Remind you of something?

[sabreur]

Why does this: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...H-MILITARY.xml



Make me think of this: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...92/dunlap.htm?

[Philistine]

Your first link doesn't work for me.

--Philistine

[Bokken]

At the risk of coming across as a conspiracy theorist, probably because the beginnings of what the second link warns about are coming to pass in the first.

[Slim]

At the risk of coming across as a conspiracy theorist, probably because the beginnings of what the second link warns about are coming to pass in the first.

The function of the military is to, when required, kill people and blow things up. They are not a humanitarian relief organization and are not trained for that role. Because the groups (local and state mostly) responsible for providing the planning and relief failed in their mission does not justify burdening the military with primary responsibilities of this role. Let them do what they are trained to do. This is a bad idea and is just Bush reacting to the same people that will scream that the military has too much power. I think he's suggesting it because he knows it will never happen. More of a "get your house in order, or we will do it for you" warning than anything else. Remember, the Mayor of New Orleans was calling for people to come back as recently as a few days before the latest mess down their. I'm sure that would have been Bush's fault too if they had and we had a repeat of a few weeks ago. If it becomes federalized, the local and state groups lose their funding. That alone should get people moving.

I would certainly be in favor for a regimented, disiplined organization similar to the Coast Guard to assume this role, but not one trained for waging war as it's primary objective. Perhaps expand the role of the Coast Guard?

[Epee_Pox]

I sincerely doubt that a military coup, as envisioned above, could happen in the US.

The instant anybody tried to start a coup like that, there'd be several hundred thousand of their fellow soldiers lining up to shoot them dead. A lot of people in the military take the Constitution and its protections very seriously.

[gojujay]

I sincerely doubt that a military coup, as envisioned above, could happen in the US.

The instant anybody tried to start a coup like that, there'd be several hundred thousand of their fellow soldiers lining up to shoot them dead. A lot of people in the military take the Constitution and its protections very seriously.

Too many people who have never had a connection to the military cannot fathom that the members might actually know about the Constitution and care more for it than the government/administration. The military is just like any unknown, it's feared, by the Left, unjustifiably.

[sabreur]

You would have found the following information about the author:

Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, is the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, US Central Command, at MacDill AFB, Florida. He is a graduate of St. Joseph's University (Pa.), the Villanova University School of Law, and the Armed Forces Staff College, and he is a Distinguished Graduate of the National War College, Class of 1992. He has taught at the Air Force Judge Advocate General's School, and served tours in Korea and the United Kingdom. In 1987 he was a Circuit Military Judge, First Judicial Circuit, and was subsequently assigned to the Air Staff in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Lieutenant Colonel Dunlap was recently named by the Judge Advocates' Association as the USAF's Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney of 1992. The present article is adapted from his National War College student paper that was co-winner of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1991-92 Strategy Essay Competition, in which students from all the senior service colleges compete.

[pigeonmeister]

The function of the military is to, when required, kill people and blow things up. They are not a humanitarian relief organization and are not trained for that role.

Most of the other countries have realised that humanitarian/peacekeeping work is their most likely operational deployment (Balkans, Sierra Leon, Haiti, Middle East) Perhaps this lack of training, and your ideological refusal to accept soldiers can have a function other than kill, has been exposed in iraq.

If you give soldiers a political, as well as military, goal then they have to be able to do something constructive when they have stopped killing people. Hearts and Minds is a popular saying.

If the Republican high command refuse to have the killer instinct compromised by training humanitarian skills then why not have a two teer system.

Army 1- a load of hard *** shock troops
Army 2- Peacekeepers to be deployed after army 1 or on behalf of UN elsewhere.

Army 2 might even be useful in hurricane season.

[Slim]

Most of the other countries have realised that humanitarian/peacekeeping work is their most likely operational deployment (Balkans, Sierra Leon, Haiti, Middle East) Perhaps this lack of training, and your ideological refusal to accept soldiers can have a function other than kill, has been exposed in iraq.

If you give soldiers a political, as well as military, goal then they have to be able to do something constructive when they have stopped killing people. Hearts and Minds is a popular saying.

If the Republican high command refuse to have the killer instinct compromised by training humanitarian skills then why not have a two teer system.

Army 1- a load of hard *** shock troops
Army 2- Peacekeepers to be deployed after army 1 or on behalf of UN elsewhere.

Army 2 might even be useful in hurricane season.

Ah, youthful ignorance and a perceived opportunity to spout dribble once once again...

I stated fact, not an ideology. Our military is NOT trained for that mission. It has nothing to do with ideology or political beliefs. And you are correct. It has been exposed in Iraq. When a soldier feels threatened and shoots the perceived threat, only to be later brought up on charges of murder, it does nothing but weaken the moral and send mixed messaged to them. It's a very bad and dangerous situation.

I find it interesting and somewhat humorus that all the so called "other countries" you mentioned are basically a mess and are pretty weak cases for success of anything other than corruption and chaos. Sierra Leon? Please. Perhaps a shining star in your twisted political beliefs. Not mine.

You've presented nothing other than to regurgitate what I proposed above. 2 different organizations with different missions.

[pigeonmeister]

Ah, youthful ignorance and a perceived opportunity to spout dribble once once again...

I stated fact, not an ideology. Our military is NOT trained for that mission. It has nothing to do with ideology or political beliefs. And you are correct. It has been exposed in Iraq. When a soldier feels threatened and shoots the perceived threat, only to be later brought up on charges of murder, it does nothing but weaken the moral and send mixed messaged to them. It's a very bad and dangerous situation.

I find it interesting and somewhat humorus that all the so called "other countries" you mentioned are basically a mess and are pretty weak cases for success of anything other than corruption and chaos. Sierra Leon? Please. Perhaps a shining star in your twisted political beliefs. Not mine.

You've presented nothing other than to regurgitate what I proposed above. 2 different organizations with different missions.

You actually are quite an unpleasant person aren't you? I had thought you just said things for effect.

If you represent enlightenment, then I am happy to be blissfully ignorant.

p.s you have completely missed my point, I suggest you re-read my post. Sierra Leon and Haiti ect were examples of American peace-keeping operations. Not examples of what the American army should remodel itself on, you Idiot.

[Slim]

p.s you have completely missed my point, I suggest you re-read my post. Sierra Leon and Haiti ect were examples of American peace-keeping operations. Not examples of what the American army should remodel itself on, you Idiot.

Now, now. No need for blatent name calling. Sierra Leone has been primarily a UN/UK/FRA operation. Get your facts straight and you may be easier to follow.

[Taomagicdragon]

Maybe everyone should calm down?

As for military and peace-keeping. It has been shown that a military force doing humanitarian efforts raises the moral of said force (easily shown in the case of the tsunami in december). Cleaning up after a natural disaster, handing out food in a war ravaged country.Those things raise moral for a simple reason: you're not shooting anyone and no one is shooting at you. Both sides are safe and happy. Taking the life of another has a severe impact on your mental wellbeing, an even more serious impact when one you know has been killed, or if you have been wounded. PTSD (post-trauma), shock, shell-shock, etc all occur when war is being waged. This serves to lower moral, especially when they learn their purpose for going in was proven baseless. Our militry is NOT soley a killing force, thinking it is only that is an insult to them.

[pigeonmeister]

Now, now. No need for blatent name calling. Sierra Leone has been primarily a UN/UK/FRA operation. Get your facts straight and you may be easier to follow.

There was a need.

You still totaly missed what was quite a clear point. American troops have been involved in operations that require much more than being an effective killing machine.

"American soldiers are peacekeepers right now in Iraq. American soldiers have been helping to keep the peace in Korea for the last, almost 50 years."

Colin Powell, 6th february 2004.

US did not deploy its own troops in SL (maybe a couple of advisors), but US soldiers specifically and exclusively trained the Nigerian troops for peace-keeping operations there. Suggesting that they perhaps give more credence to humanitarian training than you do.

Once you ask soldiers to achieve political goals and police a post-conflict reconstruction phase, you need to get beyond killing skills. America has experience of this from Kosovo.

[Slim]

There was a need.

You still totaly missed what was quite a clear point. American troops have been involved in operations that require much more than being an effective killing machine.

"American soldiers are peacekeepers right now in Iraq. American soldiers have been helping to keep the peace in Korea for the last, almost 50 years."

Colin Powell, 6th february 2004.

US did not deploy its own troops in SL (maybe a couple of advisors), but US soldiers specifically and exclusively trained the Nigerian troops for peace-keeping operations there. Suggesting that they perhaps give more credence to humanitarian training than you do.

Once you ask soldiers to achieve political goals and police a post-conflict reconstruction phase, you need to get beyond killing skills. America has experience of this from Kosovo.

There is a huge difference between peace keeping and a humanitarian assistance role. Keeping the peace in Korea is through an assurance of mutual destruction, not song singing and barn raising. Same as during the cold war, you arrogant twit. (Sorry, there was a need).

American soldiers in Iraq are trying to keep peace by routing out those elements intent on causing chaos, and killing them. This in turn amounts to protecting the folks that want to move on with their lives. They are peace keeping.

In all conflicts (and natural disasters - which just happens to be the original context of this thread), there is indeed a need for rebuilding and and humanitarian assitance. It's just not the appropriate role for same military used for waging war. That was my original statement. I made no mention of peacekeeping. I specifically said humanitarian assistance.

[esskreemr]

Ah, youthful ignorance and a perceived opportunity to spout dribble once once again...

I didn't think you were that young, but spout away!

I stated fact, not an ideology. Our military is NOT trained for that mission. It has nothing to do with ideology or political beliefs. And you are correct. It has been exposed in Iraq. When a soldier feels threatened and shoots the perceived threat, only to be later brought up on charges of murder, it does nothing but weaken the moral and send mixed messaged to them. It's a very bad and dangerous situation.

You are actually the one showing a deep ignorance (or blatant misrepresentation of the facts). Perhaps YOU should check your posts before you hit the submit key.

There are several very important functions that the military can (and does) serve during times of catastrophic disasters. The military has the machinery and the rapid response capabilities that many civilian organizations lack. In addition, you incorrectly assume that every soldier is trained to be a killing machine. This is simply not true, anyone who went through high school or college should know this from the myriad of "You don't have to fight to be military recruiting". So much for your superior knowledge and experience as a white, middle-classed American. For every "tag 'em and bag 'em" soldier there are multiple support personnel. In addition, you SEEM to forget that the military has medics, engineers, chaplins, food service, laundry, transport units, etc. that are trained in very specific functions that aren't focused on shoot anything that ain't red-white-and-blue, and moves. The Army would love to have about 2.5 support personnel for every combat soldier. This ratio currently (known as the 'tooth-to-tail') is about 50/50 (1.2 support for every combat unit) except in Iraq where the ratio is much less than optimal.

From the Army's "Structuring the Active and Reserve Army for the 21st Century"(1997):

Not all of what the Army refers to as warfighting forces actually fight. Indeed, most of the Army's warfighting--or, more accurately, deployable--forces do not engage directly in combat (see Figure 1). Units that would deploy overseas for a regional conflict come in two general types: combat forces (such as armored, infantry, and mechanized infantry brigades and divisions) and forces outside those combat brigades and divisions that provide support for them (such as engineering, transport, and medical units).


So as you can see, assuming you take your blinders off, the military has a infrastructure of non-combat troops that could very easily be deployed in a disaster-relief scenario. Most have at least some combat training so will be able to handle desperate situations that arise.

I find it interesting and somewhat humorus that all the so called "other countries" you mentioned are basically a mess and are pretty weak cases for success of anything other than corruption and chaos. Sierra Leon? Please. Perhaps a shining star in your twisted political beliefs. Not mine.

You've presented nothing other than to regurgitate what I proposed above. 2 different organizations with different missions.

Ohhhhhhhh... sooooo close, you should have jibbered when you jabbered.

[Slim]

I didn't think you were that young, but spout away!



You are actually the one showing a deep ignorance (or blatant misrepresentation of the facts). Perhaps YOU should check your posts before you hit the submit key.

There are several very important functions that the military can (and does) serve during times of catastrophic disasters. The military has the machinery and the rapid response capabilities that many civilian organizations lack. In addition, you incorrectly assume that every soldier is trained to be a killing machine. This is simply not true, anyone who went through high school or college should know this from the myriad of "You don't have to fight to be military recruiting". So much for your superior knowledge and experience as a white, middle-classed American. For every "tag 'em and bag 'em" soldier there are multiple support personnel. In addition, you SEEM to forget that the military has medics, engineers, chaplins, food service, laundry, transport units, etc. that are trained in very specific functions that aren't focused on shoot anything that ain't red-white-and-blue, and moves. The Army would love to have about 2.5 support personnel for every combat soldier. This ratio currently (known as the 'tooth-to-tail') is about 50/50 (1.2 support for every combat unit) except in Iraq where the ratio is much less than optimal.

From the Army's "Structuring the Active and Reserve Army for the 21st Century"(1997):

Not all of what the Army refers to as warfighting forces actually fight. Indeed, most of the Army's warfighting--or, more accurately, deployable--forces do not engage directly in combat (see Figure 1). Units that would deploy overseas for a regional conflict come in two general types: combat forces (such as armored, infantry, and mechanized infantry brigades and divisions) and forces outside those combat brigades and divisions that provide support for them (such as engineering, transport, and medical units).


So as you can see, assuming you take your blinders off, the military has a infrastructure of non-combat troops that could very easily be deployed in a disaster-relief scenario. Most have at least some combat training so will be able to handle desperate situations that arise.



Ohhhhhhhh... sooooo close, you should have jibbered when you jabbered.

Thanks for the lecture junior.

[esskreemr]

Thanks for the lecture junior.

Ohhhh...score 1 Slim!

Typical...

[Epee_Pox]

Actually, the US military has a long tradition of humanitarian and other non-combat roles.

These functions serve multiple purposes, all of which are valid and valuable for a combat unit.

First, as pointed out, they tend to improve morale (but only when properly supported and the mission is clear).

Second, they provide outstanding logistical training. Wars are won by logistics more than anything else -- if you can't get the men and materiel where you want them, they can't do what you want them to do. There's no better on-the-job training for soldiers short of actual combat.

Third, they establish a positive US presence abroad. Showing the country as an effective force, as well as a force for good, is a valuable result well worth the cost.

There are other very good reasons to use the military in such roles, but you get the point. And these are precisely the reasons why the US military has been doing this kind of stuff since at least the early 1900s.

[Epee_Pox]

Oh yeah, forgot a big one. Sometimes you get quite a lot of combat experience just trying to get food from checkpoint A to starving village B. More on-the-job training.

[Slim]

Actually, the US military has a long tradition of humanitarian and other non-combat roles.

These functions serve multiple purposes, all of which are valid and valuable for a combat unit.

First, as pointed out, they tend to improve morale (but only when properly supported and the mission is clear).

Second, they provide outstanding logistical training. Wars are won by logistics more than anything else -- if you can't get the men and materiel where you want them, they can't do what you want them to do. There's no better on-the-job training for soldiers short of actual combat.

Third, they establish a positive US presence abroad. Showing the country as an effective force, as well as a force for good, is a valuable result well worth the cost.

There are other very good reasons to use the military in such roles, but you get the point. And these are precisely the reasons why the US military has been doing this kind of stuff since at least the early 1900s.

I'm not disputing that it has happend in the past, and is currently happening in some places, primarily to clean up after a conflict. I am arguing that it should not become easier to burden the military with this role. In extreme, short term situations, sure. Going forward, if there are failures in the non-military systems in place to deliver humanitarian aid, then fix those.

Personally I share in the opinion that a faster, more mobile force lead by smaller specialized forces are the future of how conflicts will be handled. This is the direction things are currently going within the military community. It was demonstrated to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a huge difference in the number of troops and method of how the Gulf War in 91 and the recent war in Iraq were waged.

We are moving away from the huge conventional forces and the massive infrastructure required to support them. We should not be looking to reverse that process by expanding the mission. Take the money and spend it on something like the Coast Guard to fill the need of disaster relief.

And dont forget all those lefties who will start screaming when they realize this will require an increase in size and budgets and the potential ease with which the military might be able to be deployed domestically.

Again, I dont think it will happen. Bush suggested it primarily for the shock value.