Mattis: US National Security No Longer Terrorism

Ok, thanks. But seriously, just so you know, I was sent to war by GW Bush, so I am against the neocon philosophy. I favor a strong military for defense, not aggression. I think your assessment is not completely off. Just a little hyperbolic.

 

The Americans with their Kurdish allies were among the most effective forces arrayed against ISIS.

 

So, the neocon PNAC which has been our primary foreign policy since 911, which gave the neocons the reason they needed to kick off PNAC by military invasion of their list of nations in the middle east and northern africa, had also listed russia, to be concerned about. Since this is in regards to US hegemony, covering the 21st century, and since russia knows about it, HOW would you expect russia to act? Well put the shoe on the other foot. What if russia officially had a policy of russian hegemony on the world? Who here would be calling for war?

First we must set aside the hypocrisy, unless of course you just want to be an empire, with vassal states, and hegemony. And of course if you believe in american imperialism, you will support our war mongering, our dangerous relations with russia, driven by PNAC, and put the world at risk for a final nuclear war. For if you think russia will be another vassal state of western oligarchs, you need your head examined, IMO.

Russian has its own national interests, and those interests do not include american imperialism and hegemony. IMO, what PNAC will help to insure is a future alliance between russian and china, both nuclear powers, which will at some point press back hard against a foreign policy which not only stupid but dangerous to a peaceful future.

Russia is not seeking imperialism and hegemony .Their actions evidence that fact. But they will not be agreeable to being pushed around, with economic warfare waged against them, forever. You have to try to see it from their point of view, since russia is no more evil than the US is, unless you live in some kind of naive bubble. Reagan was bright enough to see this, but he wasn't a neocon.

Demonizing russia, and Putin is a sure sign of propaganda tactics, which you would know if you understood propaganda and the tactics it uses. And our propaganda has reached such levels as to be a high art form today. And it obviously works on quite a number of us. But rubes are so easily played, fooled, conned.

Unlike some here, I do not fear a russian invasion. But russia has every reason to fear an invasion of russia, since we are trying to surround them with military forces, missiles, etc. What if we were being surrounded by russia and china? Well, to some of us we must now jump headlong into hypocrisy for we refuse to put the shoe on the other foot. If not for the utter hypocrisy of americans, we might actually be able to live in a more peaceful, less dangerous world.

 

Fair enough. But a question arises: how strong does the US military need to be for defence rather than aggression?

Different styles suit different folks, obviously. In my case it's probably my writing past you're detecting.

 

It is so telling how many vets who saw combat, especially the grunts, are against this dangerous neocon PNAC. Is it only the armchair generals who never got their arses shot at who are so ginned up about war, and aggression, and having the biggest penis? Can we just blame it on testosterone, and not knowing what combat is really like?

Having served in Nam, one tour of duty, and seen war, I went back to the world, and once I was discharged, I joined the demonstrations against that war and all wars which are not in a direct self defense of america. That was long ago when I was still young. I am old now and can only rant against perpetual war for perpetual peace from my computer, with letters to my senator and congressmen. Which has never helped of course, but one had to do that duty if you are really concerned about america and fellow americans. For I do not think our arm chair generals are at all concerned. I see them as very dangerous people.

 

You did not ask me, but IMO, we could be well defended on one third of what we are spending now on so called defense, which is in reality war mongering. We do not have a defense dept. We have a war dept. Such is what an Empire looks like. Gotta protect our vassal states. Even if it implodes us with debt at some point. Of course, we could do as the Nazis did and steal all of the wealth of our Jews, to help finance our war mongering when debt becomes too high to maintain payments on the debt.

 

To answer your question, I have to trust those in charge to do what is right with the military. It is in their own best interest.

My own opinion is that the US military doesn't need to be all that big. I mean, with the 2nd Amendment, any foreign military wouldn't stand a chance here. Have you ever seen the original Red Dawn?

 

Relevant reporting...


"RPI Director Daniel McAdams tells RT, which stated that the US will use everything in its power to prevent a rival from rising to challenge it. Our hyper-interventionist foreign policy consistently creates outcomes opposite of our stated goals and this new strategy only continues this process:"




RPI's Daniel McAdams: ‘Nothing New’ in New National Defense Strategy

 

One might ask a more relative question about a declaration of war. Remember those? Article 1 Section 8 used to be rather clear.

 

The US bombed more than the desert in Syria. It bombed infrastructure, it killed people and destroyed homes and cities. It did all that to help destabilize and destroy Israel's neighbor.

 

Thank you for your service One Mind.

 

Sorry, and thanks, but I really do not want to be thanked for my service in that war. I didn't defend my fellow americans against the evil spread of communism. I enriched the industries that tax payers feed in the military industrial complex. Like Gen. Smedley Butler once wrote, War is a Racket also the name of his short book. But the truth is generally not long and drawn out.

 

Vietnam was a war that stopped the spread of communism in southeast asia

Just as Korea saved south korea and maybe japan too

 

So, S. Vietnam did not become communist? That war did not stop a damned thing. And now communists are our friends! Or at least our trading partners just as long as they give our MNCs and big banks, slave labor.

Trump did do away with the sovereignty robbing free trade agreement that included Vietnam. As China has seen some increase in their slave labor wages for our MNCs, Vietnam and others over there got some slave labor too. I hear cheaper than china.

Japan was never at risk. We did stop the spread of it to SK though, even if we could not defeat them and china. Or decided not to try.

 

It did

But the communists were as spent as America was at the end

So Thailand, Malaysia , and the Philippines were saved even though S Vietnam was lost

 

Agree with that. You'd probably get away with less, in fact, because in terms of sheer defence the US is geographically in a very advantageous state (assuming no nuke war).

 

Trusting politicians and the Pentagon system are inimical to my mind. You just need to look at recent weapon acquisitions like the Littoral class war ships and the F-35 to see how taxpayers money are siphoned off to support the luxurious lifestyles of defence contractors while delivering tosh.

I agree that the size and spending for the military could easily be rationalised and reduced to a far more manageable figure. This is the USA's best bet because the national debt running up towards $21trillion spells 'bankrupt' by any sane measure.

Yes, I did watch that film years and years ago. As I just said to One Mind, the geographical nature makes it fairly easily defensible.

 

Indeed.

We live in very deceitful times.

 

I want to defend not just my peoples borders, but also my peoples livelihoods. Their ability to support their own lives.
For a trading nation this means defending their trade routes and market access also.

Equally, although it is hard to imagine a country invading the USA, it is not impossible to. So I seek to restrict access and military capability to do so from my rivals.
Limit Japan's oil supply. Or Hitlers, or Russia's etc.
To contain them.

Just sitting behind your borders waiting until someone grows strong enough to conquer you, that is not a good defence.
I'm sorry. I wish it was that simple.

The game is Chess, gentlemen. Not Draughts.

In your Red Dawn scenario, take note. It did not work for the Afghans, the Iraqi's, the French or pretty much anyone ever.
Even the Vietcong had their country totally ****ed over. Arse raped by foreign powers.
Expeditionary war please. Fight the Cubans in Cuba.

 

I feel the same way about being in Iraq. Except that the guys I served with were the best ever, and anyone who served in that kind of environment deserves some gratitude, whether we agree with the war or not.

 

Yeah, I agree. Surrounded by oceans with a citizenry armed to the teeth. We don't even need an army.

 

Oh, I completely agree. I found that I owed allegiance to my commanding officers, and my fellow grunts, but not to the politicians who got us into the war I fought in. I respect so many of these military men, as you do. I am a true patriot although some here would not agree with that. But being naive that also involves an America which is principled, morally, and a force for good, and good enough to be emulated. I once believed my country was a moral nation, the gov't. and would set an example for lessor moral nations, and for nations who had few principles. based always upon goodness and peace. Not evil evidenced by war for money.

 

What was the purpose of invading Iraq?

 

To end it.
A very expensive war of containment had been running for 10 plus years.




Also, America needed a scapegoat after 9/11. To show the world what happens when the Sleeping Giant awakes but also to lance the peoples need for vengeance.

Oil supply is also a strategic one. In WW2 it would have been fuel for Hitlers tanks.
That part of the battle, is still being fought.

So many reasons. Never just one.

 

Rooted neo-con and powerful Jewish Lobby influence has manipulated an otherwise focused administration to exhume Eastern boogeymen of the past. Soros and Merkel delight, despite the potential for more massive and tragic human loss.