Current SA/ROTC Cadets: Sorry you missed the fun

[scoutpilot]

In sorry, did you just suggest that people who signed up to defend their country are "wrong".


Yes, they uphold and defense the Constitution... but just because it doesn't say "defend my country".... doesn't mean it's wrong.

Oh wait, quick, tell the people who have already taken the oath... what it really means!!!

There are about 2.5 centuries that disagree with you Bruno... sorry, but you're wrong.

I think you misinterpreted what he said.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I think you misinterpreted what he said.

Good, that's why I said "sorry".

 

[MemberLG]

Any who agreed with that would, however, be wrong. They "signed up" to "faithfully execute the orders of the officers appointed over them". What Army did you mistakenly believe you were joining? And what exactly is defending your country" ? Certainly it's not limited to launching rounds down range once someone has directly attacked the sovereign territory of the United States. In fact Defending your country has a huge proactive component to it. Preventing the escalation of a regional conflict that may have the ability to threaten the long or short term interests of the United States is defending the country as well. Who makes that decision? Well- by my reading of the Constitution- it's the President in consultation with the Senate and paid for by Congress. As far as why do we intervene in someplaces and not others- even where there are equal amounts of injustice or suffering in both? We take action where it is in our interest to do so, and in places where we have no compelling interest- we don't. So we intervene in Europe because the stability of the continent is in our interest and because we had an interest in ensuring the long term cohesiveness of NATO. We've intervened in the Persian Gulf because that is the source of much of the world's crude oil (whether or not we get it from there is almost beside the point- a disruption to the other half of the world will certainly be a major economic disruption to us as well). Unfortunately for Somalia- beyond a human rights concern- we have no vital interests at stake, so they get a token response. Ugly reality of life in an unjust world and it's not black and white- though what is black and white is that the soldier "signed up" to go deal with any that the political leadership determines is a threat -real or potential - to the interests of the United States and all of that is part and parcel of "Defending" the United States.

Why people join the military - [insert your own reason]. Regardless what your reason is, I believe an individual must validate to their stay in the military time to time. There must be a strong connection to why you join, what you do, and why you stay or leave. One extreme is a doctor who refused to deploy because he believed President Obama was not born in US (or something close) to some German soldiers during WW II that they were just "following orders."

I can disagree with the civilian leadership and still obey and execute their orders 100%. Personally, I thought invading Iraq was a mistake. But I had no hestiation to deploying to Iraq when my guard unit got mobilized and leaving my pregnant wife with a kid. We can question internally but still be obedient. My personal opinion is that we have professional obligation to question (internally and philosophically, but not openly) our orders time to time. Ultimately, if I disagree enough, it will be time for me to resign.

 

[MemberLG]

Why we got involved is easy.

Yugo was not just about the humanitarian tragedy. It was about a power vacuum developing in Eastern Europe following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. The last time such a vacuum developed in the Balkans preceded WWI when the Ottoman Empire was on the wane. The goal was not to nation build, but to have Western style/democratic forces build/rebuild their own nations. When Serbia delivers the three most wanted Balkan War Criminals to the Hague, begs for membership in the EU and NATO, and accepts Kosovo independence, AFTER we bomb their capital, I call that serving US national interests.

Risky? No doubt. Successful? Unquestionably. Were we lucky? Hell yes. Fortunately, Russia was caught at its weakest and was in no position to meddle.

Why is the easy one. How and whatafter are what matter.

More than one expert has suggested that our involvement in Yugo was at partially a function of our inaction in Rwanda, which was at least partially influenced by the recent experience in Mogadishu. Of course, no one knows what we could have done to stop the genocide, but the Clinton Admin had to think about the possibility of two genocides on their watch.

Maybe the success of our efforts in the Balkans set the table for the Bush administration's mis-underestimation of the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, the blowback and cost of which makes sequestraton look like a bump in the road. The why was easy. It was the how and whatafter that weren't asked.

I will present some counter arguments

It was an European problem.

The international politics of pre WW I to the "power vacuum developing in Eastern Europe following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR" are different.

What did "Serbia delivers the three most wanted Balkan War Criminals to the Hague, begs for membership in the EU and NATO, and accepts Kosovo independence" get US?

I doubt dictators/war lords around the world are saying "I am not going to do bad things" because I might end up in Hague. I believe none of the former Yugo republics are in EU nor NATO yet. I believe EU and NATO don't actually want them. Kosvos is not a done deal yet - interesting to see how long the NATO will stay there or what happens when NATO force leaves.

Amercia don't care about what happens in Africa. A strong case can be made why US should be involved in Africa more than we got involved in Serbia.