Does this represent the Armed Services consensus opinion on Syria?

Many people get it now. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West was without an enemy, and the very profitable arms and Military Industrial Complex was in jeopardy. We needed a new enemy. China, historically, has been one of the few powers, for in fact thousands of years, that has never, or rarely been imperialistic. So Al Qaeda was nurtured.

However, people are getting it now, and cannot see how a few worked up islamists pose a greater threat to our way of life than the Soviet Union did with its thousands of nuclear weapons and millions plus armies.

However, foreign distractions to national problems have worked well for rulers for eons, so they are used again and again. However, thanks to the web and some heros such as Manning, Snowden and countless others, many are beginning to question the need for over 700 overseas bases and black budgets alone of over $50 billion dollars...........how is this helping us? Does it just enrich the global elites and keep us divided and distracted?



Link

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


One can only hope it is a consensus...

This mindset of needing to seek out and find enemies is so stupid it is sickening...

What about seeking common benefit?

I think so.

ATS Thread - US Military Has Doubts About Syria - will they reject strike orders?
The Joint Chiefs want no part of it ...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


You have an interesting perspective on things.

But military folks, while we certainly don't like the idea of aiding AQ in Syria, do not find the same ground as you do as far as everything else...Necessarily.

For instance, no one I know thinks Manning is a hero. Most of us think that turd got what he deserved.

I guess what I'm getting at, and I don't speak for EVERYONE, is that most people I talk to in my unit and others understand that we're wasting our time and even weakening our legitimate strategic interests by doing the things we're doing. Syria would be the mother of all F ups as it would mean aiding AQ.

Most of us know who the rebels really are. And while I don't like Bashar Al Assad, I certainly don't like AQ at all.

You're inferring too much into what that sailor is trying to say. We will fight any war that comes our way. But at the end of the day when policy begins to create a situation where we are helping our real enemy in favor of picking a politically expedient side, our ears perk up...And sometimes we just have to say something about it.

Frankly, I think Obama is only the last in a line of leaders going back to Kennedy and Johnson who have taken for granted that the Military will blindly kill on command, without question or conflict of morality.

If this isn't the one to break that with and show the soldiers have intellectual ability as well, then what will be? If our troops will, as the OP so directly notes, fight WITH AL QAEDA because politicians have ordered them to? Perhaps they really will turn guns on American citizens someday, if ordered. If we've really BECOME what we started by fighting to this degree?

Anything is possible.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


We're not mindless. We just have a method of conduct most people don't understand.

I certainly would not fire on the American people. I'd turn in my rank and walk out if given the order. And so would many, many more.

reply to post by projectvxn


Just a quick note, I wanted to add. I don't, as the above note may sound, advocate individual soldiers going 'over the hill' by an AWOL or that someone mutinies in the worst sense of things. By no means, whatsoever.

However, without saying enough to get myself in some form of trouble these days? I'll say this much. Everything I know of the military has taught me that it runs first and last by it's N.C.O.'s. They can make a lean, mean fighting machine or they can turn it into the mother of all jalopies that someone just wants to give up on before going further.

You know.. Mistakes happen. It's an imperfect world. Spare parts for aircraft get sent to McMurdo Station by slow boat. Oddly, and due strictly to sequestration, I'm sure, EVERY paperwork process across the board takes 4x's as long as it should..... Oh, that would bring things to to a grinding halt, wouldn't it?

There are many ways the men who form our forces could work to remove the option of fighting before the shooting starts. (After it starts and Americans are lost....much of that changes, I'd say)....but when it's flat WRONG? The Military can at least make a very loud vote too.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Oh don't worry we can be loud.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Yes, I think those sentiments are growing.



Obama realized it, too. That’s why he changed direction and put the issue before congress rather than his John Wayne approach.

I’m glad he did because I don’t think congress will be coming out with any war declarations against Syria. Let’s face it, Syria isn’t a direct threat to US right now.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

We're not mindless. We just have a method of conduct most people don't understand.

I certainly would not fire on the American people. I'd turn in my rank and walk out if given the order. And so would many, many more.

Playing devils advocate here:

The military wouldn't fire on the American people, but they would go over to Iraq (no wmd, no plans to invade the US, in fact the reason the American military was there was a lie) and shoot people involved in their war?

Would you have been happy if Russia decided to go to Guantanamo and release the hostages there, while doing so shot and killed American military?

reply to post by superman2012

The military wouldn't fire on the American people, but they would go over to Iraq (no wmd, no plans to invade the US, in fact the reason the American military was there was a lie) and shoot people involved in their war?

All of that is hindsight.

Congress declared war…we fought the war and won. That’s what war fighters do. Don’t think for a minute that the vast majority of us weren’t fully on board with the decision to invade.

reply to post by superman2012

The military wouldn't fire on the American people, but they would go over to Iraq (no wmd, no plans to invade the US, in fact the reason the American military was there was a lie) and shoot people involved in their war?

What does this have to do with what I said? We don't exist in a vacuum. In history context is everything. And there is no context here.

Would you have been happy if Russia decided to go to Guantanamo and release the hostages there, while doing so shot and killed American military?

What? What does that have to do with what you said above, and what I said before that?

reply to post by projectvxn


Instead of breaking it up and responding, respond to it as a whole. (hypothetical devils advocate)

Seabag understood.

I was referring particularly to your "we're not mindless".

I say the military is, up to a point. The point is when you have to shoot your neighbors. Everything else will be "following orders" until then.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by superman2012

 

The military wouldn't fire on the American people, but they would go over to Iraq (no wmd, no plans to invade the US, in fact the reason the American military was there was a lie) and shoot people involved in their war?

All of that is hindsight.

Congress declared war…we fought the war and won. That’s what war fighters do. Don’t think for a minute that the vast majority of us weren’t fully on board with the decision to invade.

Yes it is hindsight.

BUT

It also gives us keen insight into what NOT to allow again! Some people on this site want us to go to Syria...there are threads on it! Either they are not old enough, or they are not smart enough.

PS- no one "wins" in war.

reply to post by superman2012


Our job is to fight and win the nations wars. Not to decide, by force of arms or decree, the policy of the civilian government. That's YOUR JOB.

That said there is a line in the sand.

reply to post by superman2012

I say the military is, up to a point. The point is when you have to shoot your neighbors. Everything else will be "following orders" until then.

IMO the difference is congressional declaration.

If congress votes yay, we go to war. Congress (the people…in theory) are the only ones who can declare war. Obama understands this, though until now he’s been getting away with being a dictator.

He certainly understood it when Bush was POTUS!

reply to post by superman2012

Yes it is hindsight.

BUT

It also gives us keen insight into what NOT to allow again! Some people on this site want us to go to Syria...there are threads on it! Either they are not old enough, or they are not smart enough.

It does give us insight! That’s why we are seeing people object today. But you can’t apply hindsight to criticize previous actions. We believed in our action in Iraq. I became completely disillusioned after the fact and that was part of the reason I chose to end my military career early. That doesn’t mean that I believe the mission I took part in was wrong (I don’t). I’m not thrilled with the way things have been conducted since I got out in 2004 but that’s just the armchair general in me. In 2003 we had a clear objective and we didn’t hold back….we did what we were there to do and we did it well.

PS- no one "wins" in war.

Tell that to our founding fathers.

We all won!

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by superman2012

 

Our job is to fight and win the nations wars. Not to decide, by force of arms or decree, the policy of the civilian government. That's YOUR JOB.

That said there is a line in the sand.

Well said. My colonel grandfather always emphasized his own tenuous view of Congress and Presidents in terms of decisions of war and he was a NAF chief of staff. By law, the military took their oath to obey the orders of their superiors, including the President. In that sense, if we have a government whose decision making or wishes contradict what the military feels, our military are still legally bound to obey. We basically put the lives of our military into the hands of those we elect into office and most people don't even take the time to vote really anymore. You're absolutely spot on by reminding us all that it's our job to elect in our policy and legislation makers.

It's not enough that the military puts their lives on the line for us in war but to have hope that they will basically engage in mutiny, which carries the weight of death? We vote not just to run our country and create legislation but also rest our troops' lives in their hands. If we have a problem with going into Syria, then it is our duty to do what is legally available to us so that these soldiers do not have to risk mutiny charges.

With 28 years in the Military I disagree with going into Syria for any reason. If they want to do anything then bomb a few key military locations and/or setup a No Fly Zone to weaken his hold as a joint UN/NATO effort, but once again as so many have said it is hard to believe he actually used them knowing that he can kill 100,000 with conventional weapons and no one would say a thing but 100 with chemicals and the world will come down on him.

Does make much sense does it?

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I will never understand why some people on ATS have this notion that the military should not only do the nation's heavy lifting abroad, but also help depose those at home that they don't like. And all sociopolitical sides engage in this kind of thinking.

They have no idea what they are really asking for. The chaos that would ensue and the destabilizing effects such an action would have is beyond comprehension.

We are not a tool for internal politics. We can't be. The founders warned of the dangers of using the military in such a fashion.

The politics must be settled at the civilian level. If you want to stop the war and have the military called home then PLEASE work toward that. You won't hear the military complain about it. But do not ask us to risk our lives abroad, and then ask us to commit acts of sabotage, espionage, treason, and mutiny. You don't want the military to do that.