Half-battle Vs. No Battle

[MisterSwig]

And, in passing, you might ask yourselves what you are going to do when there is a mass brain drain from the military because the best will not put their lives in Kerry's hands, the snide comments of MisterSwig notwithstanding.

The brain drain is already occuring under Bush. The idea of sacrificing your life for the sake of the enemy is not very inspiring.

[oldsalt]

The brain drain is already occuring under Bush. The idea of sacrificing your life for the sake of the enemy is not very inspiring.

I would be interested to know how you know that this is happening. I am in constant contact with many members of the military. My background is military. I live in San Diego and work with military families as much as I am able. I met with many of the Marines who were just rotated home from Iraq, as I have with both Marines and sailors in every deployment and homecoming from here since the war began. I don't hear anything like this from any of them. They also do not consider that they have put their lives on the line for Iraqi lives, but that they did battle with both Saddam and terrorists so that they will never have to do it here. (You won't be convincing them that Iraq is a mistake or a diversion from the WOT, either. They know what they found when they got to Iraq and they know who they've been fighting.) They resent the propaganda that says that Iraq is a complete mess, because they know what they've accomplished and they know that the fighting is confined to a few areas. While they are frustrated with the politics involved, they understand that they are subserviant to civilian rule -- to politicians.

They also have no interest in committing a mass slaughter of innocents and are proud of the fact that they are able to do their job without very many innocents being killed. It is how they have trained to fight. It is the reason for their methodology and their many of their weapons systems. They are proud that they value life, as opposed to an enemy who proudly says that he loves death. It is the biggest distinction between Americans' and the enemy, and it is this that has convinced the majority of Iraqis to trust them (that distinction has become more profound with the indiscriminate murder of Iraqis by terrorists and insurgents). This is what I've heard from the vast majority of the men and women I've spoken to. Many joined in the first place because of 9-11, including my nephew, who is over there right now.

This is why I say that what I'm hearing here doesn't jive with the facts that I hear from those who are actually involved in more than sitting at their computers having political discussions in forums such as this.

I'll tell you something else that they say: They resent like hell the very idea of anyone saying that they support the troops, but don't support the mission. They will tell you that that is impossible. They don't appreciate being used as a propaganda tool to repudiate all that they are doing, or as an excuse to call off the fight.

There are those who do not feel this way, of course. The military is a reflection of the culture. But the majority do think like this, and the majority of them hate Kerry.

And they are not leaving the military. Retention rates are higher than they have ever been. Most warriors are not going to leave the fighting to others, nor are they going to bug out on their fellow warriors. The only problem they are running into is with the reserves and the guard -- mainly in the army. This is because they have been fighting since Clinton's little adventure in Bosnia. Had the military not been cut to the bone, and if they received the pay they deserve, we would not be facing even this problem.

[BurgessLau]

My original comment was: "I do not understand your question. You say "happens." That is ambiguous here. Is your question historical -- What has happened to peacetime law, typically, in times of war? Or is your question one of political philosophy -- What should happen to peacetime law in times of war?"

Sorry for my ambiguity, I meant what should happen.

ps

In your profile, under "Information," the "Home Page" isn't showing up right.

If I understand you correctly you are asking this: What should happen to any and all peacetime laws during wartime?

I don't know why you are asking this question in such general terms. Let's take an example: a law requiring drivers to drive at less than a certain speed on a highway. Why should that change during wartime?

Or perhaps you are trying to get at this problem: What should happen to normal, peacetime laws about such things as police detention without a court hearing?

Is that what you are asking about?

If so, the answer depends on at least two factors:

(1) Is the country actually at war? (The U. S. isn't, in the sense that Congress and the President have not had the courage and principled behavior that would lead them to a formal declaration.)

(2) Is the wartime country in an emergency -- that is, is the country in a situation that is both dangerous and emerging so fast that normal legal processes can't work fast enough to stop the threat? (The U. S. certainly is not in this situation either.)

So, if there is no wartime emergency, then I see no reason to change the laws for domestic activities.

Does this answer your question? If not, please try again, but make your question specific and give examples.

P. S. -- Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed it.

[MisterSwig]

I would be interested to know how you know that this [military brain drain] is happening. 

Below is one example. If you want others, I suggest you read the news. Living in San Diego, I suspect that you are mostly talking to navy families. But it's the army that is dying.

The army reserve is starting to really worry about retention issues, and they are having to send career counselors to the battlefield for the first time in its history, in order to convince soldiers to re-enlist by offering cash bonuses.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._092704.00.html

I believe we are having retention problems because of the plain fact that our soldiers are being ordered to act as policemen--not warriors--in a foreign nation. They are dying for foreigners. They are dying because we are too chicken to take out countries like Iran. I don't see how that can be very inspiring to the best and brightest.

I have nothing but respect for the brave soldiers who fight and obey commands. However, I have a big problem with the commanders giving them orders to risk their lives patrolling the Arab streets. We have never won a war by patrolling the enemy's streets.

I take no comfort in knowing that men and women are sacrificing themselves in Iraq so that I don't have to die in Los Angeles. That is not what the military is for. And that is not the way to prevent Iran-inspired militant Islamists from killing me in the United States.

[DavidV]

On a related note, this is from a recent blog post of mine:

Picture this tv ad:

A kid is going around an inner city school cafeteria collecting scraps of food from various plates. He then goes outside and gives the food to a bum. Prompt: “What do you want to be?” Next shot: the kid is dispensing food for an international aid agency. What agency is this? The United States Army.

What values do you expect from our military -honor, courage, commitment, discipline, integrity?

Forget it – in the 21st century, global welfare, altruism, and sacrificial offerings of both looted aid and soldier’s lives are the new standards for our military.

[BurgessLau]

Below is one example. If you want others, I suggest you read the news. Living in San Diego, I suspect that you are mostly talking to navy families. But it's the army that is dying.

For the record and out of respect for the victims, one should acknowledge the deaths of U. S. Marines -- who are closely associated with the U. S. Navy. (That's why they are called "marine.")

[MisterSwig]

For the record and out of respect for the victims, one should acknowledge the deaths of U. S. Marines -- who are closely associated with the U. S. Navy. (That's why they are called "marine.")

Yes. Marines are fighting and dying as well. We have lost some people from the navy and air force, too.

[Yes]

Godless Capitalist said: "With Kerry we would likely get a quarter-battle; how would that be better?" (Oct. 6, 834 am)

How is Godless Capitalist's question nonsense? What reasons do you have for reaching that conclusion?

Godless Capitalist is reverting to Whole Math when he says that with Kerry we would likely get a quarter battle.

Know an absurdity when you read one, Burgess.

That is why it is nonsense.

[BurgessLau]

Godless Capitalist is reverting to Whole Math when he says that with Kerry we would likely get a quarter battle.

Know an absurdity when you read one, Burgess.

That is why it is nonsense.

As is often the case, I am ignorant here.

What is "Whole Math"? How has GC applied it to predicting Kerry's actions?

What method would you suggest -- for predicting Kerry's actions -- instead of Whole Math?

By the way, what are your predictions of Kerry's actions -- particularly in the War on Terrorism -- if he becomes President?

[BlackSabbath]

I found this interesting:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15499

"We need to engage more directly and more respectfully with Islam, with the state of Islam, with religious leaders, mullahs, imams, clerics, in a way that proves this is not a clash with the British and the Americans and the old forces they remember from the colonial days. "

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15504 is a response.

[Yes]

What is "Whole Math"? How has GC applied it to predicting Kerry's actions?

Whole Math is discussed here

In order to evaluate Kerry's actions regarding the War on Terrorism, Godless Capitalist would have to do other than hard facts to support his quantitative guess regarding "quarter battle".

It is what in reality is known as a "sarcastic remark." That's how it should be taken.

Since it has no fact to support it, it is nonsense.

What method would you suggest -- for predicting Kerry's actions -- instead of Whole Math?

Many here have cited his past voting record as subtantiating what they perceive would be a pacifist approach to the War on Terror. Others have cited a recent NY Times magazine article in which Kerry appreared to trivialize terrorism; since that article, Kerry has issued statements contradicting what he was quoted to have said in that article.

I would suggest a combination of looking at Kerry's previous voting record and researching his own website to get an idea as to how he might handle the war on terror "better."

Specifically regarding Iraq, I think that Kerry does have a point regarding international involvement because Iraq under a totalitarian government is an international threat to the free trade of oil. But then, Bush has indeed summoned, and succeeded in part, in getting a coalition to get involved in Iraq.

By the way, what are your predictions of Kerry's actions -- particularly in the War on Terrorism -- if he becomes President?

I will admit it is difficult for me to predict what Kerry would do in the War on Terror if he becomes president, other than that he definitely could not stick his head in the sand.

[erik]

Early voting has started so quit talking about it and go make your mark. No-ones mind is going to change, certainly not Kerry apologists. He has a plan!

[Yes]

....... certainly not Kerry apologists. He has a plan! 

Like all good politicians he won't reveal it until after he's elected.

If he is elected, we'll all have to hope we have deep pockets.

That's the reprehensible side of Kerry.

[HaloNoble6]

Or perhaps you are trying to get at this problem: What should happen to normal, peacetime laws about such things as police detention without a court hearing?

Is that what you are asking about?

If so, the answer depends on at least two factors:

(1) Is the country actually at war? (The U. S. isn't, in the sense that Congress and the President have not had the courage and principled behavior that would lead them to a formal declaration.)

(2) Is the wartime country in an emergency -- that is, is the country in a situation that is both dangerous and emerging so fast that normal legal processes can't work fast enough to stop the threat? (The U. S. certainly is not in this situation either.)

So, if there is no wartime emergency, then I see no reason to change the laws for domestic activities.

Does this answer your question? If not, please try again, but make your question specific and give examples.

Thanks for your response. I hadn't intended to be as general as I sounded. I meant things like judicial oversight of search warrants and phone taps. Under the Patriot Act, as I understand it, the FBI can search and tap without judicial oversight. Also, I've heard that under the Patriot Act, one can be held indefinitely without trail, if under suspicion of terrorism.

While the congress and the president lack the courage to declare war on our enemy, we clearly are at war and it seems like DC wants to have its cake and eat it to by not explicitly making a war declaration on Islamists, yet changing domestic policy to reflect an actual state of war on them.

People of the "free speech movement" often cry foul when Islamic sympathizers come under fire, claiming violation of free speech rights. But explicit sympathizing with the enemy, providing aid and comfort, seems to be synonymous with a threat to the rights of freedom-loving Americans, thus deserving of prosecutory action. Right?

I guess my original question stems from the application of the right to life in the context of wartime, which you provided two manifestations of in your post. Many people with a corrupt understanding of the concept of "rights," on the one hand, see the prosecution of enemy-sympathizers (such as during McCarthyism) as unjust, and on the other, see it as just to place everyone from the enemy-country (or region, viz. the Middle East) in concentration camps. I'm just trying to flesh out the details of the application of the right to life during wartime.

[Yes]

I meant things like judicial oversight of search warrants and phone taps.  Under the Patriot Act, as I understand it, the FBI can search and tap without judicial oversight.  Also, I've heard that under the Patriot Act, one can be held indefinitely without trail, if under suspicion of terrorism.

While the congress and the president lack the courage to declare war on our enemy, we clearly are at war and it seems like DC wants to have its cake and eat it to by not explicitly making a war declaration on Islamists, yet changing domestic policy to reflect an actual state of war on them.

People of the "free speech movement" often cry foul when Islamic sympathizers come under fire, claiming violation of free speech rights.  But explicit sympathizing with the enemy, providing aid and comfort, seems to be synonymous with a threat to the rights of freedom-loving Americans, thus deserving of prosecutory action.  Right?

I guess my original question stems from the application of the right to life in the context of wartime, which you provided two manifestations of in your post.  Many people with a corrupt understanding of the concept of "rights," on the one hand, see the prosecution of enemy-sympathizers (such as during McCarthyism) as unjust, and on the other, see it as just to place everyone from the enemy-country (or region, viz. the Middle East) in concentration camps.  I'm just trying to flesh out the details of the application of the right to life during wartime.

These are tough questions, and questions that have to be asked, whether by you or anyone else.

My opinion is that the Patriot Act has to be compared to the context of the Constitution, regarding one's rights during peacetime and wartime.

I have read about many constitutional challenges regarding the Patriot Act. I'm observing right now how this is all going to shape up.

My opinion about the Bush administration's failure to declare war against nations that support terrorism is that this shows a certain pragmatism, if not cowardice, if not lack of determination, on the Bush administration.