A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!
June 6th, 2008
Standing Armies
Just over 1% of United States citizens are members of its military. With 1.5 million individuals in active duty and roughly the same amount in the reserves, the nation’s military employs as many people as its entire food service industry (Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2007).
While underwhelming to some, this simple fact demonstrates the sheer magnitude of our current military force. The logistical administration required by a standing army necessitates a business-like model, meaning that war and death have become institutionalized as a legitimate form of employment in our society. Indeed, our youth are often allured with promises of free college, signing bonuses, and other monetary incentives for signing on the dotted line.
To support such a military force, resources of necessity must be diverted from other societal programs and spheres. President (and former General) Eisenhower, noting the cost of war, pointed out several monetary comparisons to illustrate the price tag on certain aspects of the military:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
…
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. . . .
This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace. It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty. It calls upon them to answer the question that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live? (Dwight D. Eisenhower, via Quoty)
This country spends more than $696 billion dollars annually to support its standing army. This amount is larger than the military expenditures of the next 46 highest spending countries combined. Additionally, U.S. military spending accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending. The statistics are staggering, to say the least.
The perpetually increasing cost for supporting such a large standing army should be troubling to all concerned citizens who observe our economy’s current situation, the circumstances in which domestic liberty is threatened, and the historical evidences showing the ways in which standing armies are used by evil men who assume control, through either quasi-legitimate means or otherwise.
Wisely did James Madison warn us of the consequences of the situation in which we find ourselves. He noted:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes…, known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. (James Madison, via Quoty)
Standing armies enable continual warfare, for there is always a group of trained, professional killers ready to do their leaders’ bidding. There are a few specific circumstances in which war is just and necessary. Legitimate war, unlike aggressive, offensive war, needs no standing army, for the citizens will rally together to stand in defense of their country, their lives, and their values. Any group of people under attack will rightly defend themselves and will be justified in doing so.
But standing armies are the tool with which immoral wars are waged. Politicians would find it quite difficult to entice (or compel, for that matter) productive, peaceful citizens to sacrifice their lives unless they were inspired for a greater and necessary cause. Propaganda can deceive (and has deceived) in convincing people of just what causes are great, but the fact remains that the executive has no need to convince his hired and paid subordinates to do his wishes when they are already on his payroll and programmed to execute his every desire.
The only legitimate argument that may be made in favor of standing armies is the need to have a strong defense and trained group of soldiers with which to repel an attack of invasion. Peaceful citizens living their own lives, it is argued, would not be sufficiently instructed in warfare and able to adequately fight a battle to protect their country. History rebuts this notion, however, when one observes the American Revolutionary War. Inspired to defend their lives and liberty from an oppressive autocrat, thousands of freedom-loving individuals—many already skilled in marksmanship, survivalism, and other battle-worthy tactics—voluntarily joined the war effort and successfully repelled and defeated the greatest military force in their day. It has happened before, and, for legitimate cases in which war is found to be necessary, it can happen again. Times and technology have changed, but the principle remains true: an alert, concerned citizenry will rise to repel any invasive force if the situation demands it.
We are told, however, that Americans are selfish, lazy, and lacking in necessary skills. We are told, then, that the military enterprise must be outsourced to individuals willing to make it their full time job—people who will be supported (in more ways than one) by the taxpayers’ dollar to become trained and skilled, willing and able to fight for whatever cause the President deems necessary. But again, this stance only supports the use of our military force in unjust wars, for the trained soldier becomes a pawn in the executive’s worldwide game of chess (or more appropriately, Risk).
Any politician who claims to revere the Constitution and likewise supports and votes in favor of current military spending should not be trusted. Standing armies, regardless of their purported intentions and positive results, are a destructive institution—destructive as it relates to money, resources, liberty, life, and livelihood. Thus, the appropriate action is to terminate the entire operation, bring all of our troops home, use the money and resources to fix our domestic issues, and turn our killers-for-hire into productive American citizens.
7 Responses to “Standing Armies”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.
Connor,
Although there is a lot of waste in military spending, and unjust wars being fought, it can be argued that national defense IS one of the proper roles of the federal government. Investing money in national defense is not inherently unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is the waste, fraud, and unjust wars being fought.
It is important that we have people who are skilled and know how to fly a military jet fighter. It is important that we have people who know how to attach missiles to airplanes, arm submarines, etc. Military training is important.
Perhaps the government can spend money developing and building means to defend ourselves, and training people to know how to use them. These people who are trained, however, will not be in active combat or part of a “standing army” unless called upon to defend the country against attack. Perhaps once trained, they live civilian lives with no special distinction except certification.
This way, we can avoid having a standing army that a president can use in an unjust war, but we will also have wherewithal to defend ourselves when the time comes. Do you think this would work? Would you approve of this set up? Because I certainly don’t know how to fly a fighter jet.
I appreciate your willingness to speak out against unconstitutional spending, but be careful not to claim that military spending is by nature unconstitutional, since defense IS one of the enumerated powers of government.
Also, your quote from Eisenhower implies a disapproval of military spending because it diverts money away from other causes, such as feeding the poor etc. I don’t know if this is what Eisenhower was trying to say, but it sounded like “spending money in a constitutional role of government diverts money from unconstitutional roles of government.”
Also, joining the military today often involves a commitment of a huge chunk of your life. If instead, it just involved specialized training on how to assist in the event of foreign attack, more people would be willing to commit to that. I would. Just like being prepared for an earthquake, having the training needed to defend life, family, property, and country in the event of an attack is a very valuable investment.
And it’s also important to have the material means to defend ourselves, such as anti-missile defenses, surface to air rockets, airplanes, etc, and also a crew to keep them maintained and working.
There is a difference between having a constitutional national defense and NO national defense.
Although there is a lot of waste in military spending, and unjust wars being fought, it can be argued that national defense IS one of the proper roles of the federal government. Investing money in national defense is not inherently unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is the waste, fraud, and unjust wars being fought.
I agree, and do likewise believe that national defense is a proper role of government. But I would take it one step further and argue that proper national defense is a proper role of goverment, thus insinuating that any offensive war falls outside that scope.
Military training is important.
I agree, and as you noted in your second comment, one way to do that is to train willing citizens with the skills required to operate the machinery and conduct warfare, put them into the reserves, let them go back to their normal lives, and then only call them up to repel an invader.
Do you think this would work? Would you approve of this set up? Because I certainly don’t know how to fly a fighter jet.
Like you, I would love to sign up for some program like this that would train me in a certain number of skills, provided that I would only be required to use them when I voluntarily consented to support the war in which I was asked to fight.
…be careful not to claim that military spending is by nature unconstitutional, since defense IS one of the enumerated powers of government.
I did not mean to imply that all military expenditures are unconstitutional, but instead only those that support standing armies and offensive wars. Budget allocations for domestic military infrastructure (within reason) are common sense, and worthy of our monetary support via taxation.
I don’t know if this is what Eisenhower was trying to say, but it sounded like “spending money in a constitutional role of government diverts money from unconstitutional roles of government.”
Yeah, I caught a whiff of that, too. Having read his speech on another occasion, the impression I got was not that he was advocating we use the money for those things, but instead that he was using them to illustrate how much war costs, putting it in economic terms that laymen could understand. In our day when veteran hospitals are in shambles, health care is broken, and numerous other problems abound, it’d not hard to come up with ways to use all of the money currently being spent overseas.
I think that I would rather my money be spent on unconstitutional socialism than unconstitutional war. Then, once we’re to that point, we can attack the socialism beast and work on getting people to be self-sufficient. But at least the death campaigns would be non-existent. Or so one might hope…
I not sure how you weight your scales, but personally, socialism scares me a lot more. Maybe because I am not in danger of being called to fight in an unjust war, but I am in danger of being told which medicines I can take, and which doctors I can go to, and having my future children forced into a mandatory propagandistic educational cirriculum.
A lot of people are using this argument to justify voting for Obama – they say, “at least he has a benign foreign policy, even though he’s socialist.” However, evidence shows that Obama differs little as far as actual foreign policy goes.
I not sure how you weight your scales, but personally, socialism scares me a lot more.
I figure that if we’re not fighting wars and killing people, that means we’ve got more people around to help us fix government. If somebody’s dead, their agency (at least in its mortal sense) is gone, so they’re of no use in improving society.
Yes, socialism scares me because the slope is inherently and continuously slippery. But I’d rather fight against policies that are controlling and stealing from live people than policies that are ending people’s lives entirely.
I’m of the belief, “if you support the war, sign up, or atleast convince those close to you (siblings or children) to sign up.
We in Utah have a bad habit of supporting wars with our words, but sending our best and brightest on religious missions rather than military missions.
I am not a pacifist, who believes armed conflict should never be engaged in. However, if the cause is just, our leaders should be able to inspire the masses to join in that cause. What we have had with Iraq and Afganistan is alot of chicken-hawk cheering of a reduced standing army and national guardsmen who never thought they’d end up serving multiple deployments away from their families and professions.
Recommended reading, “Your Government Failed You” by Richard Clark. Very interesting.
A defensive army has to be part of the national standing army because of training?
Obliviously no one has watched “Red Dawn” lately. Nor do they remember the history lessons of the militia-men of old.
How many defensive wars have we been in compared to offensive wars lately?
As far as “sending our best and brightest on religious missions rather than military missions.” I would rather they serve the Lord then serve an oppressive government engaging in unconstitutional wars who motives are more based in greed and revenge then defending the country they claim to represent.
Shouldn’t “national guardsmen” being guarding our nation, not fighting in a foreign country. Doesn’t that leave us a bit defenseless here in our own country, not just for defensive measures but domestic issues? If there were really such a terrorist threat, you’d think they’d be over here wreaking havoc sense a majority of our army is somewhere else…
I went a bit wide there…sorry