Does America need a standing army?

[axiomata]

Why would you support keeping the Navy and Air Force if you support abolishing the army?

Because a standing (floating) Navy is constitutional?

 

[Brett85]

I'm still waiting for you to quit building straw men. And saying that closing military bases overseas means having enough money to fund universal healthcare implies reducing the number of people in the military as personnel cost is the biggest expense.

That seems like a stretch to me. We would save a lot of money if we quit paying for the defense of other countries. It's not just our army. It's also foreign military aid, missile defense systems that we provide other countries, nukes that we provide other countries, etc.

 

[Brett85]

Because a standing (floating) Navy is constitutional?

An army is authorized by the Constitution as well. If you want to get really technical about it, the Air Force is the one branch of the military that isn't authorized by the Constitution.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, and here's Ron Paul's joint statement with Barney Frank on cutting military spending.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...itary-spending-reps-barney-frank-and-ron-paul

Pay close attention to this part:

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

From the task force recommendations:
Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia by one-third and cut military end strength accordingly.

Note the recommendations are not "Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia, but keep the same troop levels by re-deploying them here".

 

[jmdrake]

That seems like a stretch to me. We would save a lot of money if we quit paying for the defense of other countries. It's not just our army. It's also foreign military aid, missile defense systems that we provide other countries, nukes that we provide other countries, etc.

Foreign military aid + missile defense systems + nukes <<<<<<<< Obamacare.

 

[jmdrake]

An army is authorized by the Constitution as well.

But not a standing army. The constitution gives authority to raise an army in time of war. Note the text:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Now here's a simple question. If a standing army is so necessary than why was Thomas Jefferson so against it? And why prior to WW II did we build down after every war?

 

[Brett85]

Oh, and here's Ron Paul's joint statement with Barney Frank on cutting military spending.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...itary-spending-reps-barney-frank-and-ron-paul

Pay close attention to this part:

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

From the task force recommendations:
Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia by one-third and cut military end strength accordingly.

Note the recommendations are not "Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia, but keep the same troop levels by re-deploying them here".

If that's what it actually meant, I don't agree with it. But I've still never heard anything like that come out of Ron Paul's mouth. By the way, I'm simply taking the same position on this issue that Pat Buchanan does, and people here generally praise him for his views on national defense/foreign policy issues.

 

[Brett85]

But not a standing army. The constitution gives authority to raise an army in time of war. Note the text:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Now here's a simple question. If a standing army is so necessary than why was Thomas Jefferson so against it? And why prior to WW II did we build down after every war?

Our founding fathers were divided on the need for a standing army. Many of our founders supported a standing army. Also, you could interpret that section of the Constitution as saying that Congress simply needs to reauthorize the funding for the military every two years.

 

[Brett85]

But not a standing army. The constitution gives authority to raise an army in time of war. Note the text:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Now here's a simple question. If a standing army is so necessary than why was Thomas Jefferson so against it? And why prior to WW II did we build down after every war?

Also, what about the fact that the Air Force isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution?

 

[jmdrake]

Our founding fathers were divided on the need for a standing army. Many of our founders supported a standing army. Also, you could interpret that section of the Constitution as saying that Congress simply needs to reauthorize the funding for the military every two years.

Some of our founding fathers supported central banking too. I wasn't asking about the Alexander Hamiltons but about Thomas Jefferson. Why do you think he was against a standing army?

And yes, you can misinterpret the army clause just like you can misinterpret the commerce clause or the general welfare clause. But you can't get around the fact that the constitution treats the army and navy different and that the army is seen as more temporary (to be raised in time of need) and the navy more permanent (to be maintained).

 

[Brett85]

Some of our founding fathers supported central banking too. I wasn't asking about the Alexander Hamiltons but about Thomas Jefferson. Why do you think he was against a standing army?

And yes, you can misinterpret the army clause just like you can misinterpret the commerce clause or the general welfare clause. But you can't get around the fact that the constitution treats the army and navy different and that the army is seen as more temporary (to be raised in time of need) and the navy more permanent (to be maintained).

We lived in a much less dangerous world when our country was founded, so Thomas Jefferson's opinion on standing armies doesn't carry much weight today. I really don't want to return our country to the defenses that we had in the 1700's.

 

[jmdrake]

Also, what about the fact that the Air Force isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution?

The Wright brothers weren't born yet. It should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that entities which existed or at least possibly existed at the time of the constitution (like the army) have to be looked at differently than entities that were beyond the imagination of the time (like an air force). Since you can't draw a direct inference on an air force, you can draw an indirect one. A navy was needed to protect the approaches to America from a foreign power and because it's hard for a militia to quickly build a navy. The same can be argued for an air force. The same is not true for infantry. Just look at the Swiss example. They follow a militia model. When's the last time they've been invaded? The Swiss have a small professional military, but that doesn't make up the bulk of their fighting force. That's what the founding fathers envisioned for the U.S. That and a Swiss like neutrality. But like so many other things, we have drifted far way from that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

Two things:

1 - Why? What is the benefit to myself and my fellow citizens by being the lone world "superpower"?

2 - We can't afford it anymore.

 

[jmdrake]

We lived in a much less dangerous world when our country was founded, so Thomas Jefferson's opinion on standing armies doesn't carry much weight today. I really don't want to return our country to the defenses that we had in the 1700's.

And that world is much more dangerous in large part because of our foreign adventurism. From the CIA overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran on behalf of British petroleum to Jimmy Carter funding what would become Al Qaeda to fight the Soviet Union to Reagan giving poison gas to Saddam Hussein to Clinton supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Kosovo Bush supporting Islamic Marxist terrorists in Iran to Obama supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Libya and protecting opium growers in Afghanistan, every time we turn around we find how we're creating our own enemies. By contrast the Swiss live in as just a dangerous world in much more security following a Thomas Jefferson model.

Really, the straw men are getting old. Our country didn't have an air force in the 1700's. So why are you falsely claiming that anyone wants a 1700s era defense? Do you think this is from the 1700s?

 

[Brett85]

Two things:

1 - Why? What is the benefit to myself and my fellow citizens by being the lone world "superpower"?

2 - We can't afford it anymore.

1. It benefits you, because there's a much smaller chance of getting attacked if we have a strong military to deter other countries against attacking us.
2. We can't afford an approximately 1 trillion dollar federal budget? That's what I advocate, and it would be a 75% reduction in the size of the current federal government. I would spend about 700 billion on defense, and the other $300 billion would be spent on other things authorized by the Constitution.

 

[Brett85]

And that world is much more dangerous in large part because of our foreign adventurism. From the CIA overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran on behalf of British petroleum to Jimmy Carter funding what would become Al Qaeda to fight the Soviet Union to Reagan giving poison gas to Saddam Hussein to Clinton supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Kosovo Bush supporting Islamic Marxist terrorists in Iran to Obama supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Libya and protecting opium growers in Afghanistan, every time we turn around we find how we're creating our own enemies. By contrast the Swiss live in as just a dangerous world in much more security following a Thomas Jefferson model.

Really, the straw men are getting old. Our country didn't have an air force in the 1700's. So why are you falsely claiming that anyone wants a 1700s era defense? Do you think this is from the 1700s?

I agree with you on the foreign adventurism part. But you still haven't explained why you support having an Air Force when it isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with you on the foreign adventurism part. But you still haven't explained why you support having an Air Force when it isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution.

I have. You either weren't reading it or you didn't understand it. But I'll explain it again.

1) Anyone knows that things that didn't exist at the time of the constitution have to be looked at differently than things that did.
2) On principle an airforce serves the same function as a navy. Both defend approaches to the country. The navy defends the sea approach. The air force defends the air approach.
3) The airforce and navy are also similar in that those are functions not easily duplicated by a local militia. That is in contrast to the army.

Really, if you understand why freedom of the press extends to the internet even though that wasn't mentioned in the constitution, you should be able to understand how the navy and the airforce are cut from the same cloth. That said, the navy could do the same role as the airforce. Navy pilots think they're better than airforce pilots anyway.

 

[jmdrake]

1. It benefits you, because there's a much smaller chance of getting attacked if we have a strong military to deter other countries against attacking us.

So why do you think the Swiss never get attacked even with a much smaller military?

2. We can't afford an approximately 1 trillion dollar federal budget? That's what I advocate, and it would be a 75% reduction in the size of the current federal government. I would spend about 700 billion on defense, and the other $300 billion would be spent on other things authorized by the Constitution.

I'm assuming you meant to say "We can afford an approx 1 trillion dollar fed budget". Anyway I agree with what you wrote initially (We can't afford a 1 trillion dollar federal budget). And of course this is "my priorities are the ones that can't be cut regardless of whether we actually need them or not" is the reason why we have runaway deficits. Everyone has a sacred cow and they're eating all the grass. That's also why Ron Paul supports significant cuts in the size of the military budget. And I gave you the link.

 

[Brett85]

I have. You either weren't reading it or you didn't understand it. But I'll explain it again.

1) Anyone knows that things that didn't exist at the time of the constitution have to be looked at differently than things that did.
2) On principle an airforce serves the same function as a navy. Both defend approaches to the country. The navy defends the sea approach. The air force defends the air approach.
3) The airforce and navy are also similar in that those are functions not easily duplicated by a local militia. That is in contrast to the army.

Really, if you understand why freedom of the press extends to the internet even though that wasn't mentioned in the constitution, you should be able to understand how the navy and the airforce are cut from the same cloth. That said, the navy could do the same role as the airforce. Navy pilots think they're better than airforce pilots anyway.

That was a good answer, but I think there probably are many strict Constitutionalists who would say that the Air Force is unconstitutional. But, I think that there's room for debate on some Constitutional interpretations. Other parts of the Constitution are more specific.

 

[Anti Federalist]

1. It benefits you, because there's a much smaller chance of getting attacked if we have a strong military to deter other countries against attacking us.

You didn't say strong military, you said "be the world's leading superpower". Take at look at the military spending in that graph. Is anybody going to invade Germany any time soon? Or Russia? Or nations that didn't even make the top ten of spending, some of whom have higher standards of living than we do.

2. We can't afford an approximately 1 trillion dollar federal budget? That's what I advocate, and it would be a 75% reduction in the size of the current federal government. I would spend about 700 billion on defense, and the other $300 billion would be spent on other things authorized by the Constitution.

I'm assuming you meant "can"

That's about what we are spending now.

So if you close all those bases and stop the foreign interventionism, you still want spend 700 billion or so a year on defense?

Luckily Ron Paul does not agree:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...akers-in-push-for-military-spending-cuts.html

Ron Paul Joins House Lawmakers in Push for Military Spending Cuts

June 09, 2011 3:38 PM

Presidential candidate and Tea Party Godfather Rep. Ron Paul is among a group of six Members of the House of Representatives that released a letter Thursday calling for a reduction in U.S. military spending by scaling back U.S. military commitments and reconfiguring the country’s military posture abroad.

Although bipartisan negotiations on deficit reduction between Vice President Biden and a group bicameral legislators continue, Paul, who announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President May 13, says that Congress “cannot be serious about reining in federal government spending if we take the military budget off the table.”

“We must focus our resources on defending the United States rather than on building and maintaining an unsustainable trillion dollar empire overseas,” Paul, R-Texas, said.