Are We a Militaristic Nation?

It would be a waste of good breath to argue with some factions around the world that the United States is not a militaristic nation. Their evidence would be the constant photos of our soldiers in combat gear serving in the world's hot spots. During war times it is harder still to proclaim our peaceful and moderate intentions. And finally, the Bush Doctrine which touts the necessity of the pre-emptive strike tends to project a militaristic bent.

Yet I would argue that with all of that and more, the United States, as represented by its people is not a militaristic or warmongering society. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Unlike some warring factions of the Middle East and elsewhere, we value each life as precious and sacred. We cringe at any body counts on the news and have a certain pride in the doctrine of "No Man Left Behind". We bring home every soldier, sailor, and Marine who has paid the ultimate price for a ceremony honoring their service and their lives.

With great power comes great responsibility and the United States has stepped up numerous times to protect others, sometimes at a high cost. We are necessarily the "policeman of the world" at times when others fail to protect their own people. We are not perfect and have sometimes failed to hold the resolve to finish the job as in Viet Nam, or have not yet dared to take on horrible genocide as in Darfur.

Our military is currently a voluntary force with its numbers supplemented by a reserve and National Guard complement. When not in a war zone, many of our active military carries on missions of peace, often called "hearts and minds" operations. We build schools in Africa, carry food to starving peoples everywhere, and provide acute medical care to the people, not the military, of many countries.

Yes, we appear to be aggressive at times, and we are the only country with many military outposts in foreign lands around the world, but I contend that this is a peacekeeping measure, not an occupation. We join in many treaties to protect other countries from aggression, often to the detriment of our own soldiers. We have no designs on other countries lands. We hold vast nuclear power, enough to annihilate the human race, yet we know its downside in the wrong hands and will fight to stop proliferation to less stable governments.

An interesting side note about the Great Seal of the United States. It was the intention of the founding fathers in 1782 to be a peaceful nation while still being strong militarily to protect the land from aggressors. The bald eagle is looking toward its talon holding the olive branch of peace instead of the arrows of war. On the other hand, the Presidential Seal (similar to the Great Seal) once had the eagle eyeing the arrows. However, after one of the worst wars in history, President Truman in 1945 ordered the eagle's neck to be turned toward the olive branch, an intentional act to show that first of all we embrace peace.

Few doubt the need for a strong military, even the moderate doves. Not for aggressive, pre-emptive, and land-grabbing strikes, but to truly maintain whatever peace can be had across the world. While we might like to save our defense budget for schools, health care, and the like, we must be vigilant against those despots and even some "democratic" regimes that would love to overpower the mightiest nation in the world. We can never let that happen.

The Land of Linked In

My apologies to the business networking site (LinkedIn); however, the current scandal in Illinois demonstrates once more the level of corruption among some of our politicians. I suppose we should already know that "corrupt politician" is the opposite of an oxymoron and is exceedingly closer to the norm.

Because these "public servants" (there's an oxymoron) do not operate in an independent vacuum, we can only guess at the level that these guys are "linked in" to other crooks all trying to get more for themselves. The hell with the public who elected them. Soon-to-be Ex-Governor Blagojevich must be a bit touched in the head. How else could he believe that he could get away with selling a senate seat? How could he think that with of all his contacts, and he talks and talks to a lot of them, he would not be found out? The hubris is again astounding.

Even though I had heard of this Illinois governor, I paid little attention to what was going on in our neighboring state. The Land of Lincoln held a special spot in my heart as the birthplace of my wife, my mother, (among others) and the political base of my most favorite personage, Abraham Lincoln. I knew, of course, of Chicago's tainted reputation but naively thought most of that was in earlier times. More casual research on Gov B. shows he was already under federal scrutiny for many other things and only had a statewide approval rating of less than 15% before this latest story hit. I am surprised there wasn't a much stronger movement afoot to impeach him before this.

I wouldn't paint all Illinoians, or even all Illinois politicians, with the same broad brush, but those citizens who care must do something about the party machine that brings these self-serving idiots to power. Mr. Lincoln may want his name removed from every license plate or other associations with Illinois. Kentucky is waiting in the wings to claim him.