“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President
One exceptionally stupid argument of modern progressives is that guns are now a useless deterrent against tyranny, because military weaponry is too powerful.
That explains how a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan have thwarted invading Soviet and US armies for 24 years since 1980.
Such is the nature of asymmetrical combat. Stealthy low tech solutions can go around high cost, complex, high tech solutions obsessively and blindly applied. High tech must work every time. Low tech only needs to succeed enough to discourage the use of power against it.
See the success of the colonists against the greatest army ever known as of 1776 in the American Revolution. Especially when the commitment of the command structure of the great army does not have the stomach for devastating destruction as was done by General Sherman that ended the American Civil War and as we did to Japan to end WWII.
See the Korean, Vietnam, and Afghanistan wars as examples of the contrary. The best that could be said of any of those wars is that we were reduced to a very costly stalemate. This was done with 12th Century tactics because we did not have the stomach to obliterate our opponents, their cities, and their lands. Yet we had the power to turn their entire countries into radioactive green glass. We did not have the moral courage to use that power. Our lives and treasure were spent in futility and without benefit.
If it is worth going to war, the war must be resolute and total with the defeat of the enemy the primary objective. If it comes down to we or them, it must always be we over them. A tentative and proportional response never works. Appeasement always fails.
“Yet we had the power to turn their entire countries into radioactive green glass. We did not have the moral courage to use that power.”
Bingo!
And if we could not do that to our enemies abroad, why would anyone think we can do that to our own citizens at home? Our government would not survive a bloodbath at home, and our troops would not obey that order.
EXACTLY! For the majority of first term service members the difference between a lawful and unlawful order is not really clear when it comes to posse comitatus and they rely on their leaders to make it so. A survey of Army personnel I saw years ago that dealt directly with the questions of putting down domestic demonstrations and insurrections demonstrated that the vast majority of 2nd enlistment troops and career soldiers DO understand the difference. FACT: No US service person takes an oath to serve a government or a person. Their oath is to the Constitution and thus the people. They swear to follow the LAWFUL orders given by their chain of command which includes the president as Commander & Chief but it takes a few years of service for most members of the armed forces to understand that and it’s implications.
It sickens me every time I have heard the current president refer to “His” military. It is NOT his. It belongs to the citizens of this Constitutional Republic. But the current Constitutional Scholar in the WH doesn’t even understand that basic fact.
What rah said. (I may have a new BFF!)
My family’s military service goes back to The Revolution. There is no question as to where the loyalty of the vast majority of our troops, and our citizens, lie.
rah very nicely said what I was going to say.
Have you heard of the Gamma Ray Bomb? The whole theater of war is nothing but smoke and mirrors to the public and even insider’s eye. Nothing truly serious has happened there in decades. Or, correction – nothing serious that we know enough to write about. Once an element in play has become legend there is no accurate accounting for what could occur behind it, especially when so many obvious tells go unnoticed inside its legendary shadow. Acceptance of face-value contradiction is key.
Airplanes can’t hold ground. Dropping bombs does not hold ground. You can’t hold ground with high tech. It takes men with guns.
Radioactive green glass does not need to be “held”. In fact, it is wise not to hold it.
The point of war is to eliminate threat and aggression but not to gain wealth. A fully capitalist society can create all the wealth it needs through production and trade. Theft and conquest are wastes of time and effort. They are destructive to both production and trade as well as wealth held in reserve for future production and trade.
Non sequitur. The topic is Afghanistan. Or are you suggesting we should have nuked Afghanistan?
I am suggesting that if it was worth being there it was worth making sure nothing was left standing. Most of all, we should not have had the so called rules of engagement that sacrificed our peoples lives to save theirs. However, Afghanistan was a proxy war and we should have not gone there. We had no need to put “boots on the ground” especially there.
The real enemy was Iran and Islam. If within 72 hours of 9/11, had Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, and Mecca been vaporized, we would have had no more problems with the middle east. Then, if they did cause problems, all we would have needed to do is say “Do you want some more of the same?”. Then have our finger on the button fully prepared to push it.
The reason we have lost the war against terror is that we did not identify the enemy. As a consequence, we failed to devastate the actual enemy to the point they had no more stomach for their so called holy war. As it is, we only armed them by trying to play nice nice and made ourselves weaker by expending the wealth of generations. It was all so pointless and without a positive result. That is unless the point was for us to commit suicide.
We have the moral right to live our lives as we see fit. We also have the moral right to obliterate anyone who tries to make it otherwise for whatever reason. Until we find that moral courage and clarity, we will continue to lose.
You assume the Russians and Chinese would have done nothing had we nuked their client states. Tossing nukes around is not a rational plan.
Not doing it didn’t work out so well. When you are dealing with bullies, the only way to do it is to knock them down so hard, they can’t get up.
Rather than fearing we will make our enemies angry at us, we should act in such a way they will fear making us angry. If they want to join civilization and start creating value and trading value for value, we would welcome them. As long as they want to reduce the world to the status of the 9th century with them as masters, we must have the moral courage to make sure THAT simply cannot and will not happen.
Yep. The more primitive the war the more it’s result depends upon people on the ground doing the hardest dirties jobs in the world getting up close and personal with the enemy eye ball to eye ball. In most major wars of the modern era artillery,The King of Battles, has caused more wounds and kills than infantry but Artillery, like about everything else, supports the Queen of Battles which is the infantry which takes and holds the deadly ground or at least clears it of the enemy presence.
On the other hand though the US did supply sophisticated portable missiles to bring down the Soviet helicopters – every helicopter brought down cost a fortune – and this changed the nature of the war.
The Soviets lost because the economic cost became too great. I think the western allies are finding the same thing.
The Soviets lost for several reasons including the Pakistani safe area and the fact that their infantry would not go up into rarefied air of those cold high rocky mountains to root out the bases of power and havens of the Mujahedin. Something US troops from the 10th Mountain and 101st and SF did early on and something that has to be done again and again if your going to accomplish any long term objective there. But this president can’t even define what a victory would be in Afghanistan and thus we have lost more fine people under his “leadership” than we did under Bush before him and are failing despite the best efforts of those doing the dirty work. Get them out! You go to win or at least accomplish clear hard objectives or you don’t go at all.
Also don’t forget the Viet Cong managed to survive a long time.
It sure worked in Germany though. Of course, we confiscated every firearm in the country, & shot looters without trial. Limited, conditional warfare is rarely effective.
I actually had two “Progressives” use that argument. “Even if you had a rifle you couldn’t do anything to stop an armored truck!”
My response: “Of course not! The purpose of a rifle is not to stop an armored truck. The purpose is to kill the driver when he gets out of the cab.”
Their response: “uhhhhhh….”
Perhaps a better response on my part would have been, ” “Of course not! The purpose of a rifle is not to stop an armored truck. The purpose is to kill the traitorous S.O.B. civilians who supported governmental tyranny in the first place!”
Gee, about anyone that knows a little WW II military history knows that Molotov cocktails were used by the Russians with great effect against German armored vehicles! Most progressives are as dumb as a post when it comes to history. If they weren’t, most wouldn’t be progressives. And forget about them understanding what a platter charge, or expedient Bangalore for cutting tracks on a vehicle is.
I had one tell me there is no difference between a civilian garbage man and soldier tasked with the same duty. The simple concept that the service member upon enlistment signs a blank check for any price, up to and including his or her life, eludes them.
I can provide far too many examples of such ignorance. And the problem is you can explain things to them in simple terms and they still don’t get it.
Hubert Humphrey—A Minnesota Boy!!! The Minneapolis Airport at one time had two separate locations, Humphrey Airport and the LIndberg Airport. Some idiots changed that to Airport 1 and Airport 2.
BTW Jason, My military training was in part that of being a Sapper Engineer which is heavy in demolitions. Some of that training is field expedient. So, almost everything I need to stop a tank with improvised explosives I can find in my kitchen. You just have to hold your weapon to secure my putting in place. (What I do not have, of course, is a detonating device)
I am glad to know that people such as yourself have such knowledge. May we never have to use it, but it sure seems like the Powers That Be are pushing to make slaves of us all.
Who do you think they’ll collect on the first round of “public safety arrests” against “domestic terrorists”?
Too many of us.
I suggest some of you consider talking to folks who have served in Afghanistan. A nephew recently finished his 3rd deployment, this time as a company commander (Parachute Infantry). US units have had great success in seeking out and engaging Taliban forces. However Afghanistan is a big country and we can’t be everywhere. Success in Afghanistan will depend on the quality of Afghan units, specifically their leadership, along with the political leadership necessary to keep them believing in their mission. In a society where clan and tribal relationships far outrank any sense of nationhood, development of these units and their commanders takes a very long time. As in a generation or two.
What the US has been successful in doing is removing the Taliban from their leadership position and creating an environment where Afghans have at least some choice in what sort of society they can create. You can’t really expect more than that without a willingness to stay for 40 years.
I have friends and family that have served multiple tours, and we speak often.
Your point?
Over your head.