Our Peace President

[Vision]

Latter-day Saints in the military do not need to feel torn between their country and their God. In the Church, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Military service shows dedication to this principle.

If Latter-day Saints are called upon to go into battle, they can look to the example of Captain Moroni, the great military leader in the Book of Mormon. Although he was a mighty warrior, he “did not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48:11). He was “firm in the faith of Christ,” and his only reason for fighting was to “defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion” (Alma 48:13). If Latter-day Saints must go to war, they should go in a spirit of truth and righteousness, with a desire to do good. They should go with love in their hearts for all God’s children, including those on the opposing side. Then, if they are required to shed another’s blood, their action will not be counted as a sin.

Eddie how sad for you that you missed the most important message of the BOM.

3rd Nephi 6:14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

That verse cross references back to the Anti Nephi Lehi's. So if you want to be counted as being converted to the "true faith" you better drop your weapons of war

Vision, how sad that you think I would rely on your word for the correct answer, ironic that your forum name is vision! :))

I have "vision" enough to read and understand what the meaning of "true faith" is, and what conversion is.

[eddie]

Latter-day Saints in the military do not need to feel torn between their country and their God. In the Church, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Military service shows dedication to this principle.

If Latter-day Saints are called upon to go into battle, they can look to the example of Captain Moroni, the great military leader in the Book of Mormon. Although he was a mighty warrior, he “did not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48:11). He was “firm in the faith of Christ,” and his only reason for fighting was to “defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion” (Alma 48:13). If Latter-day Saints must go to war, they should go in a spirit of truth and righteousness, with a desire to do good. They should go with love in their hearts for all God’s children, including those on the opposing side. Then, if they are required to shed another’s blood, their action will not be counted as a sin.

Dont even compare the above to what the United States is doing over seas ...

Moroni fought in "Defense" of freedom , not for other peoples possessions, nor did he desire to force other countrys to hand over their oil and other natural resources...
The so called "fighting for freedom" on foreign soil is the biggest lie most faithful lds soldiers carry about in their minds ... actually not just the soldiers minds but most Americans..
I have some relatives that went over to Afganistan and Iraq and returned with a bloodlust that was chilling... and for what? .. to protect the oil industry ... freedom and be d**d

I say send the leaders over there to physically lead those battles and wars they so love to wage like George Washington and Moroni did, then we shall see how their taste for blood is, not being behind the protection of the Pentagon and other safe places....
I do believe being subject to the powers that be until He comes whos right it is to reign. But absolutely not to the point of killing others against my conscious for so-called BS freedom in foreign lands ...
Dont tell me these are righteous wars commanded by God for freedom ....



As far as i am concerned innocent blood is upon our hands in all the wars of late and that is besides the murdering our own offspring...

I would assume you have never fought for our Country? We wouldn't have the Constitution if those men had acted like cowards.
I feel reasonably sure you would have sat on the sidelines and protested the fight. I don't like war, its a terrible thing but in some cases necessary. These wars without victory confuse me also, but we live in the best place in the world and it came at the price of bloodshed, I am thankful to the veterans who fight for their country, the Viet Nam soldiers were treated horribly when they came home, that is shameful!

Maybe we are on separate pages...
but yes I have never "fought" for my country , at the same time do not compare the revolutionary war of defense for liberty inside our borders to waging wars overseas for oil, and other Sovereign nations resources. War is and has been mostly for the big corporations and bankers, (i believe anyways ) war is also a racket , as financing is provided for both sides by the bankers,and huge profits are made...
If you read and study the book of Mormon in regards to the justification of war it was only in defense, not offense, and the minute they went to war on the offense for vengeance they lost their power. (Nephites)
How I personally feel is I would rather lose my life than to take someone else's , the thought of taking anyone's life makes me shudder...
You mention the word coward, well we shall see if and when the time comes to the actual defense of our country's freedom , but, I can tell you this , I shall never fight in any if these wars started by these war mongers in foreign nations by lies and deceit, saying for freedom but we all know it is all lies or at least we should know.

As far as war without victory there is nothing confusing about it if you take into consideration the corruption at the top of our government, (among other places). The Vietnam and Korean War were both easy to win but the corrupt powers that be had other plans. Besides the fact that they were not justified wars. I agree with the founding Fathers, stay out of foreign entanglements.
But I suppose we must fulfill prophecy: " The United States will spend her means warring in foreign nations then the nations of the earth will get together and say come let us go up and divide the land of America, then the sons of liberty will swear by the blood of their forefathers that the land will not be divided... "
Then will our country will go through it last greatest peril....

I could kill someone intent on harming my family.

I agree that war is money, I've always heard that Lyndon Johnson made a fortune off the Vietnam Nam war
Because of investments in Jeep etc. Regardless, I will always feel that a strong military keeps us from war, Clinton and Obama have left us sitting ducks. I hope President Trump rebuilds our military, so far he is getting many changes made, all for good!

[Silver]

Dont even compare the above to what the United States is doing over seas ...

Moroni fought in "Defense" of freedom , not for other peoples possessions, nor did he desire to force other countrys to hand over their oil and other natural resources...
The so called "fighting for freedom" on foreign soil is the biggest lie most faithful lds soldiers carry about in their minds ... actually not just the soldiers minds but most Americans..
I have some relatives that went over to Afganistan and Iraq and returned with a bloodlust that was chilling... and for what? .. to protect the oil industry ... freedom and be d**d

I say send the leaders over there to physically lead those battles and wars they so love to wage like George Washington and Moroni did, then we shall see how their taste for blood is, not being behind the protection of the Pentagon and other safe places....
I do believe being subject to the powers that be until He comes whos right it is to reign. But absolutely not to the point of killing others against my conscious for so-called BS freedom in foreign lands ...
Dont tell me these are righteous wars commanded by God for freedom ....



As far as i am concerned innocent blood is upon our hands in all the wars of late and that is besides the murdering our own offspring...

I would assume you have never fought for our Country? We wouldn't have the Constitution if those men had acted like cowards.
I feel reasonably sure you would have sat on the sidelines and protested the fight. I don't like war, its a terrible thing but in some cases necessary. These wars without victory confuse me also, but we live in the best place in the world and it came at the price of bloodshed, I am thankful to the veterans who fight for their country, the Viet Nam soldiers were treated horribly when they came home, that is shameful!

Maybe we are on separate pages...
but yes I have never "fought" for my country , at the same time do not compare the revolutionary war of defense for liberty inside our borders to waging wars overseas for oil, and other Sovereign nations resources. War is and has been mostly for the big corporations and bankers, (i believe anyways ) war is also a racket , as financing is provided for both sides by the bankers,and huge profits are made...
If you read and study the book of Mormon in regards to the justification of war it was only in defense, not offense, and the minute they went to war on the offense for vengeance they lost their power. (Nephites)
How I personally feel is I would rather lose my life than to take someone else's , the thought of taking anyone's life makes me shudder...
You mention the word coward, well we shall see if and when the time comes to the actual defense of our country's freedom , but, I can tell you this , I shall never fight in any if these wars started by these war mongers in foreign nations by lies and deceit, saying for freedom but we all know it is all lies or at least we should know.

As far as war without victory there is nothing confusing about it if you take into consideration the corruption at the top of our government, (among other places). The Vietnam and Korean War were both easy to win but the corrupt powers that be had other plans. Besides the fact that they were not justified wars. I agree with the founding Fathers, stay out of foreign entanglements.
But I suppose we must fulfill prophecy: " The United States will spend her means warring in foreign nations then the nations of the earth will get together and say come let us go up and divide the land of America, then the sons of liberty will swear by the blood of their forefathers that the land will not be divided... "
Then will our country will go through it last greatest peril....

I could kill someone intent on harming my family.

I agree that war is money, I've always heard that Lyndon Johnson made a fortune off the Vietnam Nam war
Because of investments in Jeep etc. Regardless, I will always feel that a strong military keeps us from war, Clinton and Obama have left us sitting ducks. I hope President Trump rebuilds our military, so far he is getting many changes made, all for good!

Of course, a fact or two always helps:

military spending.gif (27.65 KiB) Viewed 1187 times

http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_ ... comparison" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ons-combi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png (89.3 KiB) Viewed 1187 times

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/camp ... -vs-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of which proves that eddie is, as usual, just spouting nonsense.

[eddie]

The Uses of Military Power Remarks - prepared for delivery by the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, to the National Press Club,Washington, D.C.

Thank you for inviting me to be here today with the members of the National Press Club, a group most important to our national security. I say that because a major point I intend to make in my remarks today is that the single most critical element of a successful democracy is a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes. Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve will never work. And you help to build that understanding among our citizens.
Of all the many policies our citizens deserve -- and need -- to understand, none is so important as those related to our topic today -- the uses of military power. Deterrence will work only if the Soviets understand our firm commitment to keeping the peace,... and only from a well-informed public can we expect to have that national will and commitment.

So today, I want to discuss with you perhaps the most important question concerning keeping the peace. Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the painful decision that the use of military force is necessary to protect our interests or to carry out our national policy?

National power has many components, some tangible, like economic wealth, technical pre-eminence. Other components are intangible -- such as moral force, or strong national will. Military forces, when they are strong and ready and modern, are a credible -- and tangible -- addition to a nation's power. When both the intangible national will and those forces are forged into one instrument, national power becomes effective.

In today's world, the line between peace and war is less clearly drawn than at any time in our history. When George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us, as a new democracy, to avoid foreign entanglements, Europe then lay 2-3 months by sea over the horizon. The United States was protected by the width of the oceans. Now in this nuclear age, we measure time in minutes rather than months.

Aware of the consequences of any misstep, yet convinced of the precious worth of the freedom we enjoy, we seek to avoid conflict, while maintaining strong defenses. Our policy has always been to work hard for peace, but to be prepared if war comes. Yet, so blurred have the lines become between open conflict and half-hidden hostile acts that we cannot confidently predict where, or when, or how, or from what direction aggression may arrive. We must be prepared, at any moment, to meet threats ranging in intensity from isolated terrorist acts, to guerrilla action, to full-scale military confrontation.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said that it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. If it was true then, how much more true it is today, when we must remain ready to consider the means to meet such serious indirect challenges to the peace as proxy wars and individual terrorist action. And how much more important is it now, considering the consequences of failing to deter conflict at the lowest level possible. While the use of military force to defend territory has never been questioned when a democracy has been attacked and its very survival threatened, most democracies have rejected the unilateral aggressive use of force to invade, conquer or subjugate other nations. The extent to which the use of force is acceptable remains unresolved for the host of other situations which fall between these extremes of defensive and aggressive use of force.

We find ourselves, then, face to face with a modern paradox: the most likely challenge to the peace -- the gray area conflicts -- are precisely the most difficult challenges to which a democracy must respond. Yet, while the source and nature of today's challenges are uncertain, our response must be clear and understandable. Unless we are certain that force is essential, we run the risk of inadequate national will to apply the resources needed.

Because we face a spectrum of threats -- from covert aggression, terrorism, and subversion, to overt intimidation, to use of brute force -- choosing the appropriate level of our response is difficult. Flexible response does not mean just any response is appropriate. But once a decision to employ some degree of force has been made, and the purpose clarified, our government must have the clear mandate to carry out, and continue to carry out, that decision until the purpose has been achieved. That, too, has been difficult to accomplish.

The issue of which branch of government has authority to define that mandate and make decisions on using force is now being strongly contended. Beginning in the 1970s Congress demanded, and assumed, a far more active role in the making of foreign policy and in the decisionmaking process for the employment of military forces abroad than had been thought appropriate and practical before. As a result, the centrality of decision-making authority in the Executive branch has been compromised by the Legislative branch to an extent that actively interferes with that process. At the same time, there has not been a corresponding acceptance of responsibility by Congress for the outcome of decisions concerning the employment of military forces.

Yet the outcome of decisions on whether -- and when -- and to what degree -- to use combat forces abroad has never been more important than it is today. While we do not seek to deter or settle all the world's conflicts, we must recognize that, as a major power, our responsibilities and interests are now of such scope that there are few troubled areas we can afford to ignore. So we must be prepared to deal with a range of possibilities, a spectrum of crises, from local insurgency to global conflict. We prefer, of course, to limit any conflict in its early stages, to contain and control it -- but to do that our military forces must be deployed in a timely manner, and be fully supported and prepared before they are engaged, because many of those difficult decisions must be made extremely quickly.

Some on the national scene think they can always avoid making tough decisions. Some reject entirely the question of whether any force can ever be used abroad. They want to avoid grappling with a complex issue because, despite clever rhetoric disguising their purpose, these people are in fact advocating a return to post-World War I isolationism. While they may maintain in principle that military force has a role in foreign policy, they are never willing to name the circumstance or the place where it would apply.

On the other side, some theorists argue that military force can be brought to bear in any crisis. Some of these proponents of force are eager to advocate its use even in limited amounts simply because they believe that if there are American forces of any size present they will somehow solve the problem.

Neither of these two extremes offers us any lasting or satisfactory solutions. The first -- undue reserve -- would lead us ultimately to withdraw from international events that require free nations to defend their interests from the aggressive use of force. We would be abdicating our responsibilities as the leader of the free world -- responsibilities more or less thrust upon us in the aftermath of World War II -- a war incidentally that isolationism did nothing to deter. These are responsibilities we must fulfill unless we desire the Soviet Union to keep expanding its influence unchecked throughout the world. In an international system based on mutual interdependence among nations, and alliances between friends, stark isolationism quickly would lead to a far more dangerous situation for the United States: we would be without allies and faced by many hostile or indifferent nations.

The second alternative -- employing our forces almost indiscriminately and as a regular and customary part of our diplomatic efforts -- would surely plunge us headlong into the sort of domestic turmoil we experienced during the Vietnam war, without accomplishing the goal for which we committed our forces. Such policies might very well tear at the fabric of our society, endangering the single most critical element of a successful democracy: a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes.

Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve would also earn us the scorn of our troops, who would have an understandable opposition to being used -- in every sense of the word -- casually and without intent to support them fully. Ultimately this course would reduce their morale and their effectiveness for engagements we must win. And if the military were to distrust its civilian leadership, recruitment would fall off and I fear an end to the all-volunteer system would be upon us, requiring a return to a draft, sowing the seeds of riot and discontent that so wracked the country in the '60s.

We have now restored high morale and pride in the uniform throughout the services. The all-volunteer system is working spectacularly well. Are we willing to forfeit what we have fought so hard to regain?

In maintaining our progress in strengthening America's military deterrent, we face difficult challenges. For we have entered an era where the dividing lines between peace and war are less clearly drawn, the identity of the foe is much less clear. In World Wars I and II, we not only knew who our enemies were, but we shared a clear sense of why the principles espoused by our enemies were unworthy.

Since these two wars threatened our very survival as a free nation and the survival of our allies, they were total wars, involving every aspect of our society. All our means of production, all our resources were devoted to winning. Our policies had the unqualified support of the great majority of our people. Indeed, World Wars I and II ended with the unconditional surrender of our enemies.... The only acceptable ending when the alternative was the loss of our freedom.

But in the aftermath of the Second World War, we encountered a more subtle form of warfare -- warfare in which, more often than not, the face of the enemy was masked. Territorial expansionism could be carried out indirectly by proxy powers, using surrogate forces aided and advised from afar. Some conflicts occurred under the name of "national liberation," but far more frequently ideology or religion provided the spark to the tinder.

Our adversaries can also take advantage of our open society, and our freedom of speech and opinion to use alarming rhetoric and misinformation to divide and disrupt our unity of purpose. While they would never dare to allow such freedoms to their own people, they are quick to exploit ours by conducting simultaneous military and propaganda campaigns to achieve their ends.

They realize that if they can divide our national will at home, it will not be necessary to defeat our forces abroad. So by presenting issues in bellicose terms, they aim to intimidate western leaders and citizens, encouraging us to adopt conciliatory positions to their advantage. Meanwhile they remain sheltered from the force of public opinion in their countries, because public opinion there is simply prohibited and does not exist.

Our freedom presents both a challenge and an opportunity. It is true that until democratic nations have the support of the people, they are inevitably at a disadvantage in a conflict. But when they do have that support they cannot be defeated. For democracies have the power to send a compelling message to friend and foe alike by the vote of their citizens. And the American people have sent such a signal by re-electing a strong Chief Executive. They know that President Reagan is willing to accept the responsibility for his actions and is able to lead us through these complex times by insisting that we regain both our military and our economic strength.

In today's world where minutes count, such decisive leadership is more important than ever before. Regardless of whether conflicts are limited, or threats are ill-defined, we must be capable of quickly determining that the threats and conflicts either do or do not affect the vital interests of the United States and our allies. ... And then responding appropriately.

Those threats may not entail an immediate, direct attack on our territory, and our response may not necessarily require the immediate or direct defense of our homeland. But when our vital national interests and those of our allies are at stake, we cannot ignore our safety, or forsake our allies.

At the same time, recent history has proven that we cannot assume unilaterally the role of the world's defender. We have learned that there are limits to how much of our spirit and blood and treasure we can afford to forfeit in meeting our responsibility to keep peace and freedom. So while we may and should offer substantial amounts of economic and military assistance to our allies in their time of need, and help them maintain forces to deter attacks against them -- usually we cannot substitute our troops or our will for theirs.

We should only engage our troops if we must do so as a matter of our own vital national interest. We cannot assume for other sovereign nations the responsibility to defend their territory -- without their strong invitation -- when our freedom is not threatened.

On the other hand, there have been recent cases where the United States has seen the need to join forces with other nations to try to preserve the peace by helping with negotiations, and by separating warring parties, and thus enabling those warring nations to withdraw from hostilities safely. In the Middle East, which has been torn by conflict for millennia, we have sent our troops in recent years both to the Sinai and to Lebanon, for just such a peacekeeping mission. But we did not configure or equip those forces for combat -- they were armed only for their self-defense. Their mission required them to be -- and to be recognized as -- peacekeepers. We knew that if conditions deteriorated so they were in danger, or if because of the actions of the warring nations, their peace keeping mission could not be realized, then it would be necessary either to add sufficiently to the number and arms of our troops -- in short to equip them for combat,... or to withdraw them. And so in Lebanon, when we faced just such a choice, because the warring nations did not enter into withdrawal or peace agreements, the President properly withdrew forces equipped only for peacekeeping.

In those cases where our national interests require us to commit combat force we must never let there be doubt of our resolution. When it is necessary for our troops to be committed to combat, we must commit them, in sufficient numbers and we must support them, as effectively and resolutely as our strength permits. When we commit our troops to combat we must do so with the sole object of winning.

Once it is clear our troops are required, because our vital interests are at stake, then we must have the firm national resolve to commit every ounce of strength necessary to win the fight to achieve our objectives. In Grenada we did just that.

Just as clearly, there are other situations where United States combat forces should not be used. I believe the postwar period has taught us several lessons, and from them I have developed six major tests to be applied when we are weighing the use of U.S. combat forces abroad. Let me now share them with you:

(1) First, the United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies. That emphatically does not mean that we should declare beforehand, as we did with Korea in 1950, that a particular area is outside our strategic perimeter.

(2) Second, if we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. Of course if the particular situation requires only limited force to win our objectives, then we should not hesitate to commit forces sized accordingly. When Hitler broke treaties and remilitarized the Rhineland, small combat forces then could perhaps have prevented the holocaust of World War II.

(3) Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. And we should know precisely how our forces can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should have and send the forces needed to do just that. As Clausewitz wrote, "no one starts a war -- or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so -- without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it."

War may be different today than in Clausewitz's time, but the need for well-defined objectives and a consistent strategy is still essential. If we determine that a combat mission has become necessary for our vital national interests, then we must send forces capable to do the job -- and not assign a combat mission to a force configured for peacekeeping.

(4) Fourth, the relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed -- their size, composition and disposition -- must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of a conflict. When they do change, then so must our combat requirements. We must continuously keep as a beacon light before us the basic questions: "is this conflict in our national interest?" "Does our national interest require us to fight, to use force of arms?" If the answers are "yes", then we must win. If the answers are "no," then we should not be in combat.

(5) Fifth, before the U.S. commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. This support cannot be achieved unless we are candid in making clear the threats we face; the support cannot be sustained without continuing and close consultation. We cannot fight a battle with the Congress at home while asking our troops to win a war overseas or, as in the case of Vietnam, in effect asking our troops not to win, but just to be there.

(6) Finally, the commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

I believe that these tests can be helpful in deciding whether or not we should commit our troops to combat in the months and years ahead. The point we must all keep uppermost in our minds is that if we ever decide to commit forces to combat, we must support those forces to the fullest extent of our national will for as long as it takes to win. So we must have in mind objectives that are clearly defined and understood and supported by the widest possible number of our citizens. And those objectives must be vital to our survival as a free nation and to the fulfillment of our responsibilities as a world power. We must also be farsighted enough to sense when immediate and strong reactions to apparently small events can prevent lion-like responses that may be required later. We must never forget those isolationists in Europe who shrugged that "Danzig is not worth a war," and "why should we fight to keep the Rhineland demilitarized?"

These tests I have just mentioned have been phrased negatively for a purpose -- they are intended to sound a note of caution -- caution that we must observe prior to committing forces to combat overseas. When we ask our military forces to risk their very lives in such situations, a note of caution is not only prudent, it is morally required.

In many situations we may apply these tests and conclude that a combatant role is not appropriate. Yet no one should interpret what I am saying here today as an abdication of America's responsibilities -- either to its own citizens or to its allies. Nor should these remarks be misread as a signal that this country, or this administration, is unwilling to commit forces to combat overseas.

We have demonstrated in the past that, when our vital interests or those of our allies are threatened, we are ready to use force, and use it decisively, to protect those interests. Let no one entertain any illusions -- if our vital interests are involved, we are prepared to fight. And we are resolved that if we must fight, we must win.

So, while these tests are drawn from lessons we have learned from the past, they also can -- and should -- be applied to the future. For example, the problems confronting us in Central America today are difficult. The possibility of more extensive Soviet and Soviet-proxy penetration into this hemisphere in months ahead is something we should recognize. If this happens we will clearly need more economic and military assistance and training to help those who want democracy.

The President will not allow our military forces to creep -- or be drawn gradually -- into a combat role in Central America or any other place in the world. And indeed our policy is designed to prevent the need for direct American involvement. This means we will need sustained Congressional support to back and give confidence to our friends in the region.

I believe that the tests I have enunciated here today can, if applied carefully, avoid the danger of this gradualist incremental approach which almost always means the use of insufficient force. These tests can help us to avoid being drawn inexorably into an endless morass, where it is not vital to our national interest to fight.

But policies and principles such as these require decisive leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government -- and they also require strong and sustained public support. Most of all, these policies require national unity of purpose. I believe the United States now possesses the policies and leadership to gain that public support and unity. And I believe that the future will show we have the strength of character to protect peace with freedom.

In summary, we should all remember these are the policies -- indeed the only policies -- that can preserve for ourselves, our friends, and our posterity, peace with freedom.

I believe we can continue to deter the Soviet Union and other potential adversaries from pursuing their designs around the world. We can enable our friends in Central America to defeat aggression and gain the breathing room to nurture democratic reforms. We can meet the challenge posed by the unfolding complexity of the 1980's.

We will then be poised to begin the last decade of this century amid a peace tempered by realism, and secured by firmness and strength. And it will be a peace that will enable all of us -- ourselves -- at home, and our friends abroad -- to achieve a quality of life, both spiritually and materially, far higher than man has even dared to dream.

[eddie]

I would assume you have never fought for our Country? We wouldn't have the Constitution if those men had acted like cowards.
I feel reasonably sure you would have sat on the sidelines and protested the fight. I don't like war, its a terrible thing but in some cases necessary. These wars without victory confuse me also, but we live in the best place in the world and it came at the price of bloodshed, I am thankful to the veterans who fight for their country, the Viet Nam soldiers were treated horribly when they came home, that is shameful!

Maybe we are on separate pages...
but yes I have never "fought" for my country , at the same time do not compare the revolutionary war of defense for liberty inside our borders to waging wars overseas for oil, and other Sovereign nations resources. War is and has been mostly for the big corporations and bankers, (i believe anyways ) war is also a racket , as financing is provided for both sides by the bankers,and huge profits are made...
If you read and study the book of Mormon in regards to the justification of war it was only in defense, not offense, and the minute they went to war on the offense for vengeance they lost their power. (Nephites)
How I personally feel is I would rather lose my life than to take someone else's , the thought of taking anyone's life makes me shudder...
You mention the word coward, well we shall see if and when the time comes to the actual defense of our country's freedom , but, I can tell you this , I shall never fight in any if these wars started by these war mongers in foreign nations by lies and deceit, saying for freedom but we all know it is all lies or at least we should know.

As far as war without victory there is nothing confusing about it if you take into consideration the corruption at the top of our government, (among other places). The Vietnam and Korean War were both easy to win but the corrupt powers that be had other plans. Besides the fact that they were not justified wars. I agree with the founding Fathers, stay out of foreign entanglements.
But I suppose we must fulfill prophecy: " The United States will spend her means warring in foreign nations then the nations of the earth will get together and say come let us go up and divide the land of America, then the sons of liberty will swear by the blood of their forefathers that the land will not be divided... "
Then will our country will go through it last greatest peril....

I could kill someone intent on harming my family.

I agree that war is money, I've always heard that Lyndon Johnson made a fortune off the Vietnam Nam war
Because of investments in Jeep etc. Regardless, I will always feel that a strong military keeps us from war, Clinton and Obama have left us sitting ducks. I hope President Trump rebuilds our military, so far he is getting many changes made, all for good!

Of course, a fact or two always helps:
military spending.gif
http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_ ... comparison" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ons-combi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/camp ... -vs-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of which proves that eddie is, as usual, just spouting nonsense.

" Forgive me my nonsense
As I also forgive the nonsense of those
Who think they talk sense. "

Robert Frost

[Silver]

Maybe we are on separate pages...
but yes I have never "fought" for my country , at the same time do not compare the revolutionary war of defense for liberty inside our borders to waging wars overseas for oil, and other Sovereign nations resources. War is and has been mostly for the big corporations and bankers, (i believe anyways ) war is also a racket , as financing is provided for both sides by the bankers,and huge profits are made...
If you read and study the book of Mormon in regards to the justification of war it was only in defense, not offense, and the minute they went to war on the offense for vengeance they lost their power. (Nephites)
How I personally feel is I would rather lose my life than to take someone else's , the thought of taking anyone's life makes me shudder...
You mention the word coward, well we shall see if and when the time comes to the actual defense of our country's freedom , but, I can tell you this , I shall never fight in any if these wars started by these war mongers in foreign nations by lies and deceit, saying for freedom but we all know it is all lies or at least we should know.

As far as war without victory there is nothing confusing about it if you take into consideration the corruption at the top of our government, (among other places). The Vietnam and Korean War were both easy to win but the corrupt powers that be had other plans. Besides the fact that they were not justified wars. I agree with the founding Fathers, stay out of foreign entanglements.
But I suppose we must fulfill prophecy: " The United States will spend her means warring in foreign nations then the nations of the earth will get together and say come let us go up and divide the land of America, then the sons of liberty will swear by the blood of their forefathers that the land will not be divided... "
Then will our country will go through it last greatest peril....

I could kill someone intent on harming my family.

I agree that war is money, I've always heard that Lyndon Johnson made a fortune off the Vietnam Nam war
Because of investments in Jeep etc. Regardless, I will always feel that a strong military keeps us from war, Clinton and Obama have left us sitting ducks. I hope President Trump rebuilds our military, so far he is getting many changes made, all for good!

Of course, a fact or two always helps:
military spending.gif
http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_ ... comparison" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ons-combi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/camp ... -vs-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of which proves that eddie is, as usual, just spouting nonsense.

" Forgive me my nonsense
As I also forgive the nonsense of those
Who think they talk sense. "

Robert Frost

A+ for quoting poetry.
F for Failing to address the Facts.

[Silver]

The Uses of Military Power Remarks - prepared for delivery by the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, to the National Press Club,Washington, D.C.

Thank you for inviting me to be here today with the members of the National Press Club, a group most important to our national security. I say that because a major point I intend to make in my remarks today is that the single most critical element of a successful democracy is a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes. Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve will never work. And you help to build that understanding among our citizens.
Of all the many policies our citizens deserve -- and need -- to understand, none is so important as those related to our topic today -- the uses of military power. Deterrence will work only if the Soviets understand our firm commitment to keeping the peace,... and only from a well-informed public can we expect to have that national will and commitment.

So today, I want to discuss with you perhaps the most important question concerning keeping the peace. Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the painful decision that the use of military force is necessary to protect our interests or to carry out our national policy?

National power has many components, some tangible, like economic wealth, technical pre-eminence. Other components are intangible -- such as moral force, or strong national will. Military forces, when they are strong and ready and modern, are a credible -- and tangible -- addition to a nation's power. When both the intangible national will and those forces are forged into one instrument, national power becomes effective.

In today's world, the line between peace and war is less clearly drawn than at any time in our history. When George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us, as a new democracy, to avoid foreign entanglements, Europe then lay 2-3 months by sea over the horizon. The United States was protected by the width of the oceans. Now in this nuclear age, we measure time in minutes rather than months.

Aware of the consequences of any misstep, yet convinced of the precious worth of the freedom we enjoy, we seek to avoid conflict, while maintaining strong defenses. Our policy has always been to work hard for peace, but to be prepared if war comes. Yet, so blurred have the lines become between open conflict and half-hidden hostile acts that we cannot confidently predict where, or when, or how, or from what direction aggression may arrive. We must be prepared, at any moment, to meet threats ranging in intensity from isolated terrorist acts, to guerrilla action, to full-scale military confrontation.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said that it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. If it was true then, how much more true it is today, when we must remain ready to consider the means to meet such serious indirect challenges to the peace as proxy wars and individual terrorist action. And how much more important is it now, considering the consequences of failing to deter conflict at the lowest level possible. While the use of military force to defend territory has never been questioned when a democracy has been attacked and its very survival threatened, most democracies have rejected the unilateral aggressive use of force to invade, conquer or subjugate other nations. The extent to which the use of force is acceptable remains unresolved for the host of other situations which fall between these extremes of defensive and aggressive use of force.

We find ourselves, then, face to face with a modern paradox: the most likely challenge to the peace -- the gray area conflicts -- are precisely the most difficult challenges to which a democracy must respond. Yet, while the source and nature of today's challenges are uncertain, our response must be clear and understandable. Unless we are certain that force is essential, we run the risk of inadequate national will to apply the resources needed.

Because we face a spectrum of threats -- from covert aggression, terrorism, and subversion, to overt intimidation, to use of brute force -- choosing the appropriate level of our response is difficult. Flexible response does not mean just any response is appropriate. But once a decision to employ some degree of force has been made, and the purpose clarified, our government must have the clear mandate to carry out, and continue to carry out, that decision until the purpose has been achieved. That, too, has been difficult to accomplish.

The issue of which branch of government has authority to define that mandate and make decisions on using force is now being strongly contended. Beginning in the 1970s Congress demanded, and assumed, a far more active role in the making of foreign policy and in the decisionmaking process for the employment of military forces abroad than had been thought appropriate and practical before. As a result, the centrality of decision-making authority in the Executive branch has been compromised by the Legislative branch to an extent that actively interferes with that process. At the same time, there has not been a corresponding acceptance of responsibility by Congress for the outcome of decisions concerning the employment of military forces.

Yet the outcome of decisions on whether -- and when -- and to what degree -- to use combat forces abroad has never been more important than it is today. While we do not seek to deter or settle all the world's conflicts, we must recognize that, as a major power, our responsibilities and interests are now of such scope that there are few troubled areas we can afford to ignore. So we must be prepared to deal with a range of possibilities, a spectrum of crises, from local insurgency to global conflict. We prefer, of course, to limit any conflict in its early stages, to contain and control it -- but to do that our military forces must be deployed in a timely manner, and be fully supported and prepared before they are engaged, because many of those difficult decisions must be made extremely quickly.

Some on the national scene think they can always avoid making tough decisions. Some reject entirely the question of whether any force can ever be used abroad. They want to avoid grappling with a complex issue because, despite clever rhetoric disguising their purpose, these people are in fact advocating a return to post-World War I isolationism. While they may maintain in principle that military force has a role in foreign policy, they are never willing to name the circumstance or the place where it would apply.

On the other side, some theorists argue that military force can be brought to bear in any crisis. Some of these proponents of force are eager to advocate its use even in limited amounts simply because they believe that if there are American forces of any size present they will somehow solve the problem.

Neither of these two extremes offers us any lasting or satisfactory solutions. The first -- undue reserve -- would lead us ultimately to withdraw from international events that require free nations to defend their interests from the aggressive use of force. We would be abdicating our responsibilities as the leader of the free world -- responsibilities more or less thrust upon us in the aftermath of World War II -- a war incidentally that isolationism did nothing to deter. These are responsibilities we must fulfill unless we desire the Soviet Union to keep expanding its influence unchecked throughout the world. In an international system based on mutual interdependence among nations, and alliances between friends, stark isolationism quickly would lead to a far more dangerous situation for the United States: we would be without allies and faced by many hostile or indifferent nations.

The second alternative -- employing our forces almost indiscriminately and as a regular and customary part of our diplomatic efforts -- would surely plunge us headlong into the sort of domestic turmoil we experienced during the Vietnam war, without accomplishing the goal for which we committed our forces. Such policies might very well tear at the fabric of our society, endangering the single most critical element of a successful democracy: a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes.

Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve would also earn us the scorn of our troops, who would have an understandable opposition to being used -- in every sense of the word -- casually and without intent to support them fully. Ultimately this course would reduce their morale and their effectiveness for engagements we must win. And if the military were to distrust its civilian leadership, recruitment would fall off and I fear an end to the all-volunteer system would be upon us, requiring a return to a draft, sowing the seeds of riot and discontent that so wracked the country in the '60s.

We have now restored high morale and pride in the uniform throughout the services. The all-volunteer system is working spectacularly well. Are we willing to forfeit what we have fought so hard to regain?

In maintaining our progress in strengthening America's military deterrent, we face difficult challenges. For we have entered an era where the dividing lines between peace and war are less clearly drawn, the identity of the foe is much less clear. In World Wars I and II, we not only knew who our enemies were, but we shared a clear sense of why the principles espoused by our enemies were unworthy.

Since these two wars threatened our very survival as a free nation and the survival of our allies, they were total wars, involving every aspect of our society. All our means of production, all our resources were devoted to winning. Our policies had the unqualified support of the great majority of our people. Indeed, World Wars I and II ended with the unconditional surrender of our enemies.... The only acceptable ending when the alternative was the loss of our freedom.

But in the aftermath of the Second World War, we encountered a more subtle form of warfare -- warfare in which, more often than not, the face of the enemy was masked. Territorial expansionism could be carried out indirectly by proxy powers, using surrogate forces aided and advised from afar. Some conflicts occurred under the name of "national liberation," but far more frequently ideology or religion provided the spark to the tinder.

Our adversaries can also take advantage of our open society, and our freedom of speech and opinion to use alarming rhetoric and misinformation to divide and disrupt our unity of purpose. While they would never dare to allow such freedoms to their own people, they are quick to exploit ours by conducting simultaneous military and propaganda campaigns to achieve their ends.

They realize that if they can divide our national will at home, it will not be necessary to defeat our forces abroad. So by presenting issues in bellicose terms, they aim to intimidate western leaders and citizens, encouraging us to adopt conciliatory positions to their advantage. Meanwhile they remain sheltered from the force of public opinion in their countries, because public opinion there is simply prohibited and does not exist.

Our freedom presents both a challenge and an opportunity. It is true that until democratic nations have the support of the people, they are inevitably at a disadvantage in a conflict. But when they do have that support they cannot be defeated. For democracies have the power to send a compelling message to friend and foe alike by the vote of their citizens. And the American people have sent such a signal by re-electing a strong Chief Executive. They know that President Reagan is willing to accept the responsibility for his actions and is able to lead us through these complex times by insisting that we regain both our military and our economic strength.

In today's world where minutes count, such decisive leadership is more important than ever before. Regardless of whether conflicts are limited, or threats are ill-defined, we must be capable of quickly determining that the threats and conflicts either do or do not affect the vital interests of the United States and our allies. ... And then responding appropriately.

Those threats may not entail an immediate, direct attack on our territory, and our response may not necessarily require the immediate or direct defense of our homeland. But when our vital national interests and those of our allies are at stake, we cannot ignore our safety, or forsake our allies.

At the same time, recent history has proven that we cannot assume unilaterally the role of the world's defender. We have learned that there are limits to how much of our spirit and blood and treasure we can afford to forfeit in meeting our responsibility to keep peace and freedom. So while we may and should offer substantial amounts of economic and military assistance to our allies in their time of need, and help them maintain forces to deter attacks against them -- usually we cannot substitute our troops or our will for theirs.

We should only engage our troops if we must do so as a matter of our own vital national interest. We cannot assume for other sovereign nations the responsibility to defend their territory -- without their strong invitation -- when our freedom is not threatened.

On the other hand, there have been recent cases where the United States has seen the need to join forces with other nations to try to preserve the peace by helping with negotiations, and by separating warring parties, and thus enabling those warring nations to withdraw from hostilities safely. In the Middle East, which has been torn by conflict for millennia, we have sent our troops in recent years both to the Sinai and to Lebanon, for just such a peacekeeping mission. But we did not configure or equip those forces for combat -- they were armed only for their self-defense. Their mission required them to be -- and to be recognized as -- peacekeepers. We knew that if conditions deteriorated so they were in danger, or if because of the actions of the warring nations, their peace keeping mission could not be realized, then it would be necessary either to add sufficiently to the number and arms of our troops -- in short to equip them for combat,... or to withdraw them. And so in Lebanon, when we faced just such a choice, because the warring nations did not enter into withdrawal or peace agreements, the President properly withdrew forces equipped only for peacekeeping.

In those cases where our national interests require us to commit combat force we must never let there be doubt of our resolution. When it is necessary for our troops to be committed to combat, we must commit them, in sufficient numbers and we must support them, as effectively and resolutely as our strength permits. When we commit our troops to combat we must do so with the sole object of winning.

Once it is clear our troops are required, because our vital interests are at stake, then we must have the firm national resolve to commit every ounce of strength necessary to win the fight to achieve our objectives. In Grenada we did just that.

Just as clearly, there are other situations where United States combat forces should not be used. I believe the postwar period has taught us several lessons, and from them I have developed six major tests to be applied when we are weighing the use of U.S. combat forces abroad. Let me now share them with you:

(1) First, the United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies. That emphatically does not mean that we should declare beforehand, as we did with Korea in 1950, that a particular area is outside our strategic perimeter.

(2) Second, if we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. Of course if the particular situation requires only limited force to win our objectives, then we should not hesitate to commit forces sized accordingly. When Hitler broke treaties and remilitarized the Rhineland, small combat forces then could perhaps have prevented the holocaust of World War II.

(3) Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. And we should know precisely how our forces can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should have and send the forces needed to do just that. As Clausewitz wrote, "no one starts a war -- or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so -- without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it."

War may be different today than in Clausewitz's time, but the need for well-defined objectives and a consistent strategy is still essential. If we determine that a combat mission has become necessary for our vital national interests, then we must send forces capable to do the job -- and not assign a combat mission to a force configured for peacekeeping.

(4) Fourth, the relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed -- their size, composition and disposition -- must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of a conflict. When they do change, then so must our combat requirements. We must continuously keep as a beacon light before us the basic questions: "is this conflict in our national interest?" "Does our national interest require us to fight, to use force of arms?" If the answers are "yes", then we must win. If the answers are "no," then we should not be in combat.

(5) Fifth, before the U.S. commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. This support cannot be achieved unless we are candid in making clear the threats we face; the support cannot be sustained without continuing and close consultation. We cannot fight a battle with the Congress at home while asking our troops to win a war overseas or, as in the case of Vietnam, in effect asking our troops not to win, but just to be there.

(6) Finally, the commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

I believe that these tests can be helpful in deciding whether or not we should commit our troops to combat in the months and years ahead. The point we must all keep uppermost in our minds is that if we ever decide to commit forces to combat, we must support those forces to the fullest extent of our national will for as long as it takes to win. So we must have in mind objectives that are clearly defined and understood and supported by the widest possible number of our citizens. And those objectives must be vital to our survival as a free nation and to the fulfillment of our responsibilities as a world power. We must also be farsighted enough to sense when immediate and strong reactions to apparently small events can prevent lion-like responses that may be required later. We must never forget those isolationists in Europe who shrugged that "Danzig is not worth a war," and "why should we fight to keep the Rhineland demilitarized?"

These tests I have just mentioned have been phrased negatively for a purpose -- they are intended to sound a note of caution -- caution that we must observe prior to committing forces to combat overseas. When we ask our military forces to risk their very lives in such situations, a note of caution is not only prudent, it is morally required.

In many situations we may apply these tests and conclude that a combatant role is not appropriate. Yet no one should interpret what I am saying here today as an abdication of America's responsibilities -- either to its own citizens or to its allies. Nor should these remarks be misread as a signal that this country, or this administration, is unwilling to commit forces to combat overseas.

We have demonstrated in the past that, when our vital interests or those of our allies are threatened, we are ready to use force, and use it decisively, to protect those interests. Let no one entertain any illusions -- if our vital interests are involved, we are prepared to fight. And we are resolved that if we must fight, we must win.

So, while these tests are drawn from lessons we have learned from the past, they also can -- and should -- be applied to the future. For example, the problems confronting us in Central America today are difficult. The possibility of more extensive Soviet and Soviet-proxy penetration into this hemisphere in months ahead is something we should recognize. If this happens we will clearly need more economic and military assistance and training to help those who want democracy.

The President will not allow our military forces to creep -- or be drawn gradually -- into a combat role in Central America or any other place in the world. And indeed our policy is designed to prevent the need for direct American involvement. This means we will need sustained Congressional support to back and give confidence to our friends in the region.

I believe that the tests I have enunciated here today can, if applied carefully, avoid the danger of this gradualist incremental approach which almost always means the use of insufficient force. These tests can help us to avoid being drawn inexorably into an endless morass, where it is not vital to our national interest to fight.

But policies and principles such as these require decisive leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government -- and they also require strong and sustained public support. Most of all, these policies require national unity of purpose. I believe the United States now possesses the policies and leadership to gain that public support and unity. And I believe that the future will show we have the strength of character to protect peace with freedom.

In summary, we should all remember these are the policies -- indeed the only policies -- that can preserve for ourselves, our friends, and our posterity, peace with freedom.

I believe we can continue to deter the Soviet Union and other potential adversaries from pursuing their designs around the world. We can enable our friends in Central America to defeat aggression and gain the breathing room to nurture democratic reforms. We can meet the challenge posed by the unfolding complexity of the 1980's.

We will then be poised to begin the last decade of this century amid a peace tempered by realism, and secured by firmness and strength. And it will be a peace that will enable all of us -- ourselves -- at home, and our friends abroad -- to achieve a quality of life, both spiritually and materially, far higher than man has even dared to dream.

eddie, are you unaware of Weinberger's membership in the CFR?

[eddie]

The Uses of Military Power Remarks - prepared for delivery by the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, to the National Press Club,Washington, D.C.

Thank you for inviting me to be here today with the members of the National Press Club, a group most important to our national security. I say that because a major point I intend to make in my remarks today is that the single most critical element of a successful democracy is a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes. Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve will never work. And you help to build that understanding among our citizens.
Of all the many policies our citizens deserve -- and need -- to understand, none is so important as those related to our topic today -- the uses of military power. Deterrence will work only if the Soviets understand our firm commitment to keeping the peace,... and only from a well-informed public can we expect to have that national will and commitment.

So today, I want to discuss with you perhaps the most important question concerning keeping the peace. Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the painful decision that the use of military force is necessary to protect our interests or to carry out our national policy?

National power has many components, some tangible, like economic wealth, technical pre-eminence. Other components are intangible -- such as moral force, or strong national will. Military forces, when they are strong and ready and modern, are a credible -- and tangible -- addition to a nation's power. When both the intangible national will and those forces are forged into one instrument, national power becomes effective.

In today's world, the line between peace and war is less clearly drawn than at any time in our history. When George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us, as a new democracy, to avoid foreign entanglements, Europe then lay 2-3 months by sea over the horizon. The United States was protected by the width of the oceans. Now in this nuclear age, we measure time in minutes rather than months.

Aware of the consequences of any misstep, yet convinced of the precious worth of the freedom we enjoy, we seek to avoid conflict, while maintaining strong defenses. Our policy has always been to work hard for peace, but to be prepared if war comes. Yet, so blurred have the lines become between open conflict and half-hidden hostile acts that we cannot confidently predict where, or when, or how, or from what direction aggression may arrive. We must be prepared, at any moment, to meet threats ranging in intensity from isolated terrorist acts, to guerrilla action, to full-scale military confrontation.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said that it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. If it was true then, how much more true it is today, when we must remain ready to consider the means to meet such serious indirect challenges to the peace as proxy wars and individual terrorist action. And how much more important is it now, considering the consequences of failing to deter conflict at the lowest level possible. While the use of military force to defend territory has never been questioned when a democracy has been attacked and its very survival threatened, most democracies have rejected the unilateral aggressive use of force to invade, conquer or subjugate other nations. The extent to which the use of force is acceptable remains unresolved for the host of other situations which fall between these extremes of defensive and aggressive use of force.

We find ourselves, then, face to face with a modern paradox: the most likely challenge to the peace -- the gray area conflicts -- are precisely the most difficult challenges to which a democracy must respond. Yet, while the source and nature of today's challenges are uncertain, our response must be clear and understandable. Unless we are certain that force is essential, we run the risk of inadequate national will to apply the resources needed.

Because we face a spectrum of threats -- from covert aggression, terrorism, and subversion, to overt intimidation, to use of brute force -- choosing the appropriate level of our response is difficult. Flexible response does not mean just any response is appropriate. But once a decision to employ some degree of force has been made, and the purpose clarified, our government must have the clear mandate to carry out, and continue to carry out, that decision until the purpose has been achieved. That, too, has been difficult to accomplish.

The issue of which branch of government has authority to define that mandate and make decisions on using force is now being strongly contended. Beginning in the 1970s Congress demanded, and assumed, a far more active role in the making of foreign policy and in the decisionmaking process for the employment of military forces abroad than had been thought appropriate and practical before. As a result, the centrality of decision-making authority in the Executive branch has been compromised by the Legislative branch to an extent that actively interferes with that process. At the same time, there has not been a corresponding acceptance of responsibility by Congress for the outcome of decisions concerning the employment of military forces.

Yet the outcome of decisions on whether -- and when -- and to what degree -- to use combat forces abroad has never been more important than it is today. While we do not seek to deter or settle all the world's conflicts, we must recognize that, as a major power, our responsibilities and interests are now of such scope that there are few troubled areas we can afford to ignore. So we must be prepared to deal with a range of possibilities, a spectrum of crises, from local insurgency to global conflict. We prefer, of course, to limit any conflict in its early stages, to contain and control it -- but to do that our military forces must be deployed in a timely manner, and be fully supported and prepared before they are engaged, because many of those difficult decisions must be made extremely quickly.

Some on the national scene think they can always avoid making tough decisions. Some reject entirely the question of whether any force can ever be used abroad. They want to avoid grappling with a complex issue because, despite clever rhetoric disguising their purpose, these people are in fact advocating a return to post-World War I isolationism. While they may maintain in principle that military force has a role in foreign policy, they are never willing to name the circumstance or the place where it would apply.

On the other side, some theorists argue that military force can be brought to bear in any crisis. Some of these proponents of force are eager to advocate its use even in limited amounts simply because they believe that if there are American forces of any size present they will somehow solve the problem.

Neither of these two extremes offers us any lasting or satisfactory solutions. The first -- undue reserve -- would lead us ultimately to withdraw from international events that require free nations to defend their interests from the aggressive use of force. We would be abdicating our responsibilities as the leader of the free world -- responsibilities more or less thrust upon us in the aftermath of World War II -- a war incidentally that isolationism did nothing to deter. These are responsibilities we must fulfill unless we desire the Soviet Union to keep expanding its influence unchecked throughout the world. In an international system based on mutual interdependence among nations, and alliances between friends, stark isolationism quickly would lead to a far more dangerous situation for the United States: we would be without allies and faced by many hostile or indifferent nations.

The second alternative -- employing our forces almost indiscriminately and as a regular and customary part of our diplomatic efforts -- would surely plunge us headlong into the sort of domestic turmoil we experienced during the Vietnam war, without accomplishing the goal for which we committed our forces. Such policies might very well tear at the fabric of our society, endangering the single most critical element of a successful democracy: a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes.

Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve would also earn us the scorn of our troops, who would have an understandable opposition to being used -- in every sense of the word -- casually and without intent to support them fully. Ultimately this course would reduce their morale and their effectiveness for engagements we must win. And if the military were to distrust its civilian leadership, recruitment would fall off and I fear an end to the all-volunteer system would be upon us, requiring a return to a draft, sowing the seeds of riot and discontent that so wracked the country in the '60s.

We have now restored high morale and pride in the uniform throughout the services. The all-volunteer system is working spectacularly well. Are we willing to forfeit what we have fought so hard to regain?

In maintaining our progress in strengthening America's military deterrent, we face difficult challenges. For we have entered an era where the dividing lines between peace and war are less clearly drawn, the identity of the foe is much less clear. In World Wars I and II, we not only knew who our enemies were, but we shared a clear sense of why the principles espoused by our enemies were unworthy.

Since these two wars threatened our very survival as a free nation and the survival of our allies, they were total wars, involving every aspect of our society. All our means of production, all our resources were devoted to winning. Our policies had the unqualified support of the great majority of our people. Indeed, World Wars I and II ended with the unconditional surrender of our enemies.... The only acceptable ending when the alternative was the loss of our freedom.

But in the aftermath of the Second World War, we encountered a more subtle form of warfare -- warfare in which, more often than not, the face of the enemy was masked. Territorial expansionism could be carried out indirectly by proxy powers, using surrogate forces aided and advised from afar. Some conflicts occurred under the name of "national liberation," but far more frequently ideology or religion provided the spark to the tinder.

Our adversaries can also take advantage of our open society, and our freedom of speech and opinion to use alarming rhetoric and misinformation to divide and disrupt our unity of purpose. While they would never dare to allow such freedoms to their own people, they are quick to exploit ours by conducting simultaneous military and propaganda campaigns to achieve their ends.

They realize that if they can divide our national will at home, it will not be necessary to defeat our forces abroad. So by presenting issues in bellicose terms, they aim to intimidate western leaders and citizens, encouraging us to adopt conciliatory positions to their advantage. Meanwhile they remain sheltered from the force of public opinion in their countries, because public opinion there is simply prohibited and does not exist.

Our freedom presents both a challenge and an opportunity. It is true that until democratic nations have the support of the people, they are inevitably at a disadvantage in a conflict. But when they do have that support they cannot be defeated. For democracies have the power to send a compelling message to friend and foe alike by the vote of their citizens. And the American people have sent such a signal by re-electing a strong Chief Executive. They know that President Reagan is willing to accept the responsibility for his actions and is able to lead us through these complex times by insisting that we regain both our military and our economic strength.

In today's world where minutes count, such decisive leadership is more important than ever before. Regardless of whether conflicts are limited, or threats are ill-defined, we must be capable of quickly determining that the threats and conflicts either do or do not affect the vital interests of the United States and our allies. ... And then responding appropriately.

Those threats may not entail an immediate, direct attack on our territory, and our response may not necessarily require the immediate or direct defense of our homeland. But when our vital national interests and those of our allies are at stake, we cannot ignore our safety, or forsake our allies.

At the same time, recent history has proven that we cannot assume unilaterally the role of the world's defender. We have learned that there are limits to how much of our spirit and blood and treasure we can afford to forfeit in meeting our responsibility to keep peace and freedom. So while we may and should offer substantial amounts of economic and military assistance to our allies in their time of need, and help them maintain forces to deter attacks against them -- usually we cannot substitute our troops or our will for theirs.

We should only engage our troops if we must do so as a matter of our own vital national interest. We cannot assume for other sovereign nations the responsibility to defend their territory -- without their strong invitation -- when our freedom is not threatened.

On the other hand, there have been recent cases where the United States has seen the need to join forces with other nations to try to preserve the peace by helping with negotiations, and by separating warring parties, and thus enabling those warring nations to withdraw from hostilities safely. In the Middle East, which has been torn by conflict for millennia, we have sent our troops in recent years both to the Sinai and to Lebanon, for just such a peacekeeping mission. But we did not configure or equip those forces for combat -- they were armed only for their self-defense. Their mission required them to be -- and to be recognized as -- peacekeepers. We knew that if conditions deteriorated so they were in danger, or if because of the actions of the warring nations, their peace keeping mission could not be realized, then it would be necessary either to add sufficiently to the number and arms of our troops -- in short to equip them for combat,... or to withdraw them. And so in Lebanon, when we faced just such a choice, because the warring nations did not enter into withdrawal or peace agreements, the President properly withdrew forces equipped only for peacekeeping.

In those cases where our national interests require us to commit combat force we must never let there be doubt of our resolution. When it is necessary for our troops to be committed to combat, we must commit them, in sufficient numbers and we must support them, as effectively and resolutely as our strength permits. When we commit our troops to combat we must do so with the sole object of winning.

Once it is clear our troops are required, because our vital interests are at stake, then we must have the firm national resolve to commit every ounce of strength necessary to win the fight to achieve our objectives. In Grenada we did just that.

Just as clearly, there are other situations where United States combat forces should not be used. I believe the postwar period has taught us several lessons, and from them I have developed six major tests to be applied when we are weighing the use of U.S. combat forces abroad. Let me now share them with you:

(1) First, the United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies. That emphatically does not mean that we should declare beforehand, as we did with Korea in 1950, that a particular area is outside our strategic perimeter.

(2) Second, if we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. Of course if the particular situation requires only limited force to win our objectives, then we should not hesitate to commit forces sized accordingly. When Hitler broke treaties and remilitarized the Rhineland, small combat forces then could perhaps have prevented the holocaust of World War II.

(3) Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. And we should know precisely how our forces can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should have and send the forces needed to do just that. As Clausewitz wrote, "no one starts a war -- or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so -- without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it."

War may be different today than in Clausewitz's time, but the need for well-defined objectives and a consistent strategy is still essential. If we determine that a combat mission has become necessary for our vital national interests, then we must send forces capable to do the job -- and not assign a combat mission to a force configured for peacekeeping.

(4) Fourth, the relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed -- their size, composition and disposition -- must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of a conflict. When they do change, then so must our combat requirements. We must continuously keep as a beacon light before us the basic questions: "is this conflict in our national interest?" "Does our national interest require us to fight, to use force of arms?" If the answers are "yes", then we must win. If the answers are "no," then we should not be in combat.

(5) Fifth, before the U.S. commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. This support cannot be achieved unless we are candid in making clear the threats we face; the support cannot be sustained without continuing and close consultation. We cannot fight a battle with the Congress at home while asking our troops to win a war overseas or, as in the case of Vietnam, in effect asking our troops not to win, but just to be there.

(6) Finally, the commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

I believe that these tests can be helpful in deciding whether or not we should commit our troops to combat in the months and years ahead. The point we must all keep uppermost in our minds is that if we ever decide to commit forces to combat, we must support those forces to the fullest extent of our national will for as long as it takes to win. So we must have in mind objectives that are clearly defined and understood and supported by the widest possible number of our citizens. And those objectives must be vital to our survival as a free nation and to the fulfillment of our responsibilities as a world power. We must also be farsighted enough to sense when immediate and strong reactions to apparently small events can prevent lion-like responses that may be required later. We must never forget those isolationists in Europe who shrugged that "Danzig is not worth a war," and "why should we fight to keep the Rhineland demilitarized?"

These tests I have just mentioned have been phrased negatively for a purpose -- they are intended to sound a note of caution -- caution that we must observe prior to committing forces to combat overseas. When we ask our military forces to risk their very lives in such situations, a note of caution is not only prudent, it is morally required.

In many situations we may apply these tests and conclude that a combatant role is not appropriate. Yet no one should interpret what I am saying here today as an abdication of America's responsibilities -- either to its own citizens or to its allies. Nor should these remarks be misread as a signal that this country, or this administration, is unwilling to commit forces to combat overseas.

We have demonstrated in the past that, when our vital interests or those of our allies are threatened, we are ready to use force, and use it decisively, to protect those interests. Let no one entertain any illusions -- if our vital interests are involved, we are prepared to fight. And we are resolved that if we must fight, we must win.

So, while these tests are drawn from lessons we have learned from the past, they also can -- and should -- be applied to the future. For example, the problems confronting us in Central America today are difficult. The possibility of more extensive Soviet and Soviet-proxy penetration into this hemisphere in months ahead is something we should recognize. If this happens we will clearly need more economic and military assistance and training to help those who want democracy.

The President will not allow our military forces to creep -- or be drawn gradually -- into a combat role in Central America or any other place in the world. And indeed our policy is designed to prevent the need for direct American involvement. This means we will need sustained Congressional support to back and give confidence to our friends in the region.

I believe that the tests I have enunciated here today can, if applied carefully, avoid the danger of this gradualist incremental approach which almost always means the use of insufficient force. These tests can help us to avoid being drawn inexorably into an endless morass, where it is not vital to our national interest to fight.

But policies and principles such as these require decisive leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government -- and they also require strong and sustained public support. Most of all, these policies require national unity of purpose. I believe the United States now possesses the policies and leadership to gain that public support and unity. And I believe that the future will show we have the strength of character to protect peace with freedom.

In summary, we should all remember these are the policies -- indeed the only policies -- that can preserve for ourselves, our friends, and our posterity, peace with freedom.

I believe we can continue to deter the Soviet Union and other potential adversaries from pursuing their designs around the world. We can enable our friends in Central America to defeat aggression and gain the breathing room to nurture democratic reforms. We can meet the challenge posed by the unfolding complexity of the 1980's.

We will then be poised to begin the last decade of this century amid a peace tempered by realism, and secured by firmness and strength. And it will be a peace that will enable all of us -- ourselves -- at home, and our friends abroad -- to achieve a quality of life, both spiritually and materially, far higher than man has even dared to dream.

eddie, are you unaware of Weinberger's membership in the CFR?

Council on Foreign Relations? I still like the article, he makes more sense than you.

[Silver]

The Uses of Military Power Remarks - prepared for delivery by the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, to the National Press Club,Washington, D.C.

We will then be poised to begin the last decade of this century amid a peace tempered by realism, and secured by firmness and strength. And it will be a peace that will enable all of us -- ourselves -- at home, and our friends abroad -- to achieve a quality of life, both spiritually and materially, far higher than man has even dared to dream.

eddie, are you unaware of Weinberger's membership in the CFR?

Council on Foreign Relations? I still like the article, he makes more sense than you.

Thanks for self-identifying yourself as one who refuses to awaken.

Ether 8:
22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

[simpleton]

And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

8 But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles—for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, (America)and have scattered my people (Indians)who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out (cast out to indian reservations) from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them; (literally fulfilled)

9 And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people (Indians) who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people (Indians) who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them—(again most literally fulfilled, read history of our nation)

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: ("you" meaning Indians or Lamanites who are a mixture of Laminates and Nephites) At that day when the Gentiles (Gentiles, meaning us) shall sin against my gospel,( again that is us ) and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, ( which we as a whole have rejected the fulness of Christs gospel) and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations,(a perfect description of us Gentiles in America today,,, now) and above all the people of the whole earth, ( again describing us very accurately) and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; ( oh me oh my does the truth hurt describing us today) and if they shall do all those things, ( and we have done and are doing "those things") and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, ( and we have also rejected the fulness of His gospel) behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.( I suppose this is about to happen, or maybe already has happened but we just don't know it)

11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.

12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you;( then again I suppose hasn't happened as us Gentiles still hold power over the Indians) but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel. ( I don't think has quite happened)

13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. ( now this sentence is interesting as I suppose we could debate the timing of the fulfillment of it , but as to where it is placed in this chapter I suppose the timing is after the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith and then our rejection of the fulness)

14 And I will not suffer my people,( Indians) who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them,( us Gentiles who have rejected the fulness) and tread them down, saith the Father.

15 But if they ( us Gentiles) will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them,( Indians) yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they (Indians) shall go through among them, ( us Gentiles)and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel. ( I suppose about to happen to us Gentiles as, if we have not lost our savor, we are sure close to losing it)

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded me—that I should give unto this (Indians/Lamanites/Nephites) people this land for their inheritance.

17 And then the words of the prophet Isaiah shall be fulfilled, which say:

18 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion. ( we definitely do not see eye to eye today)

19 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.

20 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm
( "Holy Arm" which in my opinion is this Davidical King or latter day Deliverer) in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.

[ajax]

ESCALATION The Truth About Trump and the Military Action in Yemen
http://www.targetliberty.com/2017/02/th ... itary.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although many libertarians believe that President Trump will reign in the overseas adventures of the U.S. military, it is extremely difficult to understand how this view is held.

First, it is clear that he will expand the military. On Monday, during a speech at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, he told Coalition Representatives and Senior U.S. Commanders:

We will ensure that the men and women of our military have the tools, equipment, resources, training, and supplies you need to get the job done. You’ve seen me say we’ve been depleted. Our navy is at a point almost as low as World War I. That’s a long time ago. That’s a long time ago. It’s not going to happen anymore, folks. It’s not going to happen anymore -- not with me...

We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States and show the entire world that America stands with those who stand in defense of freedom.

At the Air Force base, he also stated that NATO members must pay their fair share but he also said, "We strongly support NATO."

Now word comes out that White House national security adviser Michael Flynn will recommend that Trump support allowing the small Balkan nation of Montenegro to join NATO.

It is not clear whether Trump will take Flynn's advice but there is no indication that Trump has any plans at all to fold up the NATO tent and bring the U.S. troops home from NATO countries. Trump, supporting Montenegro for NATO membership, which Russia would look unfavorably upon, would stick another dagger into Trump Fanboys who have somehow promoted the idea that Trump is going to disband NATO. Not going to happen.

But the most disturbing thing that has happened, since Trump has taken power, occurred in Yemen.

We are being provided more details about the failed attack: One American Navy SEAL and more than a dozen civilians dead, among those killed was, an 8-year-old girl, Nawar al-Awlaki. We now also know that Trump by ordering the attack escalated beyond the methods of operations that Obama used.

According to NBC News, after two months of military preparation increasingly focused on the opportunity to capture [high ranking al Qaeda leader Qassim] al-Rimi, Trump was told by Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, that his capture would be a "game changer," according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the discussions.

But here's the thing, as reported by Bonnie Kristian (my bold):

President Trump promised real change in US foreign policy, and in at least one clear regard he has already delivered: Where President Obama spent six years waging covert drone warfare in Yemen and nearly two years quietly supporting brutal Saudi intervention in the Gulf state’s civil war, Trump drew national outrage to this heretofore ignored conflict in nine days flat.

He did so by ordering a commando raid to take out a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)....Americans’ new attention to US intervention in Yemen is rightly focused on these details, especially the tragic and preventable deaths. But if we only notice the particulars of this strike, we run the risk of missing an alarming bigger picture: This raid marked the first time the United States has put boots on the ground in combat in the Yemeni civil war, and those SEALs were sent into the line of fire without constitutionally-required authorization from Congress.

If that seems like a pedantic consideration, I assure you it is not. This is a major new development in a military intervention launched by the Obama White House without public discussion or a declaration of war.

Before Trump took office, I stated that he would put U.S. troops on the ground in the Middle East. This has now occurred and I expect much more when the military comes back with plans he has requested via an Executive Order on "how to fight ISIS harder" and how to establish "safe zones" in Syria and Yemen.

The fact that Trump wants to build up the military could by itself be considered simply a defensive measure (although a measure that could be questioned as to its necessity), especially if Trump were to shutdown NATO. But he isn't going to close NATO and he does want to "wipeout" ISIS and has already, before the plans he requested are back, ordered a troops on the ground attack in Yemen.

From these early indications, Trump foreign policy is going to be horrific.

I would recommend to Trump fanboys that they retreat now. Trump should be abandoned. He is not the second coming of Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. He is not even the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

-RW

UPDATE

From former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, without apparently being aware of the troops on the ground escalation orchestrated by Mad Dog and Trump:

Hopes for the Trump administration are not burning brightly. Trump’s military chief, Gen. Mattis, is turning out to be true to his “mad dog” nickname. He has just declared that Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”

He has declared Russia to be the number one threat to the US.

He has threatened intervention in China’s territorial affairs.

I was wrong. I thought Gen. Mattis was a reasonable choice as he rejects the efficacy of torture, and, according to Trump, convinced Trump that “torture doesn’t work.” Apparently, Mattis cannot reach beyond this realization to higher geopolitical realizations. Trump needs to fire Mattis who has placed the Pentagon in the way of normal relations with Russia.

There is no evidence in the behavior of Iran, Russia, and China to support Gen.Mattis’ views. His definition of threat is the neoconservative one—a country capable of resisting US hegemony. This is a convenient threat for the military/security complex as it justifies an unlimited budget in order to prevail over such “threats.” It is this hegemonic impulse that is the source of terrorism...
We are also hearing from Mattis and from Tillerson threats to intervene in China’s sphere of influence. Trump’s appointees appear to be unable to understand that there can be no improvement in relations with Russia if the Trump regime has Iran and China in its crosshairs.

Is there any prospect that the Trump administration can develop geopolitical awareness? Is the tough-talking Trump administration tough enough to overthrow the power that Zionist Israel exercises over US foreign policy and the votes of the US Congress?

If not, more war is inevitable.

[ajax]

From the libertarian institute blog:

The US has alliances with over 50 other countries that will require the US to go to war in defense of those countries.

923 children were killed by war in Afghanistan in 2016. This is a 25% increase in the number of children killed in 2015.

3,498 civilians were killed by war in Afghanistan in 2016. An additional 7,920 were wounded by fighting.

[Separatist]

Trump Grants Pentagon Additional Authority to Carry Out Raids in Yemen as He....

....meets with leaders from Saudi Arabia---who are behind the war with Yemen.

The authority gives military commanders more freedom to carry out missions in order to achieve "a strategic effect" -- that is, a broader military goal agreed upon by the President -- as opposed to needing approval for each strike and raid on a case-by-case basis.

And get this:

The White House is talking to the Pentagon about providing similar leeway in Libya and Somalia, a US defense official told CNN Monday.

This is just horrific. I wonder if libertarian Trump fanboys continue to hold the view that Trump is going to have a smaller military footprint overseas.

[Separatist]

U.S. Sending 2,500 Ground Combat Troops to Kuwait

The escalation continues.

The U.S. military is sending an additional 2,500 ground combat troops to a staging base in Kuwait from which they could be called upon to back up coalition forces battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, reports the Army Times.

The deployment will include elements of the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team, which is based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. About 1,700 soldiers from the same unit are overseas now, spread between Iraq and Kuwait. They're focused on the U.S.-led effort to train and assist the Iraqi troops doing much of the fighting against ISIS there.

These new personnel, however, will be "postured there to do all things Mosul, Raqqa, all in between," Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Anderson, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, told House lawmakers.

[Silver]

The foregoing articles are sharp reminders that the Gadiantons are still large and in charge, claims to the contrary by Trump supporters notwithstanding.

But I'm leaving the light on for the Trump supporters here. They'll see it one day. What kind of sandwich do you make the day after Thanksgiving? A turkey sandwich, of course. Cold turkey. How do you stop smoking? Cold turkey. How should Trump supporters react to the truth about Trump. Cold turkey, leave him and seek the real truth.

[Separatist]

Trump Reviewing Ways to Make It Easier to Launch Drone Strikes

http://www.targetliberty.com/2017/03/tr ... asier.html

The Trump administration is close to finishing a review that would make it easier for the Pentagon to launch counterterrorism strikes anywhere in the world by lowering the threshold on acceptable civilian casualties and scaling back other constraints imposed by the Obama administration, reports The Washington Post.

WaPo continues:

The ongoing review, which has reached senior levels of the National Security Council, would undo a series of rules that Obama imposed, beginning in 2013, to rein in drone operations outside active war zones.

The Trump review must still be approved by the president, but recent drafts of the new policy would represent a major change in the way the United States approaches drone strikes and other targeted-killing operations in places such as Yemen, Somalia and Libya.

The changes to the Obama-era Presidential Policy Guidance would empower the Pentagon to make decisions on targets without approval from the White House and potentially scrap the “near-certainty” standard of no civilian deaths for strikes outside war zones. The Trump plans are also likely to relax the requirement that potential terror targets pose a “continuing and imminent threat” to U.S. personnel, officials said.

[ajax]

'Bomb the Sh*t Out Of Them!' - Trump Drones Yemen More in One Week Than Obama in a Year

U.S. Drone Strikes Have Gone Up 432% Since Trump Took Office

[ajax]

Air strikes on Isis-held Mosul 'leave 230 civilians dead', reports local media
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 46011.html

At least 200 people killed in Mosul air strikes
http://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/230320172

Possible U.S. strike allegedly kills 33 civilians in school
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-alleg ... civilians/

US Investigating Airstrike on Syria Mosque Which Killed 49 Civilians
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/03/21/us-i ... civilians/

[ajax]

Trump Declares Somalia a War Zone; US Military Actions Will Intensify
http://www.targetliberty.com/2017/03/tr ... ne-us.html

Oh yeah, Trump is going to bring U.S. troops home (in body bags).

America First, LOL.

From The New York Times:

President Trump has relaxed some of the rules for preventing civilian casualties when the American military carries out counterterrorism strikes in Somalia, laying the groundwork for an escalating campaign against Islamist militants in the Horn of Africa.

The decision, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations, gives commanders at the United States Africa Command greater latitude to carry out offensive airstrikes and raids by ground troops against militants with the Qaeda-linked Islamist group Shabab. That sets the stage for an intensified pace of combat there, while increasing the risk that American forces could kill civilians.

Mr. Trump signed a directive on Wednesday declaring parts of Somalia an “area of active hostilities,” where war-zone targeting rules will apply for at least 180 days, the officials said.

[ajax]

Senior Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Comments on Trump's Remarkable Increase in Drone Strikes
http://www.targetliberty.com/2017/03/se ... tions.html

This is some very solid commentary by Micah Zenko, senior fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations:

[During the presidential election campaign] Trump and his loyalists consistently implied that he would be less supportive of costly and bloody foreign wars, especially when compared to President Obama, and by extension, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This might be true, but nonetheless the White House is considering deploying even more U.S. troops to Syria, loosening the rules of engagement for airstrikes, and increasing the amount of lethal assistance provided to Syrian rebel groups.

By at least one measure at this point in his presidency, Trump has been more interventionist than Obama: in authorizing drone strikes and special operations raids in non-battlefield settings (namely, in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia). During President Obama’s two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 37 drone strikes or raids in 68 days—one every 1.8 days. These include three drone strikes in Yemen on January 20, 21, and 22; the January 28 Navy SEAL raid in Yemen; one reported strike in Pakistan on March 1; more than thirty strikes in Yemen on March 2 and 3; at least one more on March 6; and one in Yemen on March 29.

Thus, people who believed that Trump would be less interventionist than Obama are wrong, at least so far and at least when it comes to drone strikes. These dramatically increased lethal strikes demonstrate that U.S. leaders’ counterterrorism mindset and policies are bipartisan and transcend presidential administrations. As I have noted, U.S. counterterrorism ideology is virulent and extremist, characterized by tough-sounding clichés and wholly implausible objectives. There has never been any serious indication among elected politicians or appointed national security officials of any strategic learning or policy adjustments. We are now on our third post-9/11 administration pursuing many of the same policies that have failed to meaningfully reduce the number of jihadist extremist fighters, or their attractiveness among potential recruits or self-directed terrorists. The Global War on Terrorism remains broadly unquestioned within Washington, no matter who is in the White House.

[Separatist]

US Launched Over 20 Airstrikes Against Yemen This Past Weekend
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/05/us-l ... t-weekend/

by Jason Ditz, April 05, 2017

The Pentagon carried out over 70 airstrikes in March against targets inside Yemen, which was more than US forces carried out in all of 2016. That trend of escalation appears to be continuing into early April, with officials saying over 20 strikes were launched [urlhttps://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/us-condu ... a-in-yemen]just in the first two days of April[/url].

Officials say that the strikes, which were mostly launched by drones, targeted al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) targets around the Shabwa Province, focusing on “infrastructure” and “fighting positions.” They provided no indication on death tolls.

AQAP is considered a high priority for the Trump Administration, and Pentagon officials have been playing up the threat in trying to get approval for an escalation in the US involvement in the Saudi invasion of Yemen, even though the Saudi war is unrelated to AQAP, and the Saudis have largely ignored fighting with them.

Indeed, AQAP gained considerable territory after the Saudi invasion, because the focus of the invasion was on chasing the Shi’ites out of southern Yemen, and little effort was made to secure broad chunks of rural territory which has since been added to AQAP’s territory.

[Separatist]

Trump bombing foreigners at 5 times the pace Obama did:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-is ... did-2017-4

[Separatist]

'They're going to kill me next': Yemen family fears drone strikes under Trump

Before Trump took office, the US drones that killed several members of the Tuaiman family used to come about once a week. Now they come every day

Read rest here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... p-escalate

[larsenb]

In a recent meeting in his hometown of St. Petersburg, Putin said the U.S. CIA is responsible for 95% of the terrorist incident in the world. Article taken from: http://novorossia.today/putin-95-of-wor ... y-the-cia/

Putin: ‘95% Of World Terrorist Attacks Are Orchestrated By The CIA’
on: April 06, 2017

Shockwaves are reverberating around the Kremlin after an extraordinary meeting called by Vladimir Putin yesterday during which the Russian president said that “95% of the world’s terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA,” and the St. Petersburg metro bombing must be investigated “with this in mind.“

Speaking at a behind closed doors forum for the highest echelons of government and staff in his home city of St. Petersburg, Putin responded to questions about the metro blast by pointing out who is responsible for the vast majority of world terror attacks: the U.S. deep state, and the radical Islamic groups they sponsor to destabilize key regions in the world.

Putin slammed his fist on the table and exclaimed, “If the CIA have Russian blood on their hands, they will forever regret stirring the Russian bear from its peaceful slumber,” according to sources close to the President. Putin then vowed to ramp up investigations into the terrorist attack even further.

When questioned by a top aide as to whether the 95% figure was accurate, Putin sighed heavily and fixed the assembled group with his trademark stare before explaining that in regards to how the world is run, all is not how it seems.

Putin claims that the CIA is a rogue element of the deep state, and “an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a New World Order.“

Resisting gentle attempts by close aides to stop the President “going there,” Putin said that the evidence was everywhere, and that he personally had intimate knowledge of their dealings.

Suffice it to say, the CIA exists today as part of America – but it is certainly not American. “The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests.”

Asked if he thought the St Petersburg bomb was the beginning of a CIA plot to oust him from power, as has been suggested in the media, Putin said, “It will take more than a bag of tricks in a subway to make me blink.“

Putin also said that mankind has been manipulated to become “unconscious” through the use of programming by media and politics, the perfect example being the public’s submissive response to the recent WikiLeaks Vault7 leak.

Rather than kicking off worldwide protests about the CIA’s overreach and illegal activities, the mainstream media have actively dumbed down the masses and lulled them into a state of compliance.

[iWriteStuff]

Trump bombing foreigners at 5 times the pace Obama did:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-is ... did-2017-4

To be fair, I think bombing foreigners got boring to Obama in the last years of his presidency. To Trump, this is a whole new thrill.

Nothing says, "You're fired!" quite like a tomahawk missile.