The editorial board of the Washington Post denounced Trump for abruptly withdrawing one-third of American troops from Germany, in retaliation for Chancellor Merkel’s rejection of his invitation to have a snap summit.
IN A transparent attempt to boost his sagging political fortunes, President Trump proposed to stage a summit meeting of the Group of Seven nations in Washington this month, with Vladimir Putin among the special guests. In a May 30 phone call that reportedly turned testy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel demurred, citing the continuing threat of the covid-19 pandemic as well as the lack of preparation for such a meeting.
One week later, Trump’s riposte to Ms. Merkel surfaced: a vindictive and, for U.S. national security, deeply damaging decision to withdraw nearly a third of the American troops stationed in Germany. The move was made without consultation with the Germans, other NATO allies or even senior U.S. military officers in Europe, who were taken by surprise when the story emerged on Friday.
The pullout, which Mr. Trump arrived at in the absence of any National Security Council deliberation, could substantially weaken U.S. ability to deter Russian aggression in Europe or respond to other foreign crises. However, shortly after speaking with Ms. Merkel, Mr. Trump initiated a phone call with Mr. Putin, who will be thrilled by the president’s unilateral disarmament and exacerbation of a rift with a key ally.
Mr. Trump appears to believe he is punishing Ms. Merkel by removing forces that nominally defend Germany. The sycophant whom the president installed as ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, has been arguing publicly that Germany doesn’t merit U.S. bases when it fails to meet NATO defense spending guidelines. What he and the president fail to understand is that the 34,500 U.S. personnel in Germany — down from 235,000 during the Cold War — primarily bolster U.S. defense. The Ramstein Air Base is vital to operations in the Middle East and Africa, and the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center provides critical care to wounded American soldiers medevaced from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Trump has been impervious to serial attempts over the past three years by his national security advisers and senior military commanders to explain such basics to him. Instead, conceiving U.S. troops as mercenary forces who should be deployed only when host countries offer compensation he regards as adequate, he also has been threatening to pull troops out of South Korea — which would delight another dictator, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
Further, Mr. Trump is reportedly contemplating accelerating a withdrawal of the remaining U.S. forces in Afghanistan, so that it can be carried out in advance of the November election, rather than sometime next year. Never mind that this would likely short-circuit nascent talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and leave the latter in position to restore a theocratic dictatorship.
If the past is any guide, there will now be a scramble within the Pentagon or by Trump-friendly congressional Republicans to reverse or water down the president’s decision — which as of late Monday had still not been formally announced. In the meantime, it should be clearer than ever why former senior military leaders such as Jim Mattis and Colin Powell have taken the lead in publicly repudiating the president. He is, as they have said, a liar who divides the country. He is also, increasingly, a threat to national security.
trump ulss military out of Germany so he can use them against the citizens of the USA.
pulls not ulss. 🙂
I don’t know , Gary, “ulss” sounds like something even more reprehensible that Trump might do.
The child in the Oval Office raises his ugly head again. He is the bully that if he cannot have his way he will take his football and go home. The 74 year old baby that never grew up.
Angela Merkel is such a far better, smarter person than Trump there is little he can do to rattle her. Instead, he will use his infantile, hissy fit to upend military families stationed in Germany. He is a vindictive, self-centered individual that only thinks of himself.
The Landstuhl Regional Medical Center provides critical care to wounded American soldiers medevaced from Iraq and Afghanistan. If he closes this he will be allowing our seriously wounded soldiers die, along with some of the wounded translators and informants we have relied on. He is quite willing to do real harm to others on a whim–or as retired teacher says an infantile hissy fit.
I added to this below.
U.S.-Russia history is complicated and Russia is not always the “aggressor”. From the Carnegie Endowment: https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/06/20/thirty-years-of-u.s.-policy-toward-russia-can-vicious-circle-be-broken-pub-79323
Dienne, your reading of history is that the US is always wrong and evil. I can imagine you would have been opposed to US participation in World War II.
Maybe WP should ask what the U.S. troops do in Africa at the first place. Did Chad or Niger attack the U.S. soil? And how long the U.S. is going to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention that the WMD scare turned out to be false?
Anything for his handler Vlad!
Yes, tRump works for Putin.
There must be a sign in the WH with the title of this blog – a fill in the blank for his shot of the day:
The president unilaterally ______ to spite _____.
It’s probably right next to his elementary school like calendar where you pick a card of the weather and stick it on the day – – –
Only his is the tired list “president’s greatest hits” when he’s getting bad press:
Today, Talk and Tweet – and blame…
President Obama
Obama’s birth certificate
The wall
Colin Kapernick
Hillary
Obamacare
The liberal media
The Dems
The Central Park 5
The New York Times
Outside agitators
Lying whistleblowers
Fake news
…
Anything to begin our military withdrawal from around the world is a good thing. Don’t give a damn if it’s not a principled decision but one of spite by the sociopath in the White House
That’s about as short-sighted a view as one can have. Ask any wounded soldier who’s come through Landstuhl. Any.
Horse manure. It’s very long-sighted. Yours is the short-sighted view.
Sad to hear you support the death and destruction that the USofA has inflicted upon millions of innocents around the world.
Aren’t the German hospitals good enough to take care of our wounded soldiers. The US military could contract with the German hospitals to take care of US wounded.
GregB,
Once again, speak about the issues. Try, “I don’t agree with you because . . . ” rather than attacking Duane and calling him short sighted. This is not about Duane; it’s about the use of our military.
Have we not talked about this with the host before?
Robert, not an attack and I don’t need the lecture. I explain below. Yes, it is short-sighted. I may not agree with the wars we conduct around the world, but if we’re going to engage in them, I want our soldiers to have the best medical care possible. Short-sighted is as magnanimous a term I could come up with. My initial thought was much stronger than “Horse manure.” I may hate the policies, but I don’t hate those who fall victim to them. Be a man, Duane, at least say what you want to say. For example, I think your views about this are pure, unadulterated bullshit.
And any, I mean ANY public policy made out of spite, is wrong. Whether one agrees with it or not. Don’t remember seeing that in the Constitution.
Robert Rendo,
I ask you to please check your biases. GregB’s response was not “attacking Duane”, unless you are now saying that Duane’s response of calling GregB “short sighted” is worthy of your condemnation. Are you upset at Duane for using the words “short sighted”?
Whether I agree with him or not, I thought Duane made a worthwhile point and so did GregB. If anything, what you might think about condemning is Duane mischaracterizing GregB as supporting “the death and destruction that the USofA has inflicted upon millions of innocents around the world.”
Saying that someone supports the death and destruction of millions of innocents is an unwarranted personal attack that is far more worthy of your criticism than someone calling someone else “short sighted”. It shouldn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the sentiments.
How’s this Robert? “I don’t agree with you because I think your views are short-sighted.” Better?
Joe, the short answer is no. German hospitals don’t deal with gunshots and the wounds of war on the scale that some US hospitals do. If you have “regular” diseases, they’re as good or better than any in the world. When I grew up in New Orleans, it was well known that if you were shot, you really wanted to go to Charity Hospital because they dealt with it so much. In fact, it was probably the best facility in the country to deal with gunshots. If you have heart disease and can afford it, you want to go to the Cleveland Clinic. If you have a rare cancer, you want to go to a specialty center of excellence. And if you get a war wound, you want to get sent to Landstuhl.
GregB,
Per your “How’s this Robert? “I don’t agree with you because I think your views are short-sighted.” Better?”
No. I’m afraid it’s not better.
Try, “I don’t agree with you because I want our men and women in uniform to get the very best care they need, should they need it. If not stationed in Germany, our soldiers would be subjected to/be more vulnerable/face the risk of. . . . . . (etc.)”.
With statements like “be a man” and otherwise, I would not be able to raise your grade in discourse writing or public speech if you have to resort to those attacks and if you were a student in my class.
GregB, your content is fascinating, well thought out, and engaging; your skills in imparting the content need a lot of work.
It’s not just what you know. It’s how you say it, no lecture intended.
Robert, please see my comment at the very bottom. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that “horse manure” trumps “short-sighted.” (pun intended)
I appreciate your thoughts, Robert. To my recollection, there are only three people with whom I would be so undiplomatic, at least intentionally. One I now ignore, the other is too much of tool to resist, and the third is Duane, who I love to pick on when appropriate. He and I both come from the “call a spade a spade” school of diplomacy. When I was at the Indianapolis NPE meeting, I was seeking him out for a beer (or two, or three), but he left early before I could find him. He can take it, and so can I. We actually agree on much more than we disagree. But sometimes I can’t help poking him with a rhetorical stick, as he does with me.
“But sometimes I can’t help poking him with a rhetorical stick, as he does with me.”
When I’m out and about with my friends, my life long ones, ones who are much more conservative than I, they like to “poke the bear”. I don’t start the discussions, but they just can’t resist it. So we go toe to toe, back and forth and it’s usually 4-5 of them against me. I enjoy it as they do. And I don’t back down. So the ones that don’t want to hear “political” talk say “Oh god, don’t go poking the bear”. A friend brought me a t-shirt back from Yellowstone that showed a bear and said “Don’t feed the bear”, meaning the same thing. You’re up against a pro-poked bear, and I ain’t talkin bout the not so loveable loser Cubbies.
Duane, have you ever seen the movie The Big Lebowski? You’d love the final scene.
Adding, we should damn well decamp from Guantanamo Naval base which we “lease” from Cuba; that so-called lease is a fig leaf for our virtual mini-colony on Cuban territory. The Cubans don’t want us there and have been objecting to this forced occupation of Cuban territory for 50 plus years.
Agree 100%.
De acuerdo totalmente.
I’m with Duane. The US has killed enough people and destroyed enough livelihoods in the pursuit of ‘saving the world’ by destroying it.
………………………………….
US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II
By James A. Lucas
Global Research, May 28, 2020
…But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.
This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.
The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible.
In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.
But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.
The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.
https://shar.es/aHM5Ws
This message was sent using ShareThis (https://www.sharethis.com)
Does the US really care about any country? I think there is only war when self interest is involved….mainly oil OR something to benefit corporations. Why didn’t we help Rwanda in its genocide? What about Cambodia when Pol Pot took over and murdered millions. Neither country had anything we wanted so we turned a blind eye.
RWANDA:
The scale and brutality of the massacre caused shock worldwide, but no country intervened to forcefully stop the killings. Most of the victims were killed in their own villages or towns, many by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Hutu gangs searched out victims hiding in churches and school buildings. The militia murdered victims with machetes and rifles.An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans were killed, about 70% of the country’s Tutsi population. Sexual violence was rife, with an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 women raped during the genocide. The RPF quickly resumed the civil war once the genocide started and captured all government territory, ending the genocide and forcing the government and genocidaires into Zaire.
CAMBODIA:
The Cambodian genocide was carried out by Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Pol Pot, who radically pushed Cambodia towards communism. It resulted in the deaths of 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly a quarter of Cambodia’s 1975 population. Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge had long been supported by the Communist Party of China and Mao Zedong; it is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid to Khmer Rouge came from China, with 1975 alone seeing at least US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid from China.
CORPORATE GREED:
The Banana Industry, as funny as the name might sound, brought vast environmental destruction, slave-like exploitation of workers and corrupt military governments to Latin America — the executives of the companies were called ‘banana barons’, only outshined by the even more brutal ‘rubber barons’. They overthrew governments, killed thousands of workers and destabilized whole countries politically and economically.
As many big corporations with a blood-stained history, Chiquita tried to veil their violent history behind a brand-new logo and a deceptive name that falsely implies that the company is actually Latin American. From when the company was founded in 1899, through the time of its greatest crimes, until 1984, it was called United Fruit Company.
Duane,
You should care if it is one of spite. I think what is worrisome is that what you wrote echoes of what many Trump voters believe. They don’t “give a damn” whether an action is by a sociopath as long as it is something they like.
What that kind of thinking leads to is that next time, when Trump makes a decision that “isn’t principled” but is purely for spite, and that decision is to round up all the people who oppose Trump joining with Russia to declare war against western Europe, there is no one left to defend you.
America got into the war in Iraq because lots of people didn’t care about honesty or truth and decided that the ends justified the means. But condoning that way just leads to fascism. The ends don’t justify the means.
#1 We will never witness the tRump doing something positive for the right reasons, ever. I have no need for what if scenarios. I deal with things as they come along when it comes to that sort of thing.
I’m not sure what you mean by “But condoning that way just leads to fascism.”
If you mean my condoning the tRump’s ways, well I don’t. If you mean that I am silently condoning fascism in what is a positive development in my view, you are wrong. One cannot infer that from what I have stated.
“The ends don’t justify the means.” In this case they do. I don’t give a damn about the means, we need to get the hell out of all the countries in which America rains/reigns its death and destruction. Until we do so we will continue to be the most violent and deadly nation in the world. None of what is going on in the country right now surprises me.
I disagree. America’s leaders past and present are responsible for the chaos and violence in the countries where we have troops. The U.S. helped break those countries and had done little to nothing to fix them.
What the U.S. needs is reliable, trustworthy leadership that will do what is needed to fix these countries so when out troops leave, those countries have stable governments.
Until those countries are stable, our troops must stay. We cannot pull out just because we don’t like it. This issue is more complicated than that and some of what is happening now started during the Cold War.
When we abandoned South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese committed Democide and millions were killed. A couple of million also fled and Trump wants to deport those refugees back to Vietnam.
“Perhaps of all countries, democide in Vietnam and by Vietnamese is most difficult to unravel and assess. It is mixed in with six wars spanning 43 years (the Indochina War, Vietnam War, Cambodian War, subsequent guerrilla war in Cambodia, guerrilla war in Laos, and Sino-Vietnamese War), one of them involving the United States; a near twenty-one year formal division of the country into two sovereign North and South parts; the full communization of the North; occupation of neighboring countries by both North and South; defeat, absorption, and communization of the South; and the massive flight by sea of Vietnamese. As best as I can determine, through all this close to 3,800,000 Vietnamese lost their lives from political violence, or near one out of every ten men, women, and children.1 Of these, about 1,250,000, or near a third of those killed, were murdered.”
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
Imagine how many will die if the Taliban take back Afghanistan and the Sunni sect in Iraq supported by the Sunnis in Iran end up ruling Iraq.
Will the U.S. be willing to accept millions of refugees fleeing out of fear for their lives from these countries?
The Iranians are Shiite, not Sunni. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni hence no love loss between the two countries at the time. The two sects have been at each other’s throats for centuries.
I got it backwards. Thanks for correcting.
Duane E Swacker: “..we need to get the hell out of all the countries in which America rains/reigns its death and destruction.”
I have a comment supporting you but it is in moderation. The headline of my article is, “US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II”
By James A. Lucas
Global Research, May 28, 2020
Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.
Exactly and most Americans refuse to acknowledge that death and destruction.
Duane,
“we need to get the hell out of all the countries in which America rains/reigns its death and destruction.”
But this post is about the US getting out of GERMANY. The last time America reigned its death and destruction on that country was during World War II, and it is certainly arguable whether that was good or bad (I don’t think FDR getting the US into a war it could have stayed out of if Charles Lindbergh or Father Coughlin had been empowered was a bad thing).
” I don’t give a damn about the means, we need to …… ”
Yes, that is pretty much the guiding principle of William Barr and the neo-fascist Republican party, as we have witnessed in their response to the protests and to anyone they believe stands in the way of their achieving their goal. They are certain their goal is right.
I usually agree with your goals but sometimes not with your means (ie., I thought empowering Trump was a terrible way to make the country more progressive and would set us back and endanger democracy and you did not believe that empowering Trump was any worse than empowering HRC or perhaps even Biden.) But I respect your willingness to debate this.
I’ve put out two comment supporting you and both are in moderation. Dang. WordPress doesn’t like me today.
I never know when wordpress will decide what it decides.
Another concession to Putin. The real significance of this for those in the military will be the loss of the Landstuhl hospital near Ramstein. It is one of the best trauma centers in the world and where the most seriously wounded soldiers from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa are brought. They are stabilized and begin rehabilitation therapy there. It was common to see planes landing there at the same rate as commercial airports during the Iraq War. If it is lost, it will mean longer flights to Andrews Air Force base, increasing the likelihood of suffering and death of American soldiers and overburdening medical facilities like Walter Reed, which is not equipped to do the things that are done in Landstuhl. Oh, and we just spent more than $1 billion to build a replacement, state-of-the-art facility to replace Landstuhl, adjacent to Ramstein. The Idiot’s short-sighted mendacity is a bottomless pit that zooms right past Hell.
https://www.deutschland.de/en/germany-year-usa-20182019-new-us-military-hospital-in-weilerbach
Seems to me the solution to that is ending the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the wonderful medical staff of Landstuhl could be brought home to serve where they are even more badly needed.
But then Trump should withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Not withdraw troops from Germany.
Withdrawing troops from Germany hurts people and does not achieve the goal you want. It’s like electing Trump which hurts people while not achieving the goal you want.
Dienne, are you suggesting that we bring Gerrnany’s socialized/communist medical care system here to the capitalist United States?
How could you be so un-American? For shame!
Do not CEOs of large hospitals and drug companies bleed the same way as you and I? And like you and I, were they not also some mother’s child at one point, or still are?
But, tongue in cheek (not really), when those CEOs of large hospitals and drug companies bleed is the color of their blood: red, green, gold, or the color of a smoggy, hot midnight with no sign of the stars or moon?
Maybe they should be brought from there? That is, maybe they should not be there at the first place?
I think Angela Merkel was expecting this because it seems her governmnet is building an EU Army. As Trump pulls US troops out of Europe, this will encourage the growth of this force.
According to Foreign Policy Magainze, Germany is Quietly Building a European Army Under Its Command.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/
Trump and many Americans are also very ignorant of the actual size of the EU’s combined active military forces. Too many think the US is the major military force in Europe. It isn’t.
“The combined military expenditure of the member states amounted to €223.4 billion in 2018. This represents 1.4% of European Union GDP. … The European Union’s combined active military forces in 2016 totaled 1,410,626 personnel.”
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-european-union.asp
What happens if these troops are unified under one command?
The EU has been so insulted by Trump that they no longer consider us a dependable ally. That was Putin’s goal. Trump did his bidding.
Even when we vote Trump out in November, that trust will always be lost.
How can any country trust the United States after Donald Trump?
If it can happen once, it can happen twice or three-times, and every four years the U.S. has another national election and each election is another opportunity for a monster like Trump, or someone worse, to become our president.
Many of the comments above focus on wars and war readiness but fail to understand the actual purpose and actual effects of post WWII military deployments, especially in Germany, Japan and Korea. Even though these are the nations with the largest U.S. military presences, today they are minuscule as compared to number of bases and troops deployed during the height of the Cold War. Not that we need to have those numbers again. But they were not engaged in hot wars. They served as a deterrent that was wildly successful in containing totalitarian regimes and ultimately were instrumental, combined with the growing inner rot of those nations, of eliminating the Iron Curtain. But they also were expressions of soft power in the very best sense of the concept.
People in the nations we fought against got to know real Americans, warts and all. They saw and experienced what American values and ideals were (supposed to be) up close and personal. And more often than not, they internalized the lessons they learned better than Americans back home did. I recently watched the wildly underrated movie Sayonara which demonstrated this very well. The Berlin Airlift was also the epitome of soft power that used the military to spread and inculcate unspoken messages of humanity and empathy. The American presence in South Korea provided the security to create one of the most advanced, free societies in the world, literally in the shadow of most repressive and warlike nation on earth. And for the U.S., when oceans no longer provided a buffer with the conflicts in the rest of the world, the benefit was to push out the perimeter of safety for the American people. Returning soldiers had a better understanding of the rest of the world. Many of them liked it so much they stayed after they deployments were up.
Much of the “anti-Americanism” that we experience in these nations is because they have no contact with rank and file Americans anymore. All they know is what they read in the papers and see in the news (ironically, more of them are intimately informed about our nation than, in my view, a majority of Americans). When we withdraw from the world, we do so at our own peril. We cannot disengage. We need troops around the world not to engage in wars, but to engage with others. When natural disasters happen, and they will happen in greater numbers and more intensity thanks to unchecked climate change, we need to engage. When politically motivated atrocities happen around the world, we need to engage. We need to be there in the first place. It is good for them, it is good for us.
GregB: “We need troops around the world not to engage in wars, but to engage with others.”
The Peace Corps would do a much better job of engaging with local people than the military. The Peace Corps is also much cheaper. We haven’t wasted trillions on them.
Germany doesn’t need our Peace Corps support.
bethree5: “Germany doesn’t need the Peace Corps.” I agree.
There is, however, no need for military involvement in every country in the world.
The U.S. Spends More on Its Military Than 144 Countries Combined
By Robert Artiga-Valencia
Posted: July 18, 2019 | Military & Security
$121.1 billion.
That’s how much more money the United States spends on its military than 144 other countries combined, according to the latest update to available data on military expenditures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). That’s not to mention the number by which the United States also outspends the next 7 largest military budgets combined: $40.1 billion.
Both of these numbers are stark increases from last year’s differences. Yet, there appears to be no clear threat to the US that would warrant such a dramatic increase in spending. So let’s think about how this $121.1 billion, which could have instead provided 11 million veterans with decent healthcare according to our budget trade offs tool, is being spent.
We’re running 800 military bases in 80 different countries, most of which are generally unsupervised in their carbon emissions — so not only are we making the world less safe with our enormous military presence, but we are also literally in the process of making our world uninhabitable.
As a result of our military actions overseas, at least 244,000 Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani civilians have been killed in horrific ways, including tens of thousands of children. These are at least 244,000 more reasons to have a conversation about what exactly we celebrate every year on Memorial Day.
Lastly, one would assume all of this military action would at least be in the interests of the American people. Not so. In fact, our reliance on military spending has damaged many sectors of the economy and prevented us from funding government functions that actually help people…
Absolutely agree with this, Carol. Something’s very, very wrong w/those numbers.
Would love to see a breakdown of where that $ goes– & WTH is reason for “stark increases” between 2018-2019? Can we guess: only & all about Reps dominating all 3 govtl branches when that budget was approved? Also curious about the OH factor, if it could be teased out – I’ll bet every $1 appropriated for Country X is marked up 50-100% for unwieldy Pentagon bureaucracy.
Still, with regard to the Trump action we’re commenting on, Germany probably ranks high on places where we should have military presence.
Trump pulls out 1/3 troops against all military/ natl security advice– & I’ll bet even tho Merkel tiff triggered it [“spite”], he’s been waiting for an excuse to do something like this as election nears. It’s red meat for Trumpista base which believed his campaign malarkey about reducing military budget (hahaha ROFL same guy who praised/ signed the Sep 2018 defense bill). Targeted directly at ignorant anti-globalist isolationists like those who proliferated here in ’30’s & almost lost us England to Nazis.
“…almost lost us England to Nazis.”
Almost lost us Europe to the Nazis.
I’ve been railing against the size of military spending for years. It needs to be cut and spent more wisely. We can and should do both, military soft power and the Peace Corp. Remember, Peace Corps volunteers can’t bring in medical and logistical aid like the military did, for example, after the Indian Ocean tsunami or the Haiti earthquake. And we should be preemptive, as GW Bush was in Africa on AIDS. It adds to our security and creates long term goodwill.
GregB:Marianne Williamson, when she ran for president, wanted a Department of Peace. I agree that that is what this country needs. We should be helping people and working to stop all the wars.
1806: Benjamin Rush, Founding Father (signer of the Declaration of Independence), wrote an essay titled “A plan of a Peace-Office for the United States”.[2] Rush called for equal footing with the Department of War and pointed out the effect of doing so for the welfare of the United States in promoting and preserving perpetual peace in the United States.
1925: Carrie Chapman Catt, founder of the League of Women Voters, at the Cause and Cure for War Conference, publicly suggested a cabinet-level Department of Peace and secretary of peace be established.[3]
1926/1927: Kirby Page, author of A National Peace Department, wrote, published and distributed a proposal for a cabinet-level Department of Peace and secretary of peace.[4]
1935: Senator Matthew M. Neely (D-West Virginia) wrote and introduced the first bill calling for the creation of a United States Department of Peace. Reintroduced in 1937 and 1939.
1943: Senator Alexander Wiley (R-Wisconsin) spoke on the Senate floor calling for the United States of America to become the first government in the world to have a secretary of peace.
1945: Representative Louis Ludlow (D-Indiana) re-introduced a bill, S. 1237,[5] to create a United States Department of Peace.
1946: Senator Jennings Randolph (D-West Virginia) re-introduced a bill to create a United States Department of Peace.
1947: Representative Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois) introduced a bill for “A Peace Division in the State Department”.
1955 to 1968: Eighty-five Senate and House of Representative bills were introduced calling for a United States Department of Peace.[6]
1969: Senator Vance Hartke (D-Indiana) and Representative Seymour Halpern (R-New York) re-introduced bills to create a U.S. Department of Peace in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The 14 Senate cosponsors of S. 953, the “Peace Act”,[7] included Birch Bayh (D-IN), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Alan Cranston (D-CA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Edmund Muskie (D-ME). The 67 House cosponsors included Ed Koch of New York, Donald Fraser of Minnesota, and Abner Mikva of Illinois, as well as Republican Pete McCloskey of California.
1979: Senator Spark Matsunaga (D-Hawaii) re-introduced a bill, S. 2103, “Department of Peace Organization Act of 1979” to create a U.S. Department of Peace.[8]
2001: Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) re-introduced a bill to create a U.S. Department of Peace. This bill was introduced in each session of Congress from 2001 to 2011. It was re-introduced as H.R. 808 on February 3, 2009 and is currently supported by 72 cosponsors. In July 2008, the first Republican cosponsor, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) signed on.
2005: Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) introduced legislation in the Senate to create a cabinet-level department of peace a week after Dennis Kucinich introduced a similar bill in the House.
2013: Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) introduced a substantially similar bill to the Kucinich bill. She has introduced updated versions in each session of Congress since then, now H.R. 1111, and is currently supported by 40 cosponsors.
Thanks for this, Greg. I had to read up a bit on “soft power,” hadn’t heard that term. I see it applies to many efforts besides military (like diplomacy, cultural missions, business innovations & more). Our military presence in Germany, Japan, S Korea is better described as a safety buffer/ natl security, tho it no doubt performed that soft power function post-WWII. We have undermined our own soft power under Bush, & Trump, no? Nye (who introduced the concept) says its power rests on three resources: “its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when others see them as legitimate and having moral authority).” We’ve lost a lot of credibility on 2 out of 3.
Agree that sticking around to rebuild nations we’ve destroyed is better than the alternative, tho I don’t see how we could have done it in VN. It’s a dicy proposition best undertaken jointly w/other nations, w/many opportunities to go wrong (as seen in Iraq).
My grandmother used to say, “You catch more flies with sugar, honey.” She was right.
It’s a wicked world. It’s absolutely essential to maintain an overwhelming deterrent. But the walk softly must accompany the big stick. That’s how you actually make change–by winning hearts and minds.
So that’s where that saying came from! 🤓
Dear Donald:
Face it. Things aren’t looking good. You’re down by 14 points already, and you know ti’s just going to get worse as the Covid numbers continue to rise. You are losing ground with women, working class voters, even evangelicals. The whole swaggering, fascist law and order, call out the military thing was a complete bust because we have military leaders who care about democracy and the Constitution. It’s a document, Don, that serves as a kind of charter for the U.S. government, but never mind. You wouldn’t understand. Republican leaders are jumping ship. Military leaders too. And when you are voted out and the Whiter House is deodorized, you will be facing a long, long, long, long list of criminal and civil charges in state courts, including very, very serious ones–rape, money laundering, etc. There’s a bery strong likelihood that you will trade your orange clown makeup for an orange jump suit.
So why not resign now and flee to your pal Vlad in Russia? I mean, surely he’ll harbor his Agent Orange given that you have delivered and delivered and delivered for him. Won’t he?
Well, maybe not.
But you probably have a better chance there than here, once justice is served on you.
Just sayin’.
I think the Whiter House should be repainted after Trump is gone. A shade of brown — but nowhere close to orange. The name should change, too, to represent all of America and not just the lightest skin color.
Well said, Bob.
I agree with pulling our troops out and vastly reducing our military footprint and shifting money to education. We can’t have guns and butter. Equating WW2 choices where we faced direct threats from East and west is a false equivalency. We have done a lot of damage around the world since then. Don’t tell me Vietnam was the right thing to do because it is that thinking that causes trouble. Europe can take care of itself. Or better keep military costs down. See Costa Rica.
“See Costa Rica.”
What is it I want to see in Costa Rica?
My guess is that Norm Scott wanted to use Costa Rica as an example of a tiny nation with no Military expenses.
A-h-h! Costa Rica…definitely a country that can be profitably compared to the U.S. Perhaps Norm should move there if that is his ideal.
“Perhaps Norm should move there if that is his ideal.”
Ouch. People can say that the US has problems and compare this country to others.
You are right, Carolmalaysia. I meant it more as my seeing the comparison as absurd, like saying Hawaii has pineapples when critiquing Illinois.
Nice to have some disagreements on this site. Just think what good could be done with all that money we now spend on the military like fully funding our schools and health care.
Yes, you are correct. The richest country in the history of world can afford to do all. It a matter of political will and priorities.
Yes! If we decided to go to war, the resources would be there.