For those of you who can withstand a provocative, reasoned challenge to your beliefs (whatever persuasion they may be) about War, Peace, and the Military Arm of Foreign Policy, I invite your attention to the work of Paul Seabury, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley and Angelo Codevilla, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, California: entitled "War - Ends & Means", 1989, ISBN 0-465-09067-2 (cloth); ISBN 0-465-09068-0 (paper) - (hardly hotbeds of right wing, warmongering). On the its first page of the "Foreword", you'll find this: "War is essentially a clash of purposes; only incidentally does it become a clash of arms." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Magnuson" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:05 AM Subject: Re: June 6, 1944 > Excellent discussion. Thank you all. I would, though, suggest that > continuity rather than change distinguished US military manpower policy > until the creation of the AVF. Selective Service, at the local level, was > virtually identical to militia practices throughout American history. A > board, usually comprised of community "leaders" of some sort selected for > conscription the least essential members of the pool of local talent and > exempted those deemed essential. It takes little imagination to conjure > up what happened to this system when civil rights struggles made it clear > that being wealthy and white were not tantamount to being essential. > > Selective Service was implemented after WWI as a means of rationalizing > manpower distribution in a wartime regimen that integrated industrial > capacity with war fighting. General Eisenhower was a member of the first > faculty of the Army Industrial College which was created to provide just > that sort of rational integration of the nation-state at war. That is > what put him in a great position from which to make his warning about the > evolving Military Industrial Complex that has now evolved our war fighting > to the point where we are renting tens of thousands of multi-national > combatants by the day. > According to Machiavelli, 'mercenaries are expensive in peacetime and > unreliable in war.....' Perhaps the liberal impulse to relinquish > responsibility for citizen service to the professionals after Vietnam was > not such a good idea. Vietnam ended not because some kids jumped up and > down and got naked in the streets. It ended when the lottery replaced > draft boards and body bags began arriving on the front stoops of suburban > households wherein lived the check-writers who fund our political > processes. > > The AVF has some good things to be said about it, but it also has come > with a frightening price. Please, review the studies at TISS regarding > divergences in values between the civilian sector and the military in > America and then think about Bolivia. There may be no grounds for concern > but the trend lines say otherwise. > (http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/tiss/research/cmr/civmilpublications.php) > > trm > > Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote: > >> Paul has received some rather unfair criticism about his understanding of >> the US military in US history. Paul knows this history in detail but let >> me "speak" for him for a minute. >> >> The US militia and "professional" military during the Revolution was a >> rather thrown together force. They prevailed, but for reasons that seem >> almost miraculous. It helped that Americans often fought asymmetrically >> from Concord on out. It also helped that the field of battle was so >> large that the British military, itself without a draft, didn't have >> enough troops to completely occupy the 13 Colonies/united States. >> >> What posters are overlooking is what happened to the military AFTER the >> Revolution. In the early republic, the military was an ambiguous and >> somewhat dangerous institution. Think only of the treason trial of Aaron >> Burr, where army general Wilkinson (Wilkerson?), who was also military >> governor of New Orleans, gave crucial testimony against former Vice >> President Burr. How did Wilkinson have so much information? He was in >> secret coded communications with Burr. The grand jury for the circuit >> court in Virginia came within a few votes of indicting Wilkinson for >> treason, too, but the prosecutor pointed out that if Wilkinson were >> indicted, he couldn't testify against Burr. It was later alleged that >> Wilkinson was in the paid service of the Kingdom of Spain while serving >> as a general officer in the US military. Sound like Bolivia? It should. >> >> The great antebellum reform that transformed the US military was the >> establishment of West Point and Annapolis. The creation of the federal >> military academies, open to all white male applicants with a full federal >> scholarships changed, I think, everything. These academies were >> dedicated not only to training US military officers, chiefly as >> engineers, but also in training military officers to be true republicans, >> subordinated to civilian command. Remember, even at the great divide in >> 1860-1861, academy graduates decided whether to serve under civilian >> command for the Union or for the CSA. >> >> This officer corps, by and large, shaped the institution that enlisted >> men--volunteers in times of peace, draftees in time of war--entered. >> Since the "Newburg Conspiracy" in the Revolutionary era, how many threats >> of military action against civilian leadership (outside of literature and >> film) have we experienced? >> >> Bracket Latin America and Africa: think of Thailand, a functioning >> constitutional monarchy, which has recently experienced a military coup. >> In France, 1960 when de Gaulle announced the withdrawal from Algeria >> there was an attempted military coup. In Greece in 1968, the militarized >> police overthrew the government and ruled by force. In Spain (1980s?) >> military officers seized parliament and attempted a coup. Think also of >> the militarized KGB in the USSR, arresting Mikail Gorbachev in the Crimea >> in 1990, breaking the tradition of civilian Communist Party dominance >> since 1917. >> >> One of the great challenging dilemmas for any republic is to have a >> military strong enough to repel aggressors but be able to maintain >> civilian rule. Somehow, the US has achieved that. When the mlitary >> becomes fully politicized, as may always happen, the republic is lost. >> This has in no ways happened yet. >> >> You do not have to have served in the military to realize this. Though I >> must confess, I am one of those liberal, even leftist historians from the >> 1960s, who had so many mentors from the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and >> the Army, I cannot count them. >> >> Harold S. Forsythe >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Finkelman" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:03 PM >> Subject: Re: June 6, 1944 >> >> >>> Both postings remind us that for most of our history wars were fought by >>> men who lived together before and after the war. Regiments were from >>> counties and cities and even divisions were from states. Such shared >>> combat made wars more real to the people at home as well as to the >>> politicians who sent men off to battle. Thus, wars had to have a >>> purpose and political support at home. Since WWII this has not been the >>> case; soldiers are in a professional army, disconnected from the home >>> front and from regular Americans; the military is a place for the poor >>> and unfortunate who see it as "a way out" of where they are, but the >>> soldiers are not part of units that come from where they do. THe mixing >>> in the military was probably a plus in and after WWII -- people from all >>> parts of the country met and learned about each other -- even if they >>> were in "home town units" like the 116th. In our modern professional >>> army people also meet others from all over, but there is no going home >>> after the war because the army is their home. In the long run this is >>> probably not good for our Republic; it underscores the Founders fear of >>> a standing army. We cannot always "learn from history" but I think the >>> larger memory of the 116th (and thousands of other units like it) is a >>> lesson we should learn. >>> >>> Paul Finkelman >>> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law >>> and Public Policy >>> Albany Law School >>> 80 New Scotland Avenue >>> Albany, New York 12208-3494 >>> >>> 518-445-3386 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> >>>>>> Randy Cabell <[log in to unmask]> 06/06/07 1:46 PM >>> >>>>> >>> Yes, we would do well to remember our heritage of the 116th Infantry. >>> It >>> has its roots in the 2nd VA Infantry, CSA which became known as "The >>> Stonewall Brigade." The 116th (in its earlier unit designation I think) >>> >>> went to Mexico with Pershing just before the US entered WWI, and went to >>> >>> France in 1918. There is a classic photo somewhere of Will Ruebush >>> leading >>> the Band of the 116th Infantry down Broad Street in Richmond when they >>> returned. Back about 1988, I walked the beaches of Normandy, saw the >>> monument to the 29th Division, marveled that anybody could scale the >>> rocks >>> at Point-du-hoc, and got a lump in my throat when walking among the >>> crosses >>> at Coville-sur-mer which Richard Dixon calls out. >>> >>> Units of the 116th, including companies from Winchester have served in >>> Afghanistan, the local unit losing two men to a roadside IED. I learned >>> in >>> the paper that the local unit has been mobilized once again, this time >>> for >>> service in Iraq, leaving at the end of this month. Whether you agree >>> with >>> out current policy in Iraq or not, you gotta applaud those men who are >>> willing to up-root themselves, turn their lives upside down, and serve >>> their >>> country when called upon. >>> >>> I am guessing that for the past several years, more than 50% of the >>> Virginia >>> National Guard has been in Federal service at any given time, but I have >>> no >>> stats to back it up. It would be interesting to see what it is, and see >>> how >>> many units have been called up more than one time. >>> >>> Randy Cabell >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heritage Society" >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:32 PM >>> Subject: [VA-HIST] June 6, 1944 >>> >>> >>>> The crosses stand in perfect formation beneath the Normandie sky. It >>> >>> is >>> >>>> the graveyard at Colleville-sur-mer overlooking Omaha Beach where 9000 >>> >>> >>>> young Americans came to France on June 6, 1944 and now stay, forever >>>> brave. On that morning, the first to reach the beach were men of >>> >>> Company A >>> >>>> of the 116th Regiment, 29th Infantry Division from Bedford County, >>>> Virginia. Of its 36 men who went to war, 23 died in France, 19 on >>> >>> D-Day, >>> >>>> the highest percentage lost of any community in the United States. >>> >>> Today, >>> >>>> in Bedford, there is a memorial to the D-Day landings. To reach it you >>> >>> >>>> will probably travel on a highway that bisects Virginia, known >>> >>> generally >>> >>>> as Route 29, but it's full name is the 29th Infantry Division Memorial >>> >>> >>>> Highway, a daily reminder of the men who were heroes at Omaha. >>>> Richard E. Dixon >>>> >> > > -- > > T.R. Magnuson > > Trading Path Association > > PO Box 643 > > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > > 919-644-0600 > > www.tradingpath.org > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: > 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007 2:03 PM > >