Sean LaFreniere

Independent News And Political Commentary
Welcome to Sean's Blog blog | home | contact
The Blogger
Blogger Bio 
The Archives
Search This Site

Site search Web search

powered by FreeFind

Support This Site
Favorite Links
World Trade Center Attacks
Bali Nightclub Attacks
Beslan School Attack
London Underground Attacks
Raddison Hotel Bombing
Katrina Hits New Orleans
Defend Denmark's Free Speach
The Anglosphere
Support Democracy In Iraq
Democracy Whisky Sexy
Chief Wiggles
Anderson Cooper's 360
The Command Post, making CNN look like the school newspaper.
Andrew Sullivan Dot Com
The Argus, Central Asian news.
Winds Of Change Dot Net
Free The Chief's Iraqi Generals
Michael J Totten
Blog Iran
Moderate Risk
Roger L Simon
free iran petition
victor davis hansen
Save Angel
Oregon Trip Check
iraq's election news
The Hitch
Game Of Life
Sponsored Links
Find info on VA loans and watch this video on the VA loan process.
News Links
Arab News Portal
Belfast Telegraph
BBC News
Dublin News
Edinburgh News
French News
German News
Iran Daily
Iran News
Iraq News
Irish Abroad
Irish Emigrant News
Irish News
Irish Quarterly
Israeli News
Jerusalem Post
London Local
London Times
Los Angeles Times
New York Times
Pakistan News
Persian News
Roman News
Scottish News
Translated News
World Wire
Magazine Links
The Atlantic Monthly
The American Prospect
The Economist
Foreign Affairs
Front Page Magazine
Mother Jones
The National Review
New Republic
New Yorker
NY Review Of Books
Policy Review
Tech Central Station
Washington Monthly
Weekly Standard
Movie Links
Film Jerk
McMenamins Theatres
Movie News - Trailers
Rotten Tomatoes
Sean's Political Dictionary
So that YOU know what SEAN is talking about when he opens his big mouth:



Date: 1831. From Latin conservare, for "to keep", "guard", or "observe". A Conservative relies upon family traditions and figures of authority to establish and maintain values. 

A Conservative puts group security above personal freedoms. 

A Conservative believes that successful use and maintenance of power proves God's favor for the government. 

A Conservative believes that social values, religious rules, and forms of governments may only be altered gradually. 

Stability and continuity are the goals of government.



Date: 1820. From Latin liberalis for "free". A Liberal uses reason and logic to set personal, social, and religious values. 

A Liberal places personal freedom above group security. 

A Liberal believes that governments rule by the consent of the governed. 

A liberal believes that governments may be changed or removed at the will of the people.  

A Liberal supports rapid change in the pursuit of progress and reform.

Freedom and Justice are the goals of government.


Note: a nation, and an individual, may move back and forth between these positions often. They rarely sum up a personality completely. And they should never be permanent blinders for anyone to view the world.

When a people succeed in a Liberal revolution, for instance, they often find themselves in the Conservative position protecting these gains. Similarly a person might have a Liberal view on public financial assistance and then move into a conservative position once these demands are met.

One might say that Affirmative Action is a prime example. At one point instituting Affirmative Action was a Liberal position, it was needed to reverse decades of discrimination following the end of Slavery. However, today the Liberal position might well be the ending of Affirmative Action, as it has largely completed its task and now stands as a stumbling block to truly moving the nation beyond race as a discriminatory trait. Meanwhile, the position of defending AA is now actually a Conservative stance (whether its so-called "liberal" defenders realize it or not).

Another way to think about this is that these terms describe a way of thinking about issues, not the positions on those issues. That is a Conservative might support a war because politicians they respect urge it, because the enemy scares them, and ultimately because it just "feels right". A Liberal might also come to support the war in spite of the position of authority figures and celebrities, not because it feels right, but because hours of research and consideration support the cause.

Neither is a "better way" of coming to a position, necessarily. Sometimes too much thinking interferes with a solid moral judgment, such as on the Abortion issue. And then other times only rational examination can skip over the emotional baggage and come to the most reasonable decision, as we see in the Abortion issue.

I realize this might be difficult for some people to accept after a long time of hearing party dogma on the issue. Personally I find value in BOTH positions. On some issues I am myself rather Conservative and on others I am quite Liberal. The same with the terms Radical and Reactionary, noted below. I found that stepping beyond these labels opened up my thoughts and cleared my head of a lot of bs.



Date: 1840. From Latin reagere for "to act". A Reactionary uses government pressure as a means of containing and responding to changes in society.



Date: 14th century. From Latin radicalis from radix for "root". A Radical supports social movements and political pressure groups as a means of affecting change in government.


The Right:

Date: early modern. The term comes from  English Parliamentary Rules; which place the party in power on the right of the Speaker. As the Conservatives held sway for a long time, the term Right came to be associated with the "Establishment" and thus with Conservative politics.


The Left:

Date: early modern. The party in Opposition sits on the Speaker's left. The Left came to be associated with labor movements, the lower classes, and socialist politics. It has also come to be associated with Liberalism. This was useful for Conservative politicians, and Socialists as well, during the 60's. But I find this to be a big intellectual and political mistake.


Capitol Goods:

Date: circa 1639. From the French from Latin capitalis for "top", used in French for "principal" or "chief". (1) : a stock of accumulated goods; especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income



Date: 1877. An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market



Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.



Date: 1840. From French communisme, from Latin communis for "common". A doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. It is the final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. In its only examples of practical application, in the USSR, China, and Cuba it became a totalitarian system where a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production and the people are enslaved in production geared to support the power of this party.


Note: in Marxist theory these three systems represent a sliding scale, with Capitalism on the Right, Socialism in the middle, and Communism on the Left. A nation was supposed to move from one to the other over time. However, in practice few systems in the world have ever been purely one or the other. Most national economic models employ some of all three.

While the US and Europe are considered the paragons of Capitalism, they both retain many Socialist elements. Both the US and Europe offer state sanctioned monopolies of public utilities. The American Postal Service is a state owned enterprise, as are the European aerospace entities. Europe offers state run healthcare, as do many American states, and both regulate the health industry heavily.

Through out history Europe and the US have also held some Communist elements. The common grazing lands of town centers and the great unfenced Western plains were both representative of these traditions. One might say that Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and the Dole are also holdovers from our more communal days.

On the other hand, while China has long been a paragon of Socialism / Communism, it still has many elements of free enterprise. They allow small farmers and craftsmen to sell excess production on the open market, they have private telecoms and industrial companies, and now they have a stock market, the ultimate symbol and apparatus of Capitalism.

When one system or the other fails to serve a nation, many proponents argue that actually the system simply was not implemented purely enough. However, attempts to purify these systems require a heavy hand in government, education, and economic practice. And this has led to oppressive regimes and brutalized citizens.



Date: 1576. From Greek dEmokrati, from demos "people" + kracy "rule". A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; usually accompanied by the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.



Date: 1604. From Latin respublica; from res "thing" + publica "of the people". A government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who is elected by popular vote.


Note: that the root of the word Democracy is Greek, while the root of the word Republic is Latin. These terms are NOT antithetical, they do not even derive from the same language.

In common use they both have come to describe types of Liberal governments, specifically the one is a type of the other. It is possible for a nation to be a Democracy, but NOT also a Republic. However, a nation that is a Republic is ALWAYS also a Democracy. A Republic is a TYPE of Democracy.

The UK is a Democracy, but not a Republic, because of the Queen. Ireland became a Republic only after it dropped from the Commonwealth and replaced the Queen with an elected President



Date: 1921 From Latin fascis for "bundle" or group. Last, but not least, is this term, which actually combines the economic system and the political system entirely. In this system the state and large corporations merge, the rights of the individual are subordinated to the glory of the State, and all dissent is suppressed. It often utilizes a racial or religious cause to motivate the people into giving up their rights in the first place. These states usually rise out of an economic collapse or hardship with high inflation and unemployment.

Blogging Resources
Technocrati Link Cosmos
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by
Site Meter
Blogroll This Site
(Copy image and hyperlink)
Sean LaFreniere
Support This Site

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Citizen Soldiers

Lefties, and even some on the right, who oppose the US invasion of Iraq often deflect the Vietnam era criticism of their patriotism by claiming to support the soldiers by calling for their withdrawal.

They site family members such as Cindy Sheehan who claim that their sons or daughters only joined for college money or only joined the Guard and so did not expect to actually be deployed in combat.

Furthermore, they often claim that any US military action is by definition "racist" in that the Army relies upon poor, urban minorities who have few options but to join the military.

Finally they decry the war itself and suggest that it is "illegal" in that it did not receive UN approval or support from many of our allies. They again make the call that soldiers shouldn't have to fight in wars that they do not believe in.

Probably the best reply from those who support US involvement overseas begins with the reminder that we no longer have a draft "Army of the United States", but an all volunteer and professional "United States Army". This force includes both the Army Reserve and the National Guard.

With this all volunteer force, as noted by both the left and the right, the number of blacks has matched their percentage in the general population in recent years (19%). Furthermore, both women and black enrollment has been falling behind white, Asian, and Hispanic males.

Due to a focus on education most special ops and even regular combat forces are white (perhaps that does reveal some racism). Meanwhile minorities are more likely than whites to pursue a career in the military and to rise to the ranks of officers (although there are still more white officers as there are more whites total in the services).

The top US commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq have included two Hispanics, Major General David Rodriguez and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, and a Lebanese, Major General John P. Abizaid - and until recently the head of the Joint Chiefs was the famously African American, General Colin Powell.

But what about the idea that the recruits never expected to see combat? What about the man (or woman) who wants to "do the right thing" and put themselves out there for use by the military, but only in self-defense or only when they can see America's interests in the war? Cant we all be "citizen soldiers"?

I visited the recruiter's office the first week end after 9/11. I didn't like the idea that some other bloke was putting their life on the line so that I could enjoy my nice job and nice house in safety. But I didn't want to give up that nice job or that nice house to do it. Could I find a position with the military that would let me have my cake and eat it too?

When I first arrived I went through brief mental and physical examinations and my criminal and academic records were checked (the Army is technology heavy today and doesn't want anyone who cant or wont follow their orders). Then I began an interview process where I got to ask serious questions about the various services, including the likelihood of deployment and the financial rewards.

I eventually chose the Army Reserve and the specialty of Military Intelligence as I could remain in my hometown after boot camp. Although health issues kept me from following up, I still wish that could have served. Although I would not have baulked at actual deployment, I would have dreaded it as much as anyone, and my family would have been beside themselves.

The history of the US makes the idea of the "citizen soldier" a kind of holy grail - our legislature was supposed to work the same way. The Founding Fathers' idea was that with only a part time government or army the citizens could never again be put in servitude to the state. Also, having the everyday farmer, worker, or businessman in the halls of power would ensure the layman's voice was heard.

Instead of a full time army of either conscripts or professionals, as was common in Europe, the US kept no standing army for the central government. Instead local militias would be formed into a grand army only in times of conflict. This was somewhat problematic in practice as a central core of officers proved necessary. But the basic idea remained until after WWI, which the US was late to join partly due to the need to call up a large fighting force.

The National Guard or militia dates back to 1636 in Massachusetts where it was created to defend the colony against natives and the French. Yet, the name National Guard comes from the involvement of a French nobleman, the Marquis de Lafayette, in the American Revolution. When the Marquis paid a return visit to the US in 1824 the New York Artillery welcomed him at the harbour and changed their name to the National Guard in tribute to the Garde Nationale de Paris.

Historically the individual "militia" of the States provided the majority of Federal troops in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and the Spanish American War (1898). In 1903 these militias were officially renamed the National Guard (thank you New York Artillery) and established as the official reserve force of the US Army.

In WWI the National Guard made up 40% of the troops deployed in France. However, with a much larger draft for the regular Army in WWII they only made up about 19 divisions. Yet, National Guardsmen have been deployed by the tens of thousands in Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War and for peacekeeping in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

The National Guard is not limited by the "Posse Comitas" rules that forbid the deployment of the US Army in domestic affairs. The National Guard has been called out to quell riots at Kent State University during the Vietnam War, to quiet Los Angeles during the Watts Riots of 1965 and the LA Riots of 1992. The National Guard was also called out to assist New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Today, during the "Global War on Terror", National Guard troops make up 43% of US forces in Iraq and 55% of forces in Afghanistan. Before the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 the standard deployment for the National Guard was 12 months within 5 years. This was increased to 18 months with deployment to Afghanistan and to 24 months with the invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, when citizens join the "regular army" they enlist for an 8 year term. Typically 2-4 years is spent in active duty with the remaining time in the Army Reserve. Some soldiers, usually older and with more education and employment experience to bargain with, stipulate in their enlistment contract that the entire 8 years be spent in the Reserves.

But the Reserves are still part of the regular Army. Their units might not even reference "reserve" in their names at all. Reserve soldiers make up more than half the combat strength of the total army and they have been called up for active duty in every conflict since their formation in 1908.

The slogan "One week end a month, two weeks a year" only applies during peace time. Since I turned 18 the US has seen a dozen different conflicts from the first Gulf War to the second. So, no one who is serving today likely signed up seriously believing that they would only be playing paint ball on Saturdays.

However, it remains quite affecting when we read news reports such as the case of a young Special Operations soldier in Florida who has served nearly 7 of his 8 years and has done 4 tours of duty in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. Now the Army wants him to go again.

He currently works for Sikorsky building Black Hawk helicopters for the Army and he is completing his engineering degree at a local college. He also got married and bought a new house a few years ago.

He appealed his deployment and was granted a nearly year-long reprieve. But his delay is up and the Army wants him back. Is it fair to interrupt his studies, and his marriage, to put his life on the line yet one more time?

As he admits, the skills that he uses now at work were taught him in the Army. His college tuition is also paid for under the GI Bill. His wife met him during his 8 year service and he bought his house during this time as well. So, he knowingly took on the risks and is benefiting from the rewards.

Still, anyone can sympathize with his plight - his senator did and got him that extension. But if we are to have a truly "citizen soldier" army we need people just like him. We need regular guys (and gals) to give up their day jobs, even their home lives, and serve in the army.

The advantage to the Republic is huge. Unlike some other countries (in Europe and Latin America) we do not have a separate class of soldiers. And we do not worry about military coups or the election of a "General Presidente". As polls currently put Americans' faith in the military at triple our faith in the legislature this is a very good arrangement.

If we want to lesson the burdens on our citizen soldiers than we will have to employ more full time soldiers or reinstate some form of the draft ("Service Guarantees Citizenship" as Heinlein put it in Starship Troopers). These are real options that we need to consider as our world is not getting any more peaceful and a larger army has been requested by both sides of the isle.

As for approval of the war by the soldiers or their families... which appears to be swayed by approval of the UN or our allies... war is itself the last resort of any democracy, it awaits the far side of diplomacy, if it fails. Therefore by definition it is beyond the terms "legal" or "illegal".

The approval of the UN would be nice to have... However, the UN is merely a treaty organization formed by us to keep the other great powers from waging another world war. The approval of the UN only means that other nations find our actions to coincide with their self-interests. Since a majority of member nations are not democracies and have horrible records of abuse and corruption at home, their approval is no gauge of the morality of our actions. There is no central legislature of the UN, no Supreme Court, so their approval cannot bestow "legality" to a member's actions.

Meanwhile, over 52 ally nations did contribute either men, material, or services to the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. True, many contributed only minor numbers of soldiers, Denmark sent a few thousand, however many of these nations have scant military resources at their command and even less since the US took on the bulk of global defense and order. And again, these nations rarely contribute anything to anyone without it being expressly in their self-interest. This motivation is mercurial, dependant upon which political party is in charge and the economic pressures within their own countries. Therefore their support is hardly an indication of morality or legality either.

During Britain's war with Napoleon the Royal Navy ignored our neutrality and our Independence by acts of piracy and war against our merchant ships and kidnapping our sailors to serve in their navy. They also began arming one allied tribe of American natives and inciting them to war along America's western frontier. After repeated objections by American diplomats in London the US finally declared war in 1812.

At the time the US had fewer than 12,000 soldiers and only 20 small frigates and sloops. The most bellicose act that could be accomplished was the sacking of York (Toronto), the capitol (at the time) of British North America (Canada). However, in subsequent battles the US militias that were supposed to back up the regular troops refused to cross the border and (literally) watched while their countrymen were defeated (and killed).

The states of New England were major trading partners with the British and refused to contribute money, materials, or men to the conflict (and so were exempted from the British blockade). Meanwhile the individual militiamen only saw fit to defend their own farms and cities. Their personal judgments of the war effort nearly cost us the respect of the world and our independence from Britain (see the Burning of Washington). When a citizen chooses to serve as a soldier they must give up some of their individual rights and liberties in order to defend all of our rights as a nation.

Whether it is arming an Apache gunship, tracking planes from a circling AWACS, or negotiating a power lunch in Brussels, very few of our citizens are qualified to conduct the business of defending our nation. Today the systems and skills, let alone the geo-political understanding, necessary to wage war preclude the casual involvement of a citizen who only wants to fight when they see fit. Those that do choose to serve are given better training and equipment than any other fighting force in the world (issues of body armor kept in context), that is our commitment to them as a nation. We need to applaud their decision to serve even as we hold them to their commitment to defend us all above themselves. This "tough love" is perhaps the only way to truly support the troops.

Laws Covering the National Guard and Army Reserve

The Militia Act of 1792
Gives authority to the President to call out the Militia, and provides federal standards for the organization of the Militia. At this time there is no standing, permanent army to defend the country from internal or external threats.

The National Defense Act, 1916
This act abandoned the idea of an calling up a Regular Army for each conflict and instead created a permanent National Guard, Army Reserve, and Regular Army as a single military force for the United States. The act further expanded the National Guard's role as the primary reserve of the army. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

The Total Force Policy, 1973
This law requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers of a small standing army (the Army and the Army Reserve) complemented by a larger citizen-soldier force (National Guard).

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 H.R. 5122
This law allows the President to assume control over state militias and the National Guard (above the authority of the Governor) in time of war or emergency.

UPDATE: Armed Liberal, a friendly acquaintance of mine, has just announced on Winds Of Change that his oldest son ships out to Ft. Benning to try to join Spec Ops after earning his degree at UVA. His son chose to serve knowing full well that he will see combat, heck he even chose to sign up as an enlisted man instead of spending time at OCS trying to become an officer (and maybe miss the conflict, if some have their way). Although quite nervous about the risks their son will face the parents are understandably proud as well. Our freedoms are not free, even if a lot of us can easily pretend that they are. And, as the doctors who tried to bomb a pub on Ladies Night in Great Britain last week should prove, our way of life really is under attack. I appreciate this family's sacrifices so that mine may not have to.

Sean: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 [+] |

Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Sean LaFreniere


Copyright 2003-2009 by Sean LaFreniere