote the Constitution did it.

You'll have to look at the differences between what they did and what we are doing. They are vastly different.

A modern day example that fall under the CIC's constitutional power would be securing the border with Mexico. It's basically failed state. We've got Federalis sending helicopters in unchallenged and having running gun battles with drug runners. We've got police and civilians getting killed every day by criminals, coyotes, and drug runners. We have no go zones, where the Federal government has basically given up and they basically tell no one to go there. That would be something I think the FF's would send the military to clean up and secure. It's a clear threat to our nation.

They would not support nation building. George Washington clearly warns us against that and the Constitution was designed to prevent this. That we are involved in it, means that we have violated the Constitution in principle and spirit.

I'll see if I can find more of Dr. Paul has to say on the matter. He can explain it much better then I can.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You'll have to look at the differences between what they did and what we are doing. They are vastly different.

In this discussion it doesn't matter why they did what they did. This is about what power the President has over employing the military. If he is the CIC, and empowered to deploy the military as he sees fit, then what does it matter, as long as he doesn't violate specific clauses of the Constitution.

A modern day example that fall under the CIC's constitutional power would be securing the border with Mexico. It's basically failed state. We've got Federalis sending helicopters in unchallenged and having running gun battles with drug runners. We've got police and civilians getting killed every day by criminals, coyotes, and drug runners. We have no go zones, where the Federal government has basically given up and they basically tell no one to go there. That would be something I think the FF's would send the military to clean up and secure. It's a clear threat to our nation.

I would agree. But that he could / should be doing these things doesn't mean that he can't / shouldn't do others.

They would not support nation building. George Washington clearly warns us against that and the Constitution was designed to prevent this. That we are involved in it, means that we have violated the Constitution in principle and spirit.

I'll see if I can find more of Dr. Paul has to say on the matter. He can explain it much better then I can.

If you're going to argue that these actions violate the principle or spirit of the Constitution, I would rather you show me where the people who wrote the document say so, not someone's interpretation of it. They will have their own biases based on what they feel is the correct reading of the document.

Show me the original stuff.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Here is an interesting link to a report written by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33837.pdf

It basically shows that Congress has always endorsed the use of military force by the President, but not necessarily through the declaration of war. It shows that Congress can legislatively limit the purposes for military action.

So, without getting into too much detail, the use of military force without the express declaration of war has been done since the beginning of our country, and with the approval of several of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

So my question now becomes, what exactly is unconstitutional about these wars? History has proved Ron Paul wrong in this respect, including what the Framers have said / left unsaid.