6
6
0
(Cartoon by Clifford Berryman reflects American attitudes about the expedition.)
Our country has been at war, in police actions or otherwise involved in conflict, for most of its 239 years. We have fought on almost every continent and sea. We have fought to advance freedom, support our allies, gain access to resources and as many will suggest, to protect the influence and economy of oligarchs (bananas, oil, etc.). However, it appears that since the Korean War (a police action led by the UN), we have not fought to win but to contain or fight to a draw. This is in direct conflict with the purpose I was taught during basic training and Officer’s Basic, which was “to fight and win America’s wars.”
After World War II, our national strategy has essentially been to contain communism through proxy wars. We were actively engaged during Vietnam, winning tactically but losing strategically. But we avoided military involvement in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, choosing instead to fund rebel forces. It was not until Grenada and Desert Storm, that our military again achieved a “win” on the battlefield.
Unfortunately, and as a result of the collapse of Communism, we downsized our force and shifted resources to efforts supporting a more inclusive force. From early 1990s to now, I believe we have focused too much time on social engineering issues of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and the elimination of religion in our ranks. Instead of training on warfighting skills, we have evolved into a foreign internal defense force, peacekeeping force, humanitarian force, global police force and “train and assist” force. Worse, our Rules of Engagement limit our ability to kill and defeat the enemy, while our immigration policy appears to welcome our enemies into our interior instead of recognizing and defending our borders.
I must ask, should our government: A. continue to build an overwhelming fighting force and use it to defeat our enemies; or B. continue wasting our resources maintaining a bloated military-industrial complex for the sole purpose of managing unemployment? Given our immigration policy, it appears that option B is the choice our government has made. But option B merely provides a temporary economic benefit of employment (in the military, in defense corporations, and in federal and state government) at a long term financial and political cost. The likelihood that our force has the ability to “fight and win America’s wars” after our military-industrial complex investments has historically been reduced.
While our politicians fight over retaining power, our infrastructure is failing, our military is neutered and our citizens are divided and in fear - all while we cut the active Army by another 16,000 troops this fiscal year to 475,000 (down from 547,400 in 2012). I see no end to our fight on global terrorism, which is possibly the goal of many world leaders. Like the “War on Drugs”, “War on Poverty”, “War on Illiteracy”, and “War on Women”, these undeclared wars are endless, absorbing our resources while providing a rallying cry for people to feel involved.
Yet I am reminded that 100 years ago, we fought a small conflict with Mexico after a mere loss of 60 people during 38 raids on US soil. Finally, recognizing the need for secure borders, President Woodrow Wilson (our first socially progressive democratic president) authorized the First Punitive Expedition against Mexico in 1916. Although WWI resulted in the reallocation of US forces to Europe, I have to wonder if, after the invasion our country has witnessed from across our border with Mexico, and after the economic, social, cultural and political impact from this invasion, why doesn’t our current (or future) president have the backbone to consider a new Punitive Expedition against Mexico?
While we listen to the President of Mexico lecture us on an “open border” policy and our government passively supports the Mexican government’s efforts to export everything to the US, including citizens of South and Central America, we must recognize that our greatest threat is not from forces in the Middle East (and now in much of Europe) but from our southern border. Whether it comes in the shape of a Trojan horse, or a real invasion, there is a perception that our enemy is preparing inside our borders.
In basic training, I was taught to kill the near target before taking aim at the distant targets. Maybe it is time we do the same with our military forces; staging them along our southern border and demanding that Mexico remove their citizens or our military rolls south, claiming Mexico as we extend our southern border to Guatemala. Otherwise, why maintain a military force, equipped and trained to fight and win America’s wars? Why have borders, if they serve as no means of distinguishing between countries?
Our country has been at war, in police actions or otherwise involved in conflict, for most of its 239 years. We have fought on almost every continent and sea. We have fought to advance freedom, support our allies, gain access to resources and as many will suggest, to protect the influence and economy of oligarchs (bananas, oil, etc.). However, it appears that since the Korean War (a police action led by the UN), we have not fought to win but to contain or fight to a draw. This is in direct conflict with the purpose I was taught during basic training and Officer’s Basic, which was “to fight and win America’s wars.”
After World War II, our national strategy has essentially been to contain communism through proxy wars. We were actively engaged during Vietnam, winning tactically but losing strategically. But we avoided military involvement in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, choosing instead to fund rebel forces. It was not until Grenada and Desert Storm, that our military again achieved a “win” on the battlefield.
Unfortunately, and as a result of the collapse of Communism, we downsized our force and shifted resources to efforts supporting a more inclusive force. From early 1990s to now, I believe we have focused too much time on social engineering issues of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and the elimination of religion in our ranks. Instead of training on warfighting skills, we have evolved into a foreign internal defense force, peacekeeping force, humanitarian force, global police force and “train and assist” force. Worse, our Rules of Engagement limit our ability to kill and defeat the enemy, while our immigration policy appears to welcome our enemies into our interior instead of recognizing and defending our borders.
I must ask, should our government: A. continue to build an overwhelming fighting force and use it to defeat our enemies; or B. continue wasting our resources maintaining a bloated military-industrial complex for the sole purpose of managing unemployment? Given our immigration policy, it appears that option B is the choice our government has made. But option B merely provides a temporary economic benefit of employment (in the military, in defense corporations, and in federal and state government) at a long term financial and political cost. The likelihood that our force has the ability to “fight and win America’s wars” after our military-industrial complex investments has historically been reduced.
While our politicians fight over retaining power, our infrastructure is failing, our military is neutered and our citizens are divided and in fear - all while we cut the active Army by another 16,000 troops this fiscal year to 475,000 (down from 547,400 in 2012). I see no end to our fight on global terrorism, which is possibly the goal of many world leaders. Like the “War on Drugs”, “War on Poverty”, “War on Illiteracy”, and “War on Women”, these undeclared wars are endless, absorbing our resources while providing a rallying cry for people to feel involved.
Yet I am reminded that 100 years ago, we fought a small conflict with Mexico after a mere loss of 60 people during 38 raids on US soil. Finally, recognizing the need for secure borders, President Woodrow Wilson (our first socially progressive democratic president) authorized the First Punitive Expedition against Mexico in 1916. Although WWI resulted in the reallocation of US forces to Europe, I have to wonder if, after the invasion our country has witnessed from across our border with Mexico, and after the economic, social, cultural and political impact from this invasion, why doesn’t our current (or future) president have the backbone to consider a new Punitive Expedition against Mexico?
While we listen to the President of Mexico lecture us on an “open border” policy and our government passively supports the Mexican government’s efforts to export everything to the US, including citizens of South and Central America, we must recognize that our greatest threat is not from forces in the Middle East (and now in much of Europe) but from our southern border. Whether it comes in the shape of a Trojan horse, or a real invasion, there is a perception that our enemy is preparing inside our borders.
In basic training, I was taught to kill the near target before taking aim at the distant targets. Maybe it is time we do the same with our military forces; staging them along our southern border and demanding that Mexico remove their citizens or our military rolls south, claiming Mexico as we extend our southern border to Guatemala. Otherwise, why maintain a military force, equipped and trained to fight and win America’s wars? Why have borders, if they serve as no means of distinguishing between countries?
Strategy
Foreign Affairs
Warfare
Conflict
Command Post
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Putting the active duty force on the border raises the issue of Posse Comitatus. I would be happy if we just passed laws that would result in self-deportation and no further illegal immigration.
Make it illegal to buy or rent a home, get a loan, buy and register a car, enroll in school, get a library card or get a job. If you give an illegal a job, provide a loan etc you lose your business. Nothing but emergency medical care. Withhold all federal funding from any state that has even one sanctuary city. Make state issued ID with proof of citizenship a requirement to vote. Problem solved, problem staying solved. Remove the incentive for coming and staying here and they will go. We wouldn't have to spend a $ on a fence or wall if there was no incentive for coming here.
Make it illegal to buy or rent a home, get a loan, buy and register a car, enroll in school, get a library card or get a job. If you give an illegal a job, provide a loan etc you lose your business. Nothing but emergency medical care. Withhold all federal funding from any state that has even one sanctuary city. Make state issued ID with proof of citizenship a requirement to vote. Problem solved, problem staying solved. Remove the incentive for coming and staying here and they will go. We wouldn't have to spend a $ on a fence or wall if there was no incentive for coming here.
(4)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
As much as I like the legal approach, our current SCOTUS would side with illegals. Also, Posse Comitatus is irrelevant if we declare illegal immigrants are an invading force. Our government should vote on Articles of War against Mexico and give Mexico 30 days to withdraw their citizens. If Mexico renegs, we march south.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
But do we really want to inherit the third world country that is Mexico? If we declare illegal immigrants an invading force the democrats lose one of their most rapidly growing victim groups/voting blocks...never gonna happen. My ideas are never going to happen either, but a man can dream.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL (Join to see) - Colonel; I couldn't agree more. Conquering Mexico would completely eliminate the "illegal alien problem" - besides the US needs the Lebensraum.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
There is evidence of a serious presence on American soil. However, it's the elephant in the room. No one want's to talk about this blatant issue. It's gone unattended for so long that it's become a dark un-navigable forest. How can you find your way out of a dark forest with no map, no compass, and no general sense of bearing?
American military might comes from fighting conventional ground forces. As you mentioned before our last tactical "win" came in Desert Storm, when we fought a nation's uniformed military. Unconventional warfare requires unconventional approaches. The right tool for the job has to be used. A hammer is a great tool in it of itself. However your never going to turn a small nut with a hammer no matter how hard, fast, or differently you swing. The proper tool for the job is a wrench. I believe that was the approach of training local militias in Afghanistan. It was a battle strategy that had bore some serious fruit in past wars. i.e. training mujahedeen fighters to fight the Russians and arming them with the means to do so.
The United States military should not be a blanket answer for global instability. Before we deploy troops anywhere there should be a clear end goal and exit strategy. Gen. Schwartskopf had all key elements mapped out, and his plan was total victory with minor losses. A simple fact of war is that it takes three times more boots to occupy as it does to invade. If there was a clear plan then there should be a clear outcome, regardless of win or loss.
As far as the forced "focused too much time on social engineering issues of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and the elimination of religion in our ranks." It's in this soldier's opinion that everyone is sick of this situation. The military is not here for hotbed topics and social equality. Our existence is simply to engage and destroy the enemies of The United States. Nothing more, nothing less. However, our cries fall on deaf ears. The people who have a finger in our business want studies and results. That's what they get. What troops do behind closed doors is nobody's business, making it an issue detracts from the ability to do the tasks at hand.
I hope my response was professional and curdious, Sir.
American military might comes from fighting conventional ground forces. As you mentioned before our last tactical "win" came in Desert Storm, when we fought a nation's uniformed military. Unconventional warfare requires unconventional approaches. The right tool for the job has to be used. A hammer is a great tool in it of itself. However your never going to turn a small nut with a hammer no matter how hard, fast, or differently you swing. The proper tool for the job is a wrench. I believe that was the approach of training local militias in Afghanistan. It was a battle strategy that had bore some serious fruit in past wars. i.e. training mujahedeen fighters to fight the Russians and arming them with the means to do so.
The United States military should not be a blanket answer for global instability. Before we deploy troops anywhere there should be a clear end goal and exit strategy. Gen. Schwartskopf had all key elements mapped out, and his plan was total victory with minor losses. A simple fact of war is that it takes three times more boots to occupy as it does to invade. If there was a clear plan then there should be a clear outcome, regardless of win or loss.
As far as the forced "focused too much time on social engineering issues of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and the elimination of religion in our ranks." It's in this soldier's opinion that everyone is sick of this situation. The military is not here for hotbed topics and social equality. Our existence is simply to engage and destroy the enemies of The United States. Nothing more, nothing less. However, our cries fall on deaf ears. The people who have a finger in our business want studies and results. That's what they get. What troops do behind closed doors is nobody's business, making it an issue detracts from the ability to do the tasks at hand.
I hope my response was professional and curdious, Sir.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Our current wars are economic, social and political because our government is filled with globalists. They support the causes of others over our country.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google