A military person's point of view.
- Thread starter rp4prez
- Start date
Virginia Libertarian
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 139
owned
New Governor Of Alaska
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 959
It is extremely difficult to debate issues with millitary people.
When I read their posts (you can find many of these guys on www.democracyforums.com ), it seems to me that they are just afraid to think for themselves and express their opinion, which is quite normal for a soldier. I was in the army, I know it. In the army you must obey orders and don't question authority.
Many millitary guys simply repeat the official propaganda. They have no other sources of information other then publications like the Stars and Stripes or the Soldier of Fortune.
Check it out - http://www.sofmag.com/news/index.html
http://www.stripes.com
I think the best way to wake them up is to post real facts (with sources) and then ask what they think.... They will change, they are not stupid, they just afraid to speak up.
When I read their posts (you can find many of these guys on www.democracyforums.com ), it seems to me that they are just afraid to think for themselves and express their opinion, which is quite normal for a soldier. I was in the army, I know it. In the army you must obey orders and don't question authority.
Many millitary guys simply repeat the official propaganda. They have no other sources of information other then publications like the Stars and Stripes or the Soldier of Fortune.
Check it out - http://www.sofmag.com/news/index.html
http://www.stripes.com
I think the best way to wake them up is to post real facts (with sources) and then ask what they think.... They will change, they are not stupid, they just afraid to speak up.
liberteebell
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,415
...or their commander. The propaganda line among the navy peeps I know, regardless of rank, is pretty amazing. They all use the exact same words!
Actually the grip that China has upon us right now is over exagerated on these forums, but none the less eventually it will be a big problem if we do not confront it now.
I don't think that a complete withdrawal is a very good idea either. I think that we should maintain some select bases around the world that are very strategic and give us the global reach that we enjoy today and in turn gives us the ability to respond to contingencies anywhere in the world with speed and lethality. And to be honest that is only a hand full of bases that we have around the world right now, that is the best way to go about it. I am a tool of that global reach so I do have credibility on this issue in case you were wondering, it would be a disaster to give up all of our strategic positions. If you are not in the Military though I do not expect you to understand.
I don't think that a complete withdrawal is a very good idea either. I think that we should maintain some select bases around the world that are very strategic and give us the global reach that we enjoy today and in turn gives us the ability to respond to contingencies anywhere in the world with speed and lethality. And to be honest that is only a hand full of bases that we have around the world right now, that is the best way to go about it. I am a tool of that global reach so I do have credibility on this issue in case you were wondering, it would be a disaster to give up all of our strategic positions. If you are not in the Military though I do not expect you to understand.
Maybe in your unit they were like that but in mine and my friends they are not at all. Of course I am an aviator in the Air Force and, not to sound rude, we tend to be smarter. But then again my friend is Army Infantry and he is a free thinker, so it is not always true. When I step out of my room here in about 30 min to go fly into Iraq I bet there will be a conversation with my crew about why the hell we are wasting our money flying into that shit hole.
I'm an officer. I occasionally will bring up such issues to the enlisted forces I work with. Most don't even want to hear it, as they think it is our "moral duty" to support and defend the rest of the world. I have woken a few up to it though.
Once, I got the analogy thrown at me: "what if you saw your weak neighbor being kicked around and beaten up by some bully, and you were strong enough to stop it? Wouldn't it be the right thing to do?" Trying to argue that it isn't your obligation won't work.
I've found the best thing to do is this:
Use their knowledge of and respect for military operations and theory to undermine what they've blindly accepted. Similar to the "China's got us by the balls" comment. If you show them that our current efforts are actually making us weaker militarily, they are more likely to listen up. For instance, our air superiority is threatened, because we've worn out our planes in the last 17 years of CONTINUOUS air operations over Iraq, and our F-15s are falling apart. Things like that.
Going the moral route won't work, as the military's favorite words are "selfless service".
Once, I got the analogy thrown at me: "what if you saw your weak neighbor being kicked around and beaten up by some bully, and you were strong enough to stop it? Wouldn't it be the right thing to do?" Trying to argue that it isn't your obligation won't work.
I've found the best thing to do is this:
Use their knowledge of and respect for military operations and theory to undermine what they've blindly accepted. Similar to the "China's got us by the balls" comment. If you show them that our current efforts are actually making us weaker militarily, they are more likely to listen up. For instance, our air superiority is threatened, because we've worn out our planes in the last 17 years of CONTINUOUS air operations over Iraq, and our F-15s are falling apart. Things like that.
Going the moral route won't work, as the military's favorite words are "selfless service".
On my aircraft, the C-17, we are also flying them WAY MORE than they were meant to be flown. There are going to be some serious maintenance issues in the future unless we ratchet things down. And also in order to pay for the war they are cutting the amount of C-17's we are supposed to get, which will put even more strain on the ones we already have. Some of the older Charleston jets we get out here are nothing more than a POS.
liberteebell
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,415
I can defer to your experience but I have issues with overseas bases when our bases on US soil are subject to the BRAC commission (even as we're building more permanent bases overseas) and I believe that the best offense is a good defense. I mean, we're guarding borders of foreign countries while our own are wide-open. That's insanity!
And since the US is going bankrupt, I don't see how we can keep up these foreign adventures. I'd sure like our military to stay right here in the good ol' USofA and quit bothering anyone else.
I try to reduce things to the perceptual level: I buy a gun to protect myself in case my neighbor decides to "attack" me, otherwise, I leave him alone to live his life and I don't park my car in his driveway either. Silly maybe but I think you know what I mean.
I agree, but the fact is that keeping a small number of bases in strategic points around the world is not going to cost the taxpayer much money at all. I believe that we should dramatically reduce the amount of bases we have around the world more than anyone, but people get so wrapped up in this that they start talking about closing all bases, that is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. I would love to talk about this more but I actually have to go fly a combat mission now for real. Peace.
I'm in the AF, too. I disagree.
First off, China and Russia and many other countries really do have us by the balls. Not so much because they've grabbed them, but because we've placed them into their hands with our detrimental foreign and homeland policies. And the China threat has little to do with their military threat, though that's a factor. They don't need us anymore to be their consumers. As we try to buy their stuff with rapidly devaluing dollars, there will come a time very soon when they say "STOP". And we won't have a choice in the matter. We can't invade / engage them
.OPEC is announcing that it is decoupling from the dollar in the future. Iran is still talking about its non-western oil market (which Russia is in support of now). There's rampant inflation in the middle east as a whole and the people and central banks are seriously considering decoupling their currencies from the U.S. (oil) dollar.
There's a new NATO out there: the SCO (though they won't admit it officially as a military alliance, only economic). Russia and China are the big players. Iran is an observer nation, along with India, and both are expected to be admitted soon. The U.S. asked for entry, and the SCO refused it outright. The G7/G8 is being challenged.
Russia is bringing its military back online at exactly the worst time for us: as we're worn down and spread thin.
Since you're in the military, you're probably aware of military theory to some extent (I'm guessing you've been to SOS already, since you're flying for real (Capt?), but certainly ASBC at least). Modern cold-war influenced, fiat-printing financed military forces are out of line with the reality of warfare (given the reality of economics...the whole guns and butter debate). When a terrorist cell can spend roughly $1,000,000.00 on an attack here at home that brings us into a multi trillion dollar response, that's asymmetric, and deadly to the big spender over time.
When a new F-22 costs nearly 1/3 billion dollars (REAL cost, not fly-away), the new munitions it carries cost 1/2 million dollars or more, and the amount of explosive required to completely destroy one costs roughly 1,000.00, there's a serious disconnect with the future of warfare. As people are further integrated, and globalization continues to take hold, it will be cellular warfare that wins the day, IMO. China is focusing a lot of energy on asymmetric efforts now, rather than 6th generation fighters, for instance.
I'm also highly concerned of the bottle-neck that we've put ourselves in regarding high-technology dependence. It's true that our satellites are our weak point, militarily. GPS is a big part of our operations and strategic planning now.
As long as we motivate fanatic people to fight us, we won't win with our current "big on big" military focus. Strategic positions also won't mean jack unless we seriously turn around our efforts and overall strategic "spending vision".
Last edited:
Yep. Strategy by committee doesn't work too well, of course. That and the refusal of congress to just let our dollar-vacuum old planes go to the boneyard. Instead, they don't want the ramifications for their home districts.
Good luck over there btw.
Mach
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,137
Come Home?
These soldiers will give you my answer..........................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_ZjhLd5Jo
These soldiers will give you my answer..........................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_ZjhLd5Jo
Got an update. I won't repost the entire thing this person wrote. I'll just say I sure am glad he isn't running the country!
Obviously, this guy is next to clueless when it come to foreign affairs and the bigger, strategic picture.
It reminds me of a marine not too long ago who when asked how air and space dominance has affected his performance on the ground in the desert responded with:
"Space? I don't need space... All I need is this here rifle, and this box!"
The "box" he was referring to, was of course a GPS navigation and communication system.
Most grunts are just that. They could understand the big picture, but they just aren't shown it, and don't go looking for it.
Last edited:
WilliamC
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,682
Why can't we keep liason forces on bases in foreign countries that are our allies?
This way we keep the option open for rapidly deploying to those bases if need be but we don't have the expense of maintaining them.
Or do we not have any allies that will let us use their bases so we have to keep ours on their soil?
This way we keep the option open for rapidly deploying to those bases if need be but we don't have the expense of maintaining them.
Or do we not have any allies that will let us use their bases so we have to keep ours on their soil?
We have the use of many allied bases overseas. We also have quite a lot of liaison officers stationed at various embassies around the world.
From a global-reach strategic viewpoint, it is beneficial to have hopping points, or forward bases, but it isn't necessary. For instance, our B-2 spirit bomber ("stealth" bomber) can fly out of Whiteman, Missouri and get to just about anywhere in the world, drop its payload and make it back home, with maybe an in-flight refueling after take-off (empty tank reduces take-off weight so more bombs can be lifted) and on the return leg.
The forward locations are more for deployment of ground troops reasons. However, it's exactly this tendency to want to put our boots on the ground everywhere around the world that gets us into trouble, IMO. We can respond relatively quickly to REAL threats from here at home.
It would prevent us from sticking our noses into stuff we shouldn't be in, reflexively.
Last edited:
I thought this thread would be dead by now. Anyway, all of the bases we are at around the world are technically NATO bases, even though we are the ones running them and using them. I am not aware of any base around the world we operate out of that is not a NATO base or we pay the country to use the field, but it is not really ours, it is more of a lease like Al Udied AB(known as THE DIED) in Qatar. So it is not like we own these places, just so you know.
MilitaryDave
Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 85
Yes, NATO bases. They are strategic deterrence and the only strategic military threat we face is Nuclear. If you don't believe that, then there is no existing strategic military threat.
Now, this war and this foreign policy is kept alive by one thing that is micromanaged every day .. the will of the people. We know the will of the people is the ultimate center of gravity. But, what about economic viability ... that to me seems like it just may trump the will of the people. Our enemies no doubt have us by the neck economically. So, when OPEC and China and Russia are acting aggressive on our economy our only recourse is to A. Downsize/Recapitalize or B. Threaten to destroy them. The current crop of gorillas will run to option B because it means more contracts.
The question I have is when will this government finally lose the power of the press er the will of the people?
Now, this war and this foreign policy is kept alive by one thing that is micromanaged every day .. the will of the people. We know the will of the people is the ultimate center of gravity. But, what about economic viability ... that to me seems like it just may trump the will of the people. Our enemies no doubt have us by the neck economically. So, when OPEC and China and Russia are acting aggressive on our economy our only recourse is to A. Downsize/Recapitalize or B. Threaten to destroy them. The current crop of gorillas will run to option B because it means more contracts.
The question I have is when will this government finally lose the power of the press er the will of the people?
Similar threads
