The Army And The Nation

Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.



An Army fights for its nation’s land, not for any kind of values.  A nation is not an evangelical organization.  It has no inherent mission to promote values inside or outside its borders, though it may have a strategic reason to do so outside its borders.  Values creation, preservation and promotion is the responsibility of a nation’s families.  An Army is not an NGO, and an NGO is not a family.

Nor is an Army a democratic organization.  A nation may be democratic, but an Army cannot be and remain an Army.  At root, trunk and branches, a nation of any kind depends absolutely on establishment and protection by a continuously successful non-democratic force-at-arms.

A nation is a country, not a people.  A country comprises three elements:  Land, Families and Constitution, with its consequential legal system.  To call a nation or country a people is to promote families’ genocide by deprivation – mentally, morally, physically and spiritually – of Land and Constitution.  A nation rests on three pillars: Land-Families-Constitution.

The responsibility of a nation’s Armed Forces is national defense, not national security.  National security is the responsibility of a nation’s families.  A nation whose Army cannot defend it is a butt, not a nation.

So, in the context of national affairs, let us speak of fighting for one’s land, not for one’s values.  And in the same context, let us speak for fostering our national defense, not our national security.  Values and national security are properly promoted inside families.  In fact, values and national security are synonyms that belong to the families of a nation.

Update 1: Putting Women In Combat Is An Even Worse Idea Than You’d Think

Update 2: Murphy’s Law: The Realities Of Defense Spending

Update 3: Attrition: The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Army

Update 4: Special Operations: What Makes It All So Special

Update 5: 6 Reasons Why Starship Troopers Is The New The Art Of War

Update 6: I have not read the report and do not know the man.  But off the top of this ancient and declining head, this sounds seriously unAmerican.  FWIW, if anything at all, which may well be a stretch too far, that’s this nobody’s knee-jerk response to this report of CSA Milley’s statement.  Unless deceived and forced by politicians and wimpy senior officers, Americans do not fight for lost causes.  We fight only to win.  I am happy to be declared ephemeral in my estimate of the CSA’s statement if needs be.

My knee-jerk was to Milley’s tone, which stuck me as insufficiently proactive and suspiciously willing to tolerate outcomes short of unconditional surrender by/annihilation of whatever enemy the electorate’s representatives choose to fight.

My health improves in direct proportion to said representatives’ resolve to drive any enemy to the surrender-signing deck of BB-63, so to speak.

Even my long-time close friend, socialist-leaning, Democratic Party partisan Soldier here is now talking unconditional surrender by the enemy as the only acceptable outcome of US war action in MENA.

Mattis’/POTUS’ moving policy from attrition to annihilation in re ISIL steps in that direction.  Milley’s tone, such as I read it, suggests to me that he does not grasp the importance of that.  If that is true, it means he also does not grasp the mood of the country he serves or the Army he leads.  Also, if true, it means SECDEF likely is giving him an attitude readjustment.

The other thing I picked up from Milley is the trap of tech worry.  It makes suppliers happy, and is necessary, but it not primary.  Primary is the reason for engaging an enemy, the objective sought from that engagement and the congruence, or not, of assets committed with the objective stated.  Since 1950, USA citizens’ representatives have been fighting wars without the objective of victory — except briefly with Reagan in re the USSR — and without assets provided that are commensurate with the only rational objective of war, namely, unconditional surrender of the enemy force.

Magnificent personal and unit heroics and other achievements cannot substitute for or repair an absence of grand national strategic goal that is rational in Von Clausewitz’s sense of national objective, and assets committed to achieving it, matching actual national interest.  Since 1950, USA statecraft had been irrational, except briefly in the mid-to-late 1980s, and then narrowly only in regard to the USSR.  It has been containment or negotiated peace rather than unconditional surrender.  These doctrines defy national interest in that they leave an enemy puissant.  Containment and negotiated peace are irrational statecraft.  They are not statecraft at all, really, merely treacley bromides.

Perhaps that weakness is being pushed out now by strength, aka patriotism willing to take an enemy to his own wall and make him an offer he cannot refuse.  If so, I would expect some starred personalities to be retiring and some fighters taking their place.

Technology is a means like money and any other asset: when proper objectives are resolved upon, proper conduct practiced, proactivity rampant, there is no lack of it.  Get out of Americans’ way and they will supply means required to protect themselves.

Update 7: Army Creates Security Force Assistance Brigade and Military Advisor Training Academy at Fort Benning



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *